Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., No. 12-16857 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, a wheelchair user, filed suit against Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc. claiming that alleged barriers to access in Pier 1’s store in Vacaville, California denied him “full and equal” access to the store in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court entered a permanent injunction against Pier 1, concluding that the obstructions in shopping aisles and on a sales counter violated Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the obstructed aisles that Plaintiff encountered on his numerous visits to the Pier 1 store were not permissible “isolated or temporary interruptions in…access” under the ADA Accessibility Guidelines because the evidence showed that Pier 1 repeatedly failed to maintain accessible routes in its store; but (2) there was insufficient evidence that the obstructions on the sales counter violated Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA. Remanded to the district court to modify the injunction consistent with this opinion.
Court Description: Americans with Disabilities Act. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court held that the obstructions in shopping aisles and on a sales counter that the plaintiff encountered on numerous visits to a Pier 1 store violated his rights under the ADA, and entered a permanent injunction against Pier 1. Affirming in part, the panel held that the obstructed aisles the plaintiff encountered were not permissible “isolated or temporary interruptions in . . . access” under the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b), because the evidence demonstrated that Pier 1 repeatedly failed to maintain accessible routes in its store. The panel reversed, however, the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s claim as to an accessible sales counter. The panel remanded to the district court to modify the injunction consistent with its opinion. CHAPMAN V. PIER 1 IMPORTS 3
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.