FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J UNE 23 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 05- 1422 9 D. C. Docket N o. 02-01978 CV -W SD -1 MARGO GATHRIGHT-DIETRICH, BON NI E B ON HA M, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us ATLANT A LANDMARKS, INC., a. k.a. Fox Theatre, De fendant-Appellee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia (J un e 23, 200 6) Be fo re D U BIN A , MA RC U S an d P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. DU BIN A, Circuit Judge:2

Appe llants , Marg o G athr igh t- D ie tr ic h and B onni e Bo nham , appe al the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t t o a

ppe lle e, A tlanta

L an dm ar ks, Inc. , on their cla im

pursuant to Title I II of the Am ericans with Disabilities Act (“ ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 82 , et se q. F o r th e r e a s o n s th a tf

o l l o w , w e a f

f i rm. I. BACKG ROUND The venue at issue in th is appeal is The F ox Theatre (“ The F ox”) in Atlanta, Ge orgia, which was designed in the late 192 0’ s. T he Fox serves the A tlanta area as an un iqu e an d op ule nt e nte rt ai nm en t c en te r. T he F ox i s owne d and o pe rate d by A tlanta L an dm ar ks, I nc . , anon -p ro fi t or ganiz at ionthat l ed asuc ce ssf

ul co m m uni ty -w ide e ff

ort t o “ Save T he F ox” in the 197 0’ s. T he F ox c ont ai ns signi ficant historic feature s ranging from its seating configu ration, to its sim ulated nig ht- sky c ei lin g, to its f

au x pa int ing te ch nique s, to its or igi na l D C c ur re nt- run el ev at or s w ithA C c onve rt er s. B ec au se of the se uni que f

eatur es , in 1974 , the National Register of Historic P laces added T he Fox to its lis t. I n 197 6, the U nited St at es D ep ar

tm en t of the I nte ri or

de sig na te d T he F ox a

N at ion al H ist or ic Landm ark. A dditi onally , in 1991, due to its architectural and historical sig nif ic an ce , T he F ox b ec am e one of onl y nin e bui ldi ngs in the S ta te of G eo rg iato be de sig na te d aL an dm ar k M use um

Bu ild ing by

the S ta te H ist or ic P re se rv at ion O ff ic er of the G eo rg iaD ep ar

tm en t of N at ur al Re sour ce s.3

Pr ior to the pa ssa ge of

the A D A , T he F ox i nst al le d r em ova ble the at er

se at s to a cc om m oda te ind ivi dua ls i n w he el ch ai rs and c re at ed w he el ch ai r- ac ce ssi ble re str oom s. F ro m

the m id- 1980 ’ s and thr ough out the 199 0’ s, T he F ox c ont inu ed it s ef fo rt s to m ak e the the at er

m or e dis ab le d- ac ce ssi ble , inc lud ing ( 1) the ins ta llatio n of an e le va tor

to giv e dis ab le d patr ons ac ce ss t o th e the at er ’ s ba llr oom s; ( 2) the installatio n of a w heelchair-a ccessible box office; (3) the installation of a wheelc hair-ac cessible telephone; (4) the additio n of four newwhee lchairacce ssibl e re stroom s; (5) the addition o f a wheelchair-a ccessible concession area on the m ez zanin e le ve l of the the at er ; and ( 6) the ins ta llatio n of ar am p to giv e pe rfo rm ers , pat ro ns , and vi si to rs in whee lc ha irs acce ss to th e st ag e. In199 6, T he F ox i m

ple m en te d it s “ A m

ba ssa dor P ro gr am ” thr oughw hic h it tr ai ns a se le ct gr oup of vol unt ee r ushe rs in howbe st t o a cc om m oda te and a ssi st T he F ox’ s di sa

ble d patr ons. A s ar es ult of the se e ff orts, T he F ox’ s c ur

re nt am en iti es and p oli ci es inc lud e be tw ee n 19 and 2 5 w he el ch ai r- ac ce ssi ble se at ing posi tio ns w ithc om

panio n se at s lo cate d th ro ugho ut the or ch es tr a le ve l; nin e ai sle se at s w ithr em ova

ble arm re sts a t vari ous loc at ion s onthe or ch es tr a le ve l; a tic ke tpricing pol icy

that includes th e option of pay ing th e lowest ticket price for ever y showif y ou are adis ab le d patr on; se ve n whe el ch ai r- ac ce ssi ble r es tr oom s; w he el ch ai r- ac ce ssi ble c onc es sio n are as ; w he el ch ai r- ac ce ssi ble dr ink ing f ount ai ns;4

a w he el ch ai r ram

p to e nable pa tr ons w ho u se w he el ch ai rs to uti liz e the sou th e xit of the the at er ; and m an y

m or e “ dis ab le d- fr ie ndl y ” pol ic ie s. Appe llants , und isp ute d patr ons of the art s, have a tte nde d nu m er ous ev en ts at T he Fox. T hey

filed suit und er T itle III of the A DAalleging that th ey and other w he el ch ai r pa tr ons ar e de nie d a cc es s to e ve nts a t T he F ox c om para ble to the acce ss giv en to non -w heelchair patrons. Specifica lly , the a ppellants asserted that ce rt ai n are as de sig na te d f or w he el ch ai r pa tr ons ar e phy sic al ly ina cc es sib le to the m ; tha t the qua lity

of the ir a cc es s is inf

er ior ; and tha t barr ie rs e xis t i n co nne ct ionw ithti ck et

pr ic ing and s al es a t T he F ox. F oll ow ing dis co ve ry , T he Fo x f ile d am oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t, c ont en din g th at the A D A did

not m andate rem oval of any

alleged arc hitectural barrier s. T he district court granted The F ox’s m otion , f

indin g that althou gh the appellants proved that there we re seating barriers, they

failed to m eet their burden of production to dem onstrate that rem oval of thos e barr iers w as “ readily achievable. ” In so ruling, the district court ad opt ed the appr oa chf

oll ow ed by the T en th C ir cu it in Co lorado Cr oss D isa bil ity Co ali tio n v . H

erm anso n F

am ilyL im ite d Part

ne rsh ip I , 264 F. 3d 99 9 (10th Cir. 2001 ), the onl y

appe llate de ci sio n a ddr es sin g th e iss ue . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso fo und that the c hange s th at T he F ox h ad

a lr ea dy m ad e to a cc om

m oda te w he el ch ai r5

pa tr ons at the the at er

w er e suf fi ci en t t o satis fy

the A D A . Appe llants f

ile d ati m el y ap pe al . II . ISSUE Whe the r the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in gr an tin g su m

m ar y j udgm en t t o T he F ox be ca use it de te rm ine d th at

appe llants c oul d no t m ee t the ir bur de n of

pr oduc tio n on the issue of whether their pr opos ed m odifications relating to wheelc hair seating at The Fo x wer e “ read il y

ach ie vabl e” u nd er Tit le III o f th e ADA. III. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W T his c ourt r ev ie w s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t de novo , vi ewin g t he ev id en ce i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y . W ilson v. B/E

Ae rosp ace, Inc. , 376 F. 3d 10 79, 1085 (11t h Cir. 2004 ).

IV. D ISCU SSION A. Ti tl e III o

f t he ADA T he A D A is co m

pr eh en siv e le gis la tio n th at a ddr es se s di sc ri m inatio n a ga ins t dis ab le d in div idu al s. T he A D A ha s th re e se ct ion s: T itl e I re gul at es dis cr im inatio n in the workplace; T itle II prohibits dis crim ination by publi c entities; and Title II I pr oh ib it s d is cri m in at io n b y pri va te en ti ti es in pl aces of p ub li c acc omm od at io n. T itl e II I ap pli es to the pr es en t c as e an d pr ovi de s: N o in div idu al sha ll be dis cr im inate d a ga ins t onthe ba sis of dis ab ili ty in the f ull and e qua l e nj oym en t of the goo ds, se rv ic es , f

ac ili tie s,6

pr ivi le ge s, a dvanta ge s, or a cc om m oda tio ns o f any

pla ce of pub lic ac co m m oda tio n by

any pe rs on who o w ns, le as es ( or le as es to) , or ope rate s apla ce of

pub lic a cc om

m oda tio n. 42 U . S. C. § 12 182( a) . C ongr es s e na ct ed the A D A on J anuary

25, 199 3. A ft er

thi s da te , f ac ili tie s have to m ee t e xa ct ing de sig n and i m ple m en ta tio n st an dard s to be in co m pli an ce w iththe A D A . T he A D A im pose s di ff er en t r equir em en ts o n th e ow ne rs and o pe rator s of

f ac ili tie s th at

e xis te d pr ior

to its e na ctm en t date . F or t h o s e f ac i l i t i es , t h e A DA s t at es th at d i s cr i m i n at i o n i n cl u d es a p ri v at e e n t i t y’ s

“ fa ilure to re m ove arc hit ec tur al barr ie rs . . . w he re suc h r em ova l i s r ea dil y ac hie vable . ” 42 U . S. C. § 12 182( b) (2 )( A )( iv) . Whe re r em ova l i s no t “ re ad ily ac hie vable , ” fa ilure of

the e nti ty

to m ak e good s, se rv ic es and f ac ili tie s “ av ai la

ble through alternative m ethods if such m ethods are rea dily achievable, ” m ay constitu te discrim ination under the AD A. 42 U. S. C. § 121 82(b)(2)(A )(v). T he A D A de fi ne s “ re ad ily a ch ie vable ” as “ ea sil y

a cc om pli sha ble and a ble to be carr ie d o ut wit ho ut m uc h d iff ic ul ty or ex pe ns e.” 4 2 U.S.C. § 12 18 1( 9) . Congress includ ed in the AD A f actors to be considered in evaluating whether re m ova l of

abarr ie r is “ re ad ily

a ch ie vable . ” T he se f

ac tor s are ( 1) na tur e an d c ost of the a ct ion ; ( 2) ove ra ll fi nanc ia l r es our ce s of the f ac ili ty or f ac ili tie s in vol ve d; (3 ) num be r of pe rs ons em

plo y ed a t su chf ac ili ty ; ( 4) e ff

ec t one xpe nse s and re sour ce s; ( 5) im

pa ct of suc h a ct ionupo n th e ope ratio n of the f ac ili ty ; ( 6) ove ra ll7

financial resource s of the covered entity ; (7) overall size of the busin ess of a co ve re d e nti ty ; ( 8) the num be r, ty pe , and l oc at ionof

it s f ac ili tie s; ( 9) ty

pe of operation or operations of the covered e ntity , including com posit ion, structure, an d f unc tio ns o f the w orkf

or ce of suc h e nti ty ; and ( 10) ge ogr ap hic se parate ne ss, adm ini str at ive or

f isc al r el at ion shi p of

the f ac ili ty or f ac ili tie s inque sti on t o th e co ve reden ti ty. Id

.

“ The D epartm ent of Justice [] has interpreted the A DA ’ s barrier rem oval an d a lte ratio n r equir em en ts i n a cc or danc e w iththe Co ngr es sio na l de sir e to t ak e into account th e national interest in preserving sig nificant histo rical building s.” Sp eci ne r v. N

at io ns Ban k, N.A. , 215 F . S upp. 2d 6 22, 628 -2 9 ( D . Md . 200 2) . T hus, in the context o f an historic buildi ng, “barrier rem oval would no t be considered

‘ readily achievable’ if it w ouldthreaten or destroy the historic sign ificance of [the] build ing.” Id

. a t 62 9 ( quot ing A D A T itl e II I D O J T ec hni ca l A ssi stanc e Manua l § II I- 4. 4200 ). T he a lte ratio ns t o th e his tor ic bui ldi ng n ee d on ly c om ply w iththe acce ss ib il it y

st an da rd s “ to th e m ax im um ex te nt feas ib le .” 28 C.F.R. § 36 .40 5( a). T he A D A ’ s im

ple m en tin g r eg ulatio ns p ro vid e spe ci fi c pr oc ed ur es f or de te rm ini ng fe as ibi lity , and the r eg ulatio ns s ta te that “ [i ] f it is d et er m ine d . . . that i t i s no t fe as ibl e to p ro vid e phy sic al a cc es s to an hi sto ri c pr ope rty . . . in a m an ne r that w ill8

n o tth r e a t e n o r

d e s t r o y th e h i s t o r i c s i g n i f i c a n c e o f th e b u i l d i n g o r

f a c i l i t y, alternative m ethods o f ac cess shall be provided. . . .” 28 C.F .R. § 36.405(b). B. A ppl ic ati on o

f Standa rd Appe llants arg ue on a

ppe al that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in ap ply ing the bur de n of pr oof e sta bli she d in Co lorado Cr oss . Under this approach, the plaintiff ha s th e ini tia l burd enof

pr oduc tio n to sho w( 1) that an arc hit ec tur al barr ie r ex ist s; an d ( 2) that the pr opos ed m ethod of

arc hit ec tur al barr ie r re m ova l i s “ re ad ily achievable,” i.e ., “ easily

accom plish able and able to be car ried out without m

uch di ffi cu lt y or e xp en se ” u nd er t he pa rti cu la r ci rcu m st an ces of t he cas e. Co lorado Cr oss , 264 F. 3d at 100 7. I f the plaintiff m eets this burden, the defendant then be ar s th e ult im at e bur de n of pe rs ua sio n th at

barr ie r re m ova l i s no t “ re ad ily achievable.” Id

. a t 10 02- 03; see also W

hite v. Cinemark U

SA, Inc. , 2 0 0 5 WL 1865 495 at

*6 ( E . D . Ca l. 200 5) ; A cc es s N ow , I nc . v . So. F

la. Sta diu m Co rp. , 161 F. S upp. 2d 1 357, 136 3 ( S. D . F la . 200 1) ; A ss’ n fo r D isa ble d A m s. , I nc . v . Clay

pool Holdings LLC , 200 1 W L 111 2109 a t *2 6 ( S. D . I nd. 200 1) ; P asc uit i v . Ne w Yo rk Ya nkees , 19 99 W L 11 02 74 8 a t * 4 (S .D.N.Y. 19 99 ). Appellants do no t objec t to the general burden-shifting fram ew ork ar tic ulate d by

the se c as es , but

ins te ad , obj ec t t o th e am ount and s pe ci fi ci ty

of evidence required to m eet their burden of showing that barrier rem oval was9

“ re ad ily a ch ie va ble . ” Appe llants c ont en d th at in or de r to m ee t the ir

bur de n of pr oduc tio n onthi s is sue , the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t the y m ust pr es en t e vid en ce of

“ (1 ) a spe ci fi c de sig n to r em ove the barr ie rs a lle ge d; ( 2) the c ost of r em ova l or

of the pr opos ed

r em edy ; and ( 3) the e ff

ec t onthe f

inanc es and o pe ratio n of

the fa ci lity . ” [ R. V ol. 7, D oc . 107 , p. 21] . B ec au se of the e xpe nse inv olv ed

in dr af tin g w ha t am ount s to a“pr e- ap pr ove d c onstru ct ionc ontra ct f or asum c er ta in w hic h in cl ude s de ta ile d pl an s, im pa ct state m en ts, e ngi ne er ing stu die s, and pe rm its , ” the appe llants arg ue that this standard guarante es that “ virtua lly no plaintiff could afford to bring an architectural barr ier re m oval claim . . . .” Co lorado Cr oss , 264 F. 3d at 101 1 (L ucero, J., dissenti ng). W e disagree. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in fo llo w ing the bur de n of pr oof e nunc ia te d in Co lorado Cr oss , and w e ad opt that burd enshi ft ing f

ram ew ork f

or the r ea sons articulated by

the Co lorado Cr oss c ourt. Mo re ove r, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t im pose too he av y

abur de n onappe llants to showthat barr ie r re m ova l w as “ re ad ily ach ie vabl e.” The ap pe ll an ts di d n ot sat is fy th ei r bu rd en of p ro du ct io n t o s ho w that a vast m aj ority

of the alleged condition s they cited, ranging from

ticket pricing and sales po licies, to re stroom s and concession are as, c onsti tuted barriers to access for wheelc hair patrons und er the A DA . As f or the alleged seat-num

ber barrier , the a

ppellants cou ld not m eet their burden of showing that the barrier10

re m ova l w as “ re ad ily

a ch ie vable . ” U nde r the standard e nunc ia te d in Co lorado Cr oss , apla int if

f m ust pr es en t su ff

ic ie nt e vid en ce so tha t a

de fe ndant c ane va luate the pr opos ed

sol uti on t o abarr ie r, the dif fi cu lty of a cc om pli shi ng i t, the c ost im ple m en ta tio n, and the e co nom ic ope ratio n of the f ac ili ty . W ith out

e vid en ce on the se iss ue s, ade fe ndant c an not de te rm ine if

it c anm ee t i ts s ubse que nt b ur de n of pe rs ua sio n. Inthi s c as e, appe llants sub m itt ed thr ee pr opos ed

opt ion s r el at ing to w he el ch ai r se at ing , but

the y f ai le d to pr oduc e an y

r el ia ble e vid en ce that those pr opos al s w er e “ re ad ily

a ch ie vable . ” Appe llants ’ se at ing pr opos al s in vol ve d th e ad dit ionof

a t l ea st 2 7 w he el ch ai r se at ing pos iti ons, a s w el l a s m odi fi catio n of the ex ist ing w he el ch ai r loc at ion s. Appe llants ’ e xpe rt pr opos ed thr ee opt ion s: ( 1) T he Fo x c oul d pr ovi de a ddi tio na l se at ing in ex ist ing le ve l are as ; ( 2) T he F ox c oul d rem ove rows of e xistin g seats and m odify the floor slab to create new inset sections on the orchestra level; and (3) The Fox could addraised platform s at vari ous loc at ion s th ro ugho ut the the at er . H ow ev er , the se pr opos al s w er e nonsp eci fic , con cep tu al pro po sa ls th atdi d n ot pro vi de an y de ta il edco st an al y si s. Appe llants did

not pr ovi de any

e vid en ce of

the num be r of se at s lo st, the num

be r of w he el ch ai r an d c om

panio n se at s ga ine d, w he re the y c oul d be loc at ed , w ha t i t w oul d c ost

to im ple m en t the m , or

w ha t e ff ec t the y c oul d have e co nom ic al ly or11

ope ratio na lly

on the the at er . Appe llants a lso f ai le d to pr ovi de e xpe rt

te sti m ony

to as sur e the f

ea sib ili ty of the ir pr opos ed se at ing m odi fi catio ns and d id n ot, in an y m eanin gf ul w ay , a ddr es s th e en gin ee ri ng and s tr uc tur al c onc er

ns a sso ci at ed

w ith the ir pr opos al s or

the e ff ec t tha t those pr opos al s w oul d have on the his tor ic feat ur es of t he th eat er. A ddi tio na lly , appe llants f ai le d to sho wthat the ir

pr opos ed m odi fi catio ns w er e ine xpe nsi ve . N ot o nly did appe llants f

ai l t o pr oduc e a fi nanc ia l e xpe rt to lin k the estim ated costs of their proposals with The Fox’ s ability to pay for them , they fa ile d to take e ve n th e ru dim en tary ste ps o f fo rm

ulatin g w ha t those e sti m at ed c ost s m igh t be or

pr ovi din g any

e vid en ce of

T he F ox’ s f

inanc ia l po sit ionand a

bil ity to pay tho se c ost s. T he onl y

“ ev ide nc e” pr es en te d by the appe llants of

the c ost s as so ci at edwit h t he ir p ro po se d m od ifi cat io ns co ns is ts of t es ti m on y by an ADA expe rt w ho s um m ar ily opi ne d th at

som e of the pr opos ed

m odi fi catio ns w oul d be

“ low-cost” or “ inexpens ive,” while others w ouldbe “ m ore expensive,” and that s o me mo d i f

i c a t i o n s wo u l dc o s ts i mi l a r l y t o p r e v i o u s mo d i f i c a t i o n s . Ac c o r d i n g l y, w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t e rr in fi ndi ng tha t the appe llants c oul d not m ee t the ir

bur de n of

pr oduc tio n f

or barr ie r re m ova l. A ssu m ing argu en do that the evidence proffer ed by appellants did satisfy t h ei r b u rd en o f p ro du ct i o n fo r b arri erre m o v al , we co n cl u d e t h at th e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s12

grant of sum

m ary j udgm ent would still b e appropriate beca use The F ox rebutted an y sho w ing by

e sta bli shi ng tha t r em ova l of

the a lle ge d barr ie rs c oul d no t be accom plish ed without m

uch difficulty

or expense. The F ox presented und isput ed ev ide nc e that l ow er ing aportio n of the f loo r, a s a ppe llants pr opos ed , w oul d dir ec tly a ff ec t the his tor ic na tur e of

the the at er ; the a ct

ua l se at ing c onf

iguratio n in the theater is a c haracte r-def ining feature of T he Fox, and the perm anent rem oval of se at s w oul d r equir e the appr ova l of the S ta te H ist or ic P re se rv at ionO ff ic er ; the fl oor that w oul d be a ff

ec te d by appe llants ’ pr opos al s is his tor ic al ly sig nif ic an t; the im ple m en ta tio n of

c er ta in o f ap pe llants ’ pr opos al s w oul d in vol ve c los ing the the at er f or ape ri od o f tim e; the appe llants ’ pr opos al s w oul d r es ult in the el im inatio n of

se at s be lon gin g to se as on t ic ke t ho lde rs ; and a de cr ea se in the num be r of r eg ular the at er

se at s w oul d di re ct ly

im pa ct T he F ox’ s a

bil ity to co m pe te with other venues, possiblyresulting in lost revenue. T herefor e, The Fox satisfied its bur de n of

pe rs ua sio n, pr ovi ng tha t barr ie r re m ova l w as not “ re ad ily ach ie vabl e.” V. C ONC LUS ION Be ca use w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y appl ie d th e bur de nshi ft ing standard

e nunc ia te d in Co lorado Cr oss to th e p art ic ul ar fa ct s o f th is cas e, w e af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r gr an tin g su m m ar y j udgm en t t o T he F ox. AFFIR MED.