Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (2014)
- Sam Shepherd
- Sep 22
- 2 min read
By Reina Kabbara
Overview
The case of Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in 2014 addressed whether Hollister’s signature “raised porch”, a stepped, elevated center entrance, violates the ADA when accessible level entrances exist at the sides. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs were allowed to sue and could proceed as a class, but it threw out their win and the nationwide order. The court declared judges must decide ADA liability by the U.S. Department of Justice’s specific design rules, not by broad goals of the ADA [1–2].
Summary
Hollister, an Abercrombie & Fitch brand, built many stores after 1993 with a three-door front, featuring a central “porch” accessible only by steps and bordered by two level accessible doors. Wheelchair users and a disability-rights organization sued under ADA Title III, claiming that the porch design denied equal access and stigmatized customers who use wheelchairs by redirecting them from the center entrance [1]. The United States filed a Statement of Interest and later an appellate brief supporting plaintiffs’ position and describing potential solutions such as leveling, ramping, or closing the porch to public access [2].
In the district court, plaintiffs obtained a partial summary ruling and a permanent court order requiring Abercrombie to repair all “porch stores” nationwide within three years. They would do this by leveling the porch, adding a ramp, or closing the porch. The court also certified a Rule 23(b)(2) injunction class [1-2]. The Tenth Circuit affirmed that the plaintiffs had standing and that class certification was proper, but it overturned the district court’s merits ruling and court order, sending the case back for further proceedings [1-2]. Because of the 1991/2010 ADA design standards control, Title III does not mandate accessibility for each entrance, such as a decorative ‘porch’, when the required accessible entrances already satisfy the standards. The court rejected the district court’s alternative theories that: (1) the porch was a “space” that must itself be on an accessible route and (2) the ADA requires access to the same “main entrance” used by most customers. The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with the standards-focused analysis [1–2].
Impact
The decision functions as a standards-focused framework for ADA Title III entrance claims. This case emphasizes that if a retail facility provides the required accessible entrances that conform to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Standards, the presence of an additional stepped, branding-driven feature (like Hollister’s porch) is not automatically unlawful. The plaintiffs must show noncompliance with the standards. The ruling also reminds courts to connect both liability and solutions to the technical criteria of the ADA Standards rather than generalized legislative purposes [1–2].
Court Documents
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 765 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2014) [1]
U.S. Department of Justice, Statement of Interest / Appellate Brief supporting plaintiffs [2]
Citations
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 765 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2014).
United States, Statement of Interest / Brief, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. (10th Cir. 2014).
