United States Ninth Circuit

In an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act claiming that defendant-Chipotle restaurant did not take sufficient action to accommodate plaintiff-customer's disability, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where: 1) the plain language of 28 C.F.R. section 36 did not cover defendant's food preparation counter; and 2) the wall subjected plaintiff to a disadvantage that non-disabled customers did not suffer. However, the court reversed in part on the grounds that: 1) the portion of the judgment determining that Chipotle's written policy did not violate the Act and that plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction was erroneous; 2) the district court needs to reexamine and reconsider its attorney's fee award in light of the partial reversal of its judgment; and 3) plaintiff was entitled to injunctive relief against the violative restaurant policies.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/07/2010
• Decided 07/26/2010
• Published 07/26/2010

Judges

• Daniel M. Friedman

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Amy B. Vandeveld, John F. Scalia