Opinion ID: 2784335
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sales Counter

Text: We reverse, however, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Chapman’s ADA claim as to the accessible sales counter. Chapman offers insufficient evidence that the obstructions on the counter violated his rights under Title III of the ADA. In contrast to the items blocking the aisles for wheelchair users, the items on the otherwise properly accessible sales counter depicted in Chapman’s photographs were not a barrier to the use of the counter by persons with disabilities. For example, the asserted “clutter[],” on the sales counter detailed in Chapman’s expert report consisted of “a display of books in a basket, three coffee cups, and a movable store telephone.”8 There is no evidence that the presence of these various small items on the otherwise accessible sales counter deprived wheelchair users of “full and equal” access to the use of the counters for their intended use — placing items for purchase and transacting sales. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Additionally, the record indicates that the clutter Chapman encountered at the accessible sales counter caused, at most, “temporary or isolated interruptions in . . . access” under § 36.211(b). Notably, unlike the shopping aisles, which were non-ADA-compliant for wheelchair users on all 8 Snow stated in her declaration that she was present when Chapman’s expert made a purchase, and that the items on the counter “did not interfere” with customers placing or purchasing merchandise. CHAPMAN V. PIER 1 IMPORTS 19 eleven visits Chapman made to the Store in 2011 and 2012, there were items on the sales counter on only two or three visits. Moreover, on those occasions, Chapman was “eventually” able to put the merchandise he wished to purchase on the counter, after the Pier 1 employee behind the counter moved the obstructing items. Thus, unlike the aisle situation, Pier 1 did “promptly remove[]” the obstructing items from the sales counter, Manual § III-3.7000, so the difficulty did not “persist beyond a reasonable period of time,” 56 Fed. Reg. at 35,562. In sum, Chapman was not entitled to summary judgment on his ADA claim concerning the accessible sales counter.