Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family Ltd. Partnership I (2001)
- Sam Shepherd
- Sep 28
- 2 min read
By Leilani Acosta
Overview
Colorado Cross Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family Ltd. Partnership I appeared in 10th district court and the appeals court, After the building owners had no ramps accessible to wheelchair users. This case aims to address who is tasked with the burden of proof under ADA Regulations and building accommodations.
Summary
Kevin Williams was a motor wheelchair user and employee of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition who frequented Larimer square. Williams noticed that multiple buildings had stoops, with no alternative entrances or ramps and sued with the coalition. Their argument was that the lack of ramps was a violation of Title III ADA and could be remedied with construction. Hermanson’s four buildings in Larimer square were at the center of this lawsuit, arguing that because of its historical significance, no construction could be done. The court analyzed the provision of ADA that defines discrimination in regards to barriers as the failure to remove the barriers when removal is readily achievable [1]. The court decided that the initial burden falls on the plaintiff to present methods to remove the barriers and ensure it is readily achievable [1]. Once the court believes that it is satisfied, the burden shifts to the defendant to defend its stance why it may not be readily achievable [1]. The coalition had brought in three different experts. Nore Winter specialized in historic preservation and brought a sketch of a potential ramp, testifying that this ramp would not affect the historical significance of the building. The second expert was Susan Spencer, the previous manager of the buildings, who testified that she originally wanted to add ramps but believed it might have been a hazard for blind people. The third expert was accountant Robert Aucone who testified that it would not be a burden to the defendant’s finances. The court argued that there was no specific ramp design that was proposed and did not address concerns such as city approval [1]. The court ultimately ruled that the defendant failed to prove that the barrier removal was readily achievable because the evidence and plans were all speculative.
Impact
Colorado Cross Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family Ltd. Partnership I is still important because it is still implemented in the 10th district. While the Coalition would take this case to the appeals court and downsize the case by arguing for one building, the original decision was still upheld. This case reminds us that although ADA is an important tool to fight against discrimination and for accommodations, the majority of the burden of proof falls on the disabled person. As we saw in this case, bringing in three experts to prove that a potential ramp was readily achievable was not enough. In this case, we also saw how historical preservation was favored over accessibility, with the defendant’s central argument and the plaintiff’s expert to counterargue that point. For future cases, the plaintiff must have resources like construction companies to create a plan for accommodations that factors local government and existing regulations. Without these materials, it is more likely to be ruled as speculative.
Court Documents
Colorado Cross Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family Ltd. Partnership I, United States of America, Amica Curiae, 264 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 2001)
Citations
Justia Law. (2001, August 29)
