In brief
- The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ADA’s 60% Rule does not require 60% of public entrances to have fully accessible routes.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for a barber shop and its landlord in a lawsuit involving raised entrances without ramps.
- The majority held that the rule addresses the technical requirements for doors, doorways and gates under Section 404, rather than requiring accessible routes to each entrance.
- Judge Rachel S. Bloomekatz partially dissented, arguing that the ruling undermines ADA accessibility protections for people with disabilities.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the text of the Americans with Disabilities Act‘s 60% Rule does not require 60% of public entrances to be fully accessible.
The plaintiff sued a barber shop and its landlord, alleging a violation of the 60% Rule. A federal district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that the rule incorporates section 404’s requirements for doors, doorways and gates but does not require accessible routes leading to those entrances.
The 6th Circuit agreed that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the 60% Rule was not supported by the text.
“Because we, like the district court, hold that the text of the 60% Rule does not require 60% of public entrances to be fully accessible — it only dictates that 60% of public entrances have doors, doorways, and gates that meet section 404’s minimum requirements — we affirm,” Judge David W. McKeague wrote for the panel.
The 44-page opinion is Canter v. HSD II, LLC; MiLW No. 01-111278. McKeague was joined by Judge Chad A. Readler. Judge Rachel S. Bloomekatz issued a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
St. Clair Shores attorney Patrick J. Kukla of Merry Farnen & Ryan represented the barber shop and Grand Rapids attorney Peter D. Bosch of Bosch Killman VanderWal represented the landlord. Hemlock attorney Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel represented the plaintiff.
They were not available for comment prior to deadline.
Accessibility issues raised
The barber shop in this case is in Muskegon on the ground floor of a mixed-use development and has two public entrances. The plaintiff has mobility issues and uses a walker.
The plaintiff has a longstanding interest in ADA accessibility and was concerned about access to commercial spaces in the development. In particular, she questioned why two entrances leading directly into commercial spaces were raised and lacked ramps.
During one visit to the development, the plaintiff attempted to locate the barber shop’s rear entrance to purchase gift certificates for her sons. She testified that she would have used the front entrance if not for the steps. She subsequently sued the shop and its landlord, alleging ADA violations.
The plaintiff’s allegations included a claim that the shop and the landlord failed to comply with the 60% Rule, an accessibility requirement governing public entrances.
She further alleged that the defendants violated the ADA by requiring people with disabilities to travel through a corridor to access public accommodations. A U.S. District Court rejected that theory, and the plaintiff did not challenge that ruling on appeal.
The court also concluded that the barber shop could not be held liable for the alleged violations of the 60% Rule because it lacked control over the exterior entrances.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the court had misinterpreted the rule. She contended that the shop was jointly liable for ADA violations concerning the raised, unramped entrances, even though it lacked control over them under the terms of its lease.
Ramps not required
But the 6th Circuit concluded that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the 60% Rule was not supported by the text. While the rule requires covered doors, doorways and gates to meet section 404’s technical requirements, it does not in itself require an accessible route to each entrance.
“[The plaintiff’s] appeal relies on her interpretation of the 60% Rule,” McKeague wrote. “She asserts that [the landlord] and [the barber shop] failed to remove an architectural barrier to a public accommodation because the 60% Rule requires that a ramp connect the public sidewalk … to [the barber shop’s] raised entrance. Because the 60% Rule does not require this ramp, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of [the] defendants.”
The judge added: “Because [the plaintiff’s] appeal only challenged this specific element (the raised, unramped entrance) under this specific interpretation of the 60% Rule, our opinion does not discuss her abandoned theory of unequal treatment, nor does it discuss other requirements in the 2010 Standards that ensure public accommodations have sufficient accessible routes.”
In her partial dissent, Bloomekatz argued that the majority had read the 60% Rule too narrowly. She maintained that the regulation, read alongside the broader accessibility requirements, requires the specified percentage of public entrances to be connected to accessible routes.
“In doing so, the majority opinion reads the ADA regulations to defeat themselves and deletes a core accessibility guarantee from the ADA. It concludes that this ‘60% Rule’ — a provision ensuring accessibility for individuals who use wheelchairs and walkers — surreptitiously allows stairs,” she wrote. “That interpretation makes no sense to me, so I find it unsurprising that it’s not actually what the 60% Rule requires. The majority opinion’s reading contravenes the regulations’ plain text, structure, history, and purpose. And it imposes regulatory burdens on building owners and constructors for no identified reason.”
