“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
A disabled woman challenged lack of accessibility under the ADA at a public hair salon.
What happened in this case?
Darma Canter has a disability that requires her to use a walker and prevents her from using stairs. She wanted to go to Cru Hair salon in Muskegon where she lives, using the public entrance off the street. But she discovered that “steps stood in her way” and she was unable to enter. She filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and regulations which, she contended, require at least 60% of the entrances to a public building to be accessible through ramps.
The district court dismissed the case on summary judgment, interpreting the 60% rule to mean only that 60% of entrances have accessible “doors, doorways and gates,” but not that the entrances themselves be accessible. The case was appealed to the Sixth Circuit.
In October, Trump judge Chad Readler cast the deciding vote in Canter v HSD II, which upheld the decision against Canter in a ruling written by George W Bush judge David McKeague. Biden judge Rachel Bloomekatz dissented. The majority agreed that the lower court’s interpretation of the 60% rule was correct and so agreed that the case should be dismissed.
Why did Judge Bloomekatz dissent?
Judge Bloomekatz wrote that the majority opinion contradicted “three decades of settled understanding” and “allows stairs where there should be ramps,” eliminating a “core accessibility guarantee from the ADA.” She went on to explain how the majority’s interpretation “contravenes the regulations’ plain text, structure, history and purpose.” She pointed out the illogic of the majority’s interpretation: The regulations require doorways to be accessible for people in wheelchairs, yet allow stairs so that those same people can’t even get to the doorway. The majority’s interpretation, she concluded, “removes a core protection that has consistently, from enactment until now, been a key protection” of ADA regulations.
Why is this decision harmful?
The decision made possible by Trump judge Readler obviously harmed Darma Canter and her effort to enforce proper ADA accessibility requirements. It also sets a troubling precedent affecting numerous people concerning interpretation of ADA standards on accessibility, particularly in the Sixth Circuit, which includes Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.