Plaintiffs have alleged that, regardless of the different structural arrangements in various restaurants, the environment in each establishment visited by the plaintiffs contained too much smoke to allow them use of the facilities on an equal basis as other non-disabled patrons. These allegations belie the magistrate judge's assumption that no-smoking areas offer a sufficient accommodation to plaintiffs. Accordingly, defendants' motions to dismiss should have been denied. In addition, we note that plaintiffs do not solely request a ban on smoking. We do not think that it is necessary at this point in the lawsuit to bind plaintiffs to the one specific modification they prefer.
Defendants raise another objection to the scope of plaintiffs' request for an injunction.
But whatever may be the appropriate scope of an injunction, doubts about that scope do not justify dismissal of the complaints where plaintiffs have alleged cognizable claims at least with respect to the restaurants they expect to visit. We therefore reverse the judgments of the district court and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.