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

Heading: dune walkover

Text: A plaintiff alleging Title III ADA discrimination must initially prove that (1) he is a disabled individual; (2) the defendants own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation; and (3) the defendants discriminated against the plaintiff within the meaning of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). For alterations of premises, the ADA defines discrimination as “a failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” Id. § 12183(a)(2). For new construction and alterations, the Attorney General’s ADA Accessibility Guidelines are construction guidelines offering a safe harbor for new construction such that compliance with 7 the Accessibility Guidelines means compliance with the ADA. All new construction should comply with the Attorney General’s regulations, and the regulations require that all new construction (and alterations) shall comply with the issued standards. Id. § 12186(b); 28 C.F.R. § 36.406(a). The district court found that no federal or state regulations exist governing the accessibility standards for beach access walkways. Seahorse argues that the dune walkover did not have to be made accessible because it is not a path of travel or a required accessible route. Absent federal or state scoping regulations requiring accessible beach walkways, the district court could not find a legal basis on which to require the walkway to be made accessible. After a thorough review of the relevant laws and regulations, we agree. Therefore, it is not necessary for Seahorse to bring the dune walkover into compliance with the ADA, for regulations governing beach walkways do not exist.