QCR Spring 2021: Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, Inc. - US Ninth Circuit Requires Availability of Alternative Methods for Restroom Accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act
On September 9, 2020, The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuits (which includes California, Oregon and Washington) issued its opinion on the Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express, No.19-55136 (9th Cir., 2020). The crux of the issue in this case was that the restroom on the Jet Cat Express, a passenger vessel owned and operated by Catalina, was too narrow for Plaintiff’s wheelchair and he unfortunately soiled himself. Catalina had not altered the restroom since 2001. However, they are argued that widening the restroom was not readily achievable. The Central District Court of California granted Summary Judgment in favour of defendant, Catalina Channel Express, against Plaintiff’s Title III American with Disabilities Act lawsuit and Plaintiff appealed.
The Ninth Circuit agreed that plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving that widening the restroom doorway was readily achievable. This followed the Second Circuit’s (which includes New York State) burden-shifting framework. However, the Ninth Circuit went on to say that Plaintiff could still prevail on a Title III discrimination claim if he establishes that Catalina “chose not to make the restroom available to him even though it could have through alternative methods without much difficulty or expense.” On that basis, the Ninth Circuit remanded to the District Court to determine whether Catalina made the restroom available through “alternative methods.”
This case illustrates that even if an accommodation under the ADA is not readily achievable for structural or other legitimate reasons, owners and operators, especially on passenger vessels, must make sure that the activity in question can be made available to protected individuals through alternative methods. However, the level of difficulty and the expense of the alternative methods are also taken into consideration when analysing the risks of a potential Title III discrimination claim.
Further information can be found at the links below.
You may also be interested in:
QCR Spring 2021: Argos Pereira España SL and another v Athenian Marine Ltd  EWHC 554 (Comm)
Equitable Compensation for Failure to Comply with Arbitration Clause; the Owners issued bills of lading (governed by English law) for the cargo which contained a law and jurisdiction clause providing that disputes arising under the bills of lading were to be determined in arbitration in London.
QCR Spring 2021: Evergreen Marine (UK) Limited v. Nautical Challenge Ltd (Ever Smart c/w Alexandra I)  UKSC 6
The Crossing and Narrow Channel Rules; the Supreme Court has, for the first time in nearly 50 years, provided clarification on the construction of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972, as amended (“the Collision Regulations”) for the purposes of applying the Crossing Rules (Rules 15-17).
The Club’s correspondent in the Ukraine, Dias Marine Consulting p.c, has provided the below update that as of 21:00 on 24 April 2021 till 21:00 on 31-10-2021 Russia will limit transit of foreign military ships and other foreign state-owned ships in three regions of the Black Sea within Russian territorial waters.
China: Shanghai MSA issued a Safety Notice on inspection on propulsion and auxiliary machinery
Following the collision in the deep water channel of Changjiangkou (CJK) area, Shanghai Maritime Administration (the “Shanghai MSA”) has issued a Safety Notice to urge all ships to undertake thorough propulsion and auxiliary machinery detection prior to departure from the berth or arrival in the restricted waters.