Court Opinion

ID: 9633386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:45:22.094807+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:48.413129
License: Public Domain

HALL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Because I find that Catalina Channel Express failed to make the individualized assessment required under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and failed to consider whether reasonable modifications could be made in this individual case, I respectfully dissent.
*1068Under the ADA, a place of public accommodation may exclude a disabled individual from a service or opportunity, if that individual “poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3). A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.” Id. “When determining whether an individual poses a ‘direct threat,’ a place of public accommodation must not base its calculus on stereotypes or generalizations about the effects of a disability but rather must make ‘an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence.’ ” Montalvo v. Radcliffe, 167 F.3d 873, 877 (4th Cir.1999) (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 36.208(c)). This assessment must consider the nature, duration, and severity of the risk. 28 C.F.R. § 36.208.
Under this rule, a good faith belief that a risk exists is not sufficient. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 649, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 141 L.Ed.2d 540 (1998). The person making the relevant decision not to provide the service must base his decision on the objective information available to him. See id. In Bragdon, a dentist had declined to see an HIV-positive patient on the basis that she would have posed a risk to the health of others. The Supreme Court used the opportunity to elaborate on the “direct threat” standard:
The existence, or nonexistence, of a significant risk must be determined from the standpoint of the person who refuses the treatment or accommodation, and the risk assessment must be based on medical or other objective evidence. As a health care professional, petitioner had the duty to assess the risk of infection based on the objective, scientific information available to him and others in his profession. His belief that a significant risk existed, even if maintained in good faith, would not relieve him from liability. To use the words of the question presented, petitioner receives no special deference simply because he is a health care professional.
Id. However, the Court has previously held that medical judgments based on the duration, severity and nature of the risk are entitled to deference. See School Bd. of Nassau Cty. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 288, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987).
The risk to others must also be “significant.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3). The ADA’s statutory language regarding the threat to others was adopted from Arline, a case dealing with infectious disease. See Bragdon, 524 U.S. at 649, 118 S.Ct. 2196 (discussing the influence of Arline). As the Court acknowledged, “Arline and the ADA do not ask whether a risk exists, but whether it is significant.” Bragdon, 524 U.S. at 649, 118 S.Ct. 2196. In Doe v. District of Columbia, 796 F.Supp. 559 (D.D.C.1992), for example, the district court held that hiring an HIV-positive firefighter would pose no “measurable risk” of infection to other firefighters or the public. Id. at 569.
The ADA’s required analysis does not end, however, with a finding of significant risk. If it finds such a threat, the service provider must then ascertain “whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the risk, to the point of eliminating it as a significant risk.” Montalvo, 167 F.3d at 877 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 36.208(c) and 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3))(internal punctuation omitted). As the Fourth Circuit explained in Montalvo, one of the few appellate decisions dealing with these provisions, “a failure to make a reasonable modification is itself an act of discrimination unless the place of public accommodation can demon*1069strate that implementing the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the program.” Id.
The interaction between Lockett and Catalina Channel Express falls far short of this statutory procedure. First, CCE made no “individualized assessment” as to the health effects of bringing Lockett’s dog aboard. Though it had limited objective evidence, it could have investigated whether the female passenger who had complained about dander was in fact on the ship, or whether there were other allergic passengers in the lounge. Though CCE did not appear to act with malice, pure intentions and good faith are not sufficient under the ADA.
Second, the risk to others was not found, objectively, to be significant. The frequent passenger who allegedly requested a dander-free environment (a passenger who was never deposed, let alone named, by CCE) did not suggest this policy was necessary as a matter of serious public health concern, along the lines of an infectious disease. It bears repeating that CCE never determined whether any allergic passenger would even be in the lounge area.
The opinion in this case treats the decision about Lockett as an individualized assessment, but it appears that the ticket agent was simply applying CCE’s policy as a matter of reflex. Under the ADA, the standard for judging the application of a policy is the same as the standard for onetime action: “Safety requirements must be based on actual risks and not on mere speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. 36.301. In Leiken v. Squaw Valley Ski Corp., 1994 WL 494298, 3 A.D. Cases 945 (E.D.Cal.1994), the district court granted a preliminary injunction against a ski resort’s policy of barring wheelchairs from the cable car used to access a high-altitude recreation area. The resort had justified the policy on the grounds that wheelchairs would hinder any emergency evacuation of the cable car. The district court held that the ski resort “cannot justify its policy as a series of individual safety-based exclusions because it has not performed individualized risk assessments.” Id.; see also Bombrys v. City of Toledo, 849 F.Supp. 1210, 1216 (N.D.Ohio 1993); Anderson v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 794 F.Supp. 342, 345 (D.Ariz.1992). As in these cases, CCE made a blanket policy and applied it to Lockett without considering the individual facts of her case.
Finally, CCE’s employees did not investigate whether a “reasonable modification” would neutralize any health threat. Though the lounge was allegedly the only area where allergic passengers could be segregated from animals, CCE did not investigate whether there were in fact other allergic passengers aboard, whether any passengers could be persuaded to sit elsewhere, or whether Lockett could be seated in any particular part of the lounge where the dog’s dander would pose the least risk.
Though it was no doubt wise and well-intentioned for CCE to eliminate this policy following the Lockett incident, this change of course does not remedy whatever damage Lockett alleges from the initial violation. Any sentiment that her claim is too small to be worthwhile, or that CCE should not be punished when it has acted admirably otherwise, is an issue best left to the jury when determining damages. Accordingly, I dissent.