Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendanthearingsummary judgment
lawsuitplaintiffdefendanthearing

Related Cases

Steinberg Moorad & Dunn, Inc. v. Dunn, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2002 WL 31968234
View Case »
Kulovitz v. Illinois High School Ass’n, 462 F.Supp. 875
View Case »
New York City Triathlon, LLC v. NYC Triathlon Club, Inc., 704 F.Supp.2d 305, 95 U.S.P.Q.2d 1451
View Case »
Faigin v. Kelly, 184 F.3d 67, 52 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 61, 28 Media L. Rep. 1193
View Case »
Searles v. Trustees of St. Joseph’s College, 695 A.2d 1206, 119 Ed. Law Rep. 545, 1997 ME 128
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Feldman v. Pro Football, Inc., 419 Fed.Appx. 381, 24 A.D. Cases 1178, 42 NDLR P 274

Facts

Deaf and hard-of-hearing football fans filed a lawsuit against the Washington Redskins and FedEx Field under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming they lacked equal access to information and announcements during games. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants failed to provide adequate auxiliary aids, particularly for music lyrics played over the public address system. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, stating that the case was not moot despite the defendants' voluntary provision of some captioning, as disputes remained regarding the captioning of music lyrics.

Defendants Pro Football, Inc. and WFI Stadium, Inc. operate, respectively, the Washington Redskins football team and FedEx Field, where the Redskins play home games. Plaintiffs are three individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who regularly attend Redskins games at FedEx Field.

Issue

Whether the defendants were required under the ADA to provide auxiliary access to music lyrics and other aural content broadcast over the public address system at FedEx Field.

Whether the defendants were required under the ADA to provide auxiliary access to music lyrics and other aural content broadcast over the public address system at FedEx Field.

Rule

Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), public accommodations must ensure that individuals with disabilities are not discriminated against in the full and equal enjoyment of their goods and services. This includes providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective communication, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods or services or impose an undue burden.

Analysis

The court analyzed the defendants' obligations under the ADA, emphasizing that the music played during games is part of the overall experience provided to spectators. The court found that the defendants had not shown that providing access to music lyrics would constitute an undue burden. The plaintiffs had given fair notice of their request for captioning music lyrics through their repeated references to the need for equal access to all announcements made over the public address system, which includes music.

The court agreed with the district court that defendants have not shown that a continuation of their alleged ADA violations is nearly impossible. Although defendants were investigating possible auxiliary aids years before plaintiffs' lawsuit, they did not actually provide captioning until after plaintiffs filed their complaint.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the defendants must provide auxiliary access to the aural content broadcast over the public address system, including music lyrics, to comply with the ADA.

We affirm the district court's order in its entirety.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in this case as the court upheld the district court's decision requiring the defendants to provide auxiliary aids for aural content, including music lyrics. The court found that the defendants had not met their burden of proving that they would not repeat their alleged violations of the ADA. The ongoing disputes regarding the captioning of music lyrics and the lack of adequate auxiliary aids for this content demonstrated that the plaintiffs' claims were not moot, and thus they were entitled to relief under the ADA.

The plaintiffs prevailed in this case as the court upheld the district court's decision requiring the defendants to provide auxiliary aids for aural content, including music lyrics.

You must be