In RE: Patricia SAPP and Pat Sapp, Plaintiffs, v. MHI PARTNERSHIP, LTD. d/b/a Plantation Homes, and McGuyer Homebuilders, Inc., Defendants.
Case No. CIV.A.3:01CV284-M; United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. 199 F. Supp. 2d 578 (2002) the court ruled that
Title III of the ADA prohibits any party "who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation" from denying disabled individuals "the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a) (1) specifies that one form of discrimination includes failing to design and construct facilities for first occupancy later than 30 months after July 26, 1990, that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, except where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements of such subsection in accordance with standards set forth or incorporated by reference in regulations issued under this subchapter.
A sales office within the model home constituted a place of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). The ADA provides at 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) a list of categories describing places of public accommodation. Subsection E applies to sales or rental establishments.
"The following private entities are considered public accommodations for purposes of this subchapter, if the operations of such entities affect commerce-
... (E) a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment;" [emphasis added]
The court opined that since the public received information about the model home and one room within the model home was being used as the sales representative's office, that part of the building was a "sales or rental establishment" within the meaning of § 12181(7) (E). Plaintiffs had submitted evidence demonstrating that at least one room within the model home, at the time they visited it, was serving as the office of a sales representative, in which the representative stored information about the home development site and met with potential home buyers so that the potential buyers could receive information on the development. The Plaintiffs visited the model home to retrieve from the sales representative floor plans for other styles of homes that could be built at the site. When at least one the purposes of a portion of a model home is storing information about a home product, and brochures and floor plans for available homes, or for meeting with or discussing various matters with prospective home buyers, the Court concluded that, because the evidence in the case revealed that sales and informational activities took place in the room, that part of the home constituted a place of public accommodation under the ADA. The court ruled that since the model home was being used not just as an example of a "good for sale", but also as a place at which potential buyers could receive information and meet with sales representatives about the goods for sale (homes), it is a place of public accommodation that, if ADA-non-compliant, causes disabled individuals to be denied access to those goods (homes).
Additionally, the US Department of Justice, the agency designated to implement the public accommodation provisions of ADA Title III, has issued a Technical Assistance Manual (TAMAN III) that explicitly states upon the issue of whether a model home comes within the purview of the ADA if it functions both as a model home and sales office. The Manual answers the question, "Are model homes places of public accommodation?" It states: "Generally, no. A model home does not fall under one of the 12 categories of places of public accommodation. If, however, the sales office for a residential housing development were located in a model home, the area used for the sales office would be considered a place of public accommodation".
The court found that the US Department of Justice's technical assistance on the issue of whether a model home is a place of public accommodation is congruent with the broad purpose of the ADA and with the precedent that US courts interpretation of the ADA as providing disabled individuals with availability to a seller's goods and services. The Court properly accepted the US Department of Justice's statement on this matter, and concluded that if a model home, although usually just an example of a good for sale and therefore not required to comply with ADAAG, is also used as a sales office, the part of the home used as a sales office and the path-of-travel elements (parking, pedestrian routes, restrooms, signage, doors, etc.) serving it are subject to ADA requirements.
The Defendants in the case attempted to persuade the court by asserting that they were not in violation of the ADA because Defendants had other sales office locations around the city which were ADA-accessible. The Defendants claimed the sales representative could have met Plaintiffs outside of the model home to give them floor plans and answer their questions. The Court ruled that the ADA does not provide for a "separate-but-equal approach" citing since Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S. Ct. 686, 98 L. Ed. 873 (1954). The ADA does not simply require that some of Defendants' sales offices be accessible to persons in wheelchairs; it requires that all of them be ADA accessible.
State building codes further this interpretation so code users should also consult the state adopted code in which model homes are being built.
Keep in mind that for homes built or administered on behalf of or owned by a public entity or provided as part of a public entity's programs and services (homes with project based subsidies such as tax credits, subsidized loans, community development block grants, affordable housing incentives, etc.) those homes (not just the model home) built using such funds are subject to ADA Title II ( 28 CFR 35) and the design standards adopted by the ADA. See 36 CFR 1191, Appendicies B and D.