Opinion ID: 615994
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: pre-existing barriers

Text: While the plaintiff has the burden of proving discrimination in an ADA claim, Norkunas argues that the burden shifts here because Seahorse completed remedial measures before trial. We disagree. The ADA provides only prospective injunctive relief for violations, and does not allow for damages for past 8 discrimination or past remedied violations. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1). Seahorse’s remedial work did not diminish or shift Norkunas’s burden of proof, and the district court did not err in requiring Norkunas to prove discrimination.
As with the dune walkover, any plaintiff alleging Title III ADA discrimination must make an initial showing of discrimination under the ADA. To meet their burden of proof in discrimination cases focused on pre-existing buildings, plaintiffs must present evidence of a barrier, and “sufficient evidence so that a defendant can evaluate the proposed solution to a barrier, the difficulty of accomplishing it, the cost [of] implementation, and the economic operation of the facility.” Gathright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc. 452 F.3d 1269, 1274 (11th Cir. 2006). When plaintiffs meet the burden of production showing that the removal of barriers is “readily achievable,” the burden then shifts to the defendant to prove the affirmative defense that the removal of a barrier is not readily achievable. Id. Typically, litigation focuses on whether barrier removal is readily achievable or not. Here, the focus is the continued existence of barriers at the time of trial. The burden of proof does not change when remedial measures are accomplished before trial. Evidence presented regarding the changes at the Seahorse Inn is counter-evidence for the finder of fact to weigh in determining the 9 existence of the barriers—not an argument of mootness as the plaintiff contends. The district court did not err in applying the Gathright-Dietrich burden-shifting standard.
All relevant evidence is generally admissible. FED. R. EVID. 402. We review the admission of evidence by the district court for abuse of discretion. Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1362 (11th Cir. 2002). Generally, this Court will not consider an issue not raised in the district court. Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004). Thus, to preserve evidentiary issues on appeal in civil cases, parties must object to the challenged testimony under the contemporaneous-objection rule. See Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Diversified Corp. Consulting Group, 378 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th Cir. 2004) (“In a case such as this—where the party foregoes an opportunity to object—we do not entertain the objection on appeal.”). However, in a rare, exceptional civil case, we review evidence admitted without a contemporaneous objection for plain error if the error would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Christopher v. Cutter Labs., 53 F.3d 1184, 1192 (1995). “Plain errors are obvious and substantial errors which seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Hope, 901 F.2d 1013, 10 1020 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). We need not decide if this is such a rare case because there is no plain error in any event.
Norkunas argues that the district court erroneously considered the testimony of Seahorse’s owner David Cole on matters of ADA compliance. Norkunas argues that ADA compliance is technical and therefore requires an expert to testify as to matters of compliance. He appeals the admission of Cole’s testimony regarding the curb ramp by the registration office, the gates on the property, the door thresholds to Room 118, the alterations made to the restrooms in the Lemon Bar, and the parking space in front of the registration office. Reviewing the record and testimony appealed, we find that Cole’s testimony was limited to facts within his personal knowledge, as permitted by the Rules of Evidence.4 See FED. R. EVID. 602. The district court therefore did not commit error in admitting this testimony.
4 Cole testified that he smoothed an area outside an office (curb ramp); added pavers around the gate latches; leveled a threshold of a door and narrowed the size of the bump by at least one-half inch; moved grab bars an inch or two, took away part of an apron under the lavatories, and did work in the area of the Lemon Bar restrooms; and made a parking space “as level as possible.” Brief for Appellant at 37–38, 42, 45. 11 Here, Norkunas challenges the testimony of Seahorse’s expert Barley, but no objection was raised at trial. Therefore, we review for plain error. Christopher, 53 F.3d at 1192. Barley is a licensed architect with more than forty years of architectural experience and extensive experience in ADA compliance. He is a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects and has served as President of AIA Florida and as a member of the AIA Board of Directors. We do not find plain error in the district court’s admission of Barley as an expert for the defense or in the district court’s reliance on his testimony in his report and at trial.