Colorado Cross Disability Coalition v. Colorado Baseball Club, LTD (2004)

By Matthew Chin

Overview

Colorado Cross Disability Coalition (Plaintiffs) v. Colorado Baseball Club, LTD (Defendants) (2004) is a consolidated district court case that discusses the issue of whether the defendant had provided equally accessible seating to disabled individuals in wheelchairs. The defendants motioned for a partial summary judgment on the fact that they are allowed to cluster disabled seating at the top of certain seating sections in Coors Field, arguing that such clustering is permitted by federal regulations under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act). The plaintiffs argue that the Rockies' definition of “integrated seating” is too narrow, as the only wheelchair accessible seats exist at the back of sections, with very little availability near the infield, which is more expensive than the ambulatory seats (areas accessible to individuals who can walk) in the same general area. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and denied the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Summary

The main issue of contention was that the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had violated the ADA by failing to provide appropriate seating to individuals confined to wheelchairs. The defendants unsurprisingly refuted the claim. The defendant then motioned for a partial summary judgment on whether clustering seats for disabled individuals is permitted by governing federal regulations, citing “Standard 4.33.3.” 28 C.F.R Part 36, App. A  § 4.33.3. This standard requires that accessible seating to be “integral” to any “fixed seating plan”. Meaning that a public accommodation cannot simply put all the disabled seating in one place. The standard also requires this accessible seating to be dispersed both horizontally and vertically so that disabled individuals have a choice in which row and column they would like to sit. The one exception that the Justice Department made was based on the vertical distribution of seat choices, which states that:

EXCEPTION: Accessible viewing positions may be clustered for bleachers, balconies, and other areas having sight lines that require slopes greater than 5 percent. Equivalent accessible viewing positions may be located on levels having accessible egress.

The defendant’s reasoning is that they intentionally clustered these accessible seats at the top of seating sections in order for disabled individuals to see over fans who decide to stand during exciting moments while watching the game. They see this exception permits them to cluster seating to prevent disabled individuals’ view from being blocked by other patrons. 

The plaintiffs respond, arguing that under the ADA, providing equal seating at Coors Field means making it both easily accessible and fairly priced. Being constructed after the effective date of the ADA, Coors Field had seating in sections close to the infield and although the plaintiffs didn’t believe that these infield seats met the viewing requirement, they didn’t raise an issue at the time because disabled individuals were able to pay the same price as non-disabled people for the same seats. The main event that brought about this lawsuit was the Rockies' creation of a high-priced luxury seating area near the infield. This effectively absorbed the only wheelchair accessible seats near the infield. In doing so, individuals in wheelchairs did not have the option to obtain a seat near the infield unless they were willing to pay over $100 for the seat. Similar seats in the areas that were accessible to non-disabled people were significantly cheaper. The only affordable options now available to individuals confined to wheelchairs were those seats at the back of several sections. 

In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiffs argue that (1) the expectation standard in regard to vertical integration of seating does not excuse compliance with the requirements for integration, comparable prices and dispersal for wheelchair accessible seating (accessible seating must be in front and back of the areas at issue); (2) the exception requires the defendant to provide equivalent accessible seats on levels where accessible egress exists and because accessible egress does exist at field level, the Rockies may not cluster wheelchair accessible seating behind the back row; and (3) that the Court still at a later point determine whether the defendant has complied with the ADA regulation.

Upon accessing all the available seating for individuals confined to wheelchairs, the plaintiff found that of the 406 seats, 12% of these seats are located at the front of their respective seating area while the remaining 88% are at the back of their sections. Looking specifically at the accessible seat on the lower level, only 16% of the wheelchair accessible seats are in the front of their areas. These seats are either the $100 Backstop Accessibel Seats or seats beyond the outfield in the Pavilion seating areas. The plaintiffs simply ask Coors Field to either construct more wheelchair accessible seats near the infield that are not in the luxury section or sell the Backstop Accessible seats for the same price as the Infield Box prices.

In the Court’s discussion, they mention that based on all the evidence available at the motion phase of this case, the Rockies have provided disabled fans a viewing experience comparable to those of ambulatory patrons and fans of the home team, but have failed to provide disabled fans comparable experience, but refrain from making this their final conclusion without all the evidence.

In terms of the motion by the defendants, the Court finds that the defendant’s arguments against the plaintiffs does not defeat the plaintiffs’ contentions as the disproportionate number of seats in the outfield raises issues regarding the ADA’s dispersal requirements. However, the defendant’s arguments are not enough for the Court to rule in the plaintiffs favor of whether they are being discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of LeLacheur Park. The main issue the Court needs to determine is whether individuals in wheelchairs are truly deprived of a viewing experience comparable to the ambulatory stadium-goers. The plaintiffs bring up different arenas, these venues are much more intimate (5,000-seat stadium). The Court questions whether the views in these arenas vary much from section to section.

The Court’s final decision on the matter was to deny the motion for partial summary judgment as based on the current evidence there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude entry for summary judgment in either parties’ favor at the present time.

Impact

The result of this case is unknown, however, the importance of this case is that public accommodations are required ensure that disabled and non-disabled people can experience the full and equal enjoyment of the public accommodation under Title III of the ADA. Simply arguing that they have the same viewing experience is not enough if their experience is incomparable to a non-disabled person. This prevents public accommodations from “ghettoizing” wheelchair spaces or desonate a few token wheelchair spaces in luxury seating areas. It also reinforces the equality aspect as the Rockies forced disabled people to pay more for infield seats as the only available infield seating that is wheelchair accessible is in an area which they renovated to be a high luxury area. As the plaintiffs stated, in line with the ADA requirement for full and equal enjoyment, this includes comparable prices for both ambulatory and individuals in wheelchairs for similar viewing experiences.

Court Documents

Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Colorado Rockies Baseball Club, Ltd., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1141 (D. Colo. 2004), accessed October 2025, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/336/1141/2526461/.

Citations

“Seat Viewer,” Colorado Rockies, accessed October 2025, https://www.mlb.com/rockies/ballpark/seat-viewer.