Opinion ID: 3062245
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: (i) At least 50% of all public entrances

Text: must be accessible. At least one must be a ground floor entrance. Public entrances are any entrances that are not loading or service entrances. (ii) Accessible entrances must be provided in a number at least equivalent to the number of exists required by the applicable building/fire codes. (This paragraph does not require an increase in the total number of entrances planned for a facility.) (iii) An accessible entrance must be provided to each tenancy in a facility (for example, individual stores in a strip shopping center). One entrance may be considered as meeting more than one of the requirements in (a). Where feasible, accessible entrances shall be the entrances used by the majority of people visiting or working in the building. 37 1991 Standard 4.1.3(8). The district court held that, despite the fact that at least 50% of Hollister’s public entrances are accessible, the store violated 1991 Standard 4.1.3(8)(a) because it was “obvious” that a majority of people enter through the inaccessible porch. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 835 F. Supp. 2d at 1082; see also Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 957 F. Supp. 2d at 1279. Abercrombie raises two arguments: (1) that the 2010 Standards eliminated the “majority of people” requirement, thus releasing Abercrombie from this burden; and (2) even if this requirement is effective, the Plaintiffs offered no evidence of how many people enter Hollister stores through the center porch compared to the two side entrances. Id. at 39. Abercrombie is correct on both points. As mentioned, the 1991 Standard required, among several other things, that “[a]t least 50% of all public entrances . . . must be accessible.” 1991 Standard 4.1.3(8)(a)(i). In 2010, the DOJ simplified its entrance standards, providing that “at least 60 percent of all public entrances shall [be accessible].” 2010 Standard 206.4.1. The 2010 Standard omits any reference to the 1991 “majority of people” language. In other words, while the 1991 Standard regulated how many and which entrances must be accessible (if feasible), the 2010 Standard simply regulates how many entrances must be accessible. The Plaintiffs’ only argument against this reading is that the DOJ intended the 2010 revision to have the “same 38 result” as the 1991 Standard. Aplee. Br. 51 (quoting 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app B, at 835). However, the “same result” envisioned was the overall level of accessibility, not any continued requirement about which entrances must be accessible. See 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app B, at 835. We thus agree with Abercrombie that, by abandoning the dual requirements of the 1991 Standard in favor of a straightforward percentage-of-entrances requirement, the 2010 Standard “reduce[d] the technical requirements” of the 1991 Standard. See 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(c). Therefore, Abercrombie need only comply with the simpler method of compliance—that a certain percentage of its public entrances be accessible. 8 See 2010 Standard 206.4.1. To be sure, the new method is simpler. Although the Plaintiffs sought summary judgment that the porch was used by a majority of people visiting or working in the store (and the district court viewed it as apparent), no evidence supports that proposition. We need not decide whether the porch designer’s intentions or actual empirical evidence concerning porch use by visitors or 8 We need not decide whether the percentage is 50% or 60%, as Abercrombie meets either. We will not consider the Plaintiffs’ argument to the contrary, Aplee. Br. 51 n.13, as it is raised for the first time on appeal, see Valdez v. Squier, 676 F.3d 935, 950 (10th Cir. 2012). In any event, their argument—that the porch actually constitutes two entrance “doors”—fails to take into account that the standards regulate the number of “entrances,” see 1991 Standard 4.1.3(8)(a)(i); 2010 Standard 206.4.1, and that one “entrance” may be made up of more than one “entry door(s),” see 1991 Standard 3.5. 39 employees would have been necessary to create a triable issue. 9 Given three sideby-side entrances, logic alone will not suffice. The Plaintiffs assert that the porch was intended to be used by the majority of people. Aplee. Br. 50. Abercrombie maintains that it is just as likely that the majority of people prefer a more direct route (all entrances have the same terminus) rather than ascending and descending the porch. See III Aplt. App. 728. It is an open question, and one which we do not resolve. 10 Accordingly, we hold that each of the district court’s grounds for awarding the Plaintiffs summary judgment are unsupportable. It was error to impose liability on the design of Hollister stores based on “overarching aims” of the ADA. It was also error to impose liability based on the holding that the porch as 9 The regulatory guidance does not mention the “majority of people” provision, see 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. C, at 929 (guidance to 4.1.3(8)), nor does the analysis and commentary to the 2010 standards, see 28 C.F.R. pt. 36 app. B, at 822-23 (analysis of “Public Entrances”). No published case has ever imposed ADA liability on a public accommodation for violating the “majority of people” component of 4.1.3(8)(a). 10 The dissent offers that the Plaintiffs presented “deposition testimony, declarations, photographic evidence, and architectural drawings that all support a reasonable inference that a majority of people use the porch entrance.” Responding to a summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs had the burden of providing significantly probative evidence establishing an essential element of their case. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). The Plaintiffs’ summary judgment evidence demonstrates nothing more than the porch’s existence positioned between two nearby doors. We simply do not know about utilization of the various entrances. Regardless, this question is now irrelevant, as we hold that the 2010 Standards effectively eliminated the additional majorityof-people requirement in the 1991 Standards. 40 a “space” must be accessible. Finally, it was error to hold that the porch must be accessible because it is the entrance used by a “majority of people.” We AFFIRM the district court’s denial of Abercrombie’s summary judgment motion. We AFFIRM the district court’s certification of the class. However, we REVERSE the district court’s partial grant, and later full grant of summary judgment to the Plaintiffs, and we VACATE the court’s permanent injunction. We REMAND this case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. All pending motions are DENIED. 41 No. 13-1377, Colo. Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch