Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., No. 17-3143 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff, who is paralyzed from the waist down and uses a wheelchair for mobility, filed suit against Holiday, alleging that the company discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) by failing to have an accessible parking lot at one of its stores. The district court granted Holiday's motion for summary judgment.
The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment with instructions to remand plaintiff's access-aisle and vertical-signage claims to state court. In regard to these two claims, plaintiff suffered no injury and thus could not establish Article III standing. The court also remanded for the district court to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining garbage-can claim. In this case, plaintiff established an injury in fact by offering specific evidence that the allegedly dangerous circumstances caused him not to enter the store. The district court erred in treating a photograph that plaintiff submitted along with his declaration as definitive proof that he had plenty of room to maneuver around the garbage can.
Court Description: Stras, Author, with Wollman and Arnold, Circuit Judges] Civil Case - Americans with Disabilities Act. Hillesheim filed state court claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Minnesota Human Rights Act relating to parking lot access at Holiday Stationstores. Case was removed to federal court. District court?s dismissal of two claims for lack of standing and one claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction are reversed. Because Hillesheim failed to show injury as a result of lack of an access aisle and lack of vertical sign posts, he lacked Article III standing, but district court erred in dismissing claims rather than remanding the claims to state court. As to the presence of a garbage can near the top of the curb ramp, the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Holiday as a matter of law based on the evaluation of a photograph. This claim is remanded to the district court to consider whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claim.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.