Munson v. Del Taco – Why should a disabled plaintiff be required to prove intentional discrimination?

Let’s dive right in with the matter of Munson v. Del Taco, a case which is presently pending before the California Supreme Court.

Munson involves a mobility-disabled plaintiff who sued the Del Taco Corporation in federal district court under the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act after he encountered a number of architectural barriers at a corporate-owned Del Taco restaurant in southern California. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on the ADA and Unruh Act claims after finding, among other things, that the restroom doorway was too narrow and that widening the same was “readily achievable”.

Del Taco appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who then remanded the matter back to the California Supreme Court to answer two certified questions:

1. Must a plaintiff who seeks damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code section 52) claiming the denial of full and equal treatment on the basis of disability in violation of the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code section 51, prove “intentional discrimination”?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is “yes,” what does “intentional discrimination” mean in this context?

There is ample statutory authority and relevant case law to allow the California Supreme Court to simply respond “no” and end the debate. In fact, in 1992, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was amended to state that “[a] violation of the right of any individual under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 . . . shall also constitute a violation of this section.” It is well settled in federal court that intentional discrimination need not be proven to establish an ADA violation. See Lentini v. California Center for the Arts, 370 F.3d 837, 847 (9th Cir. 2004); Wilson v. Haria & Gogri Corp., 479 F.Supp. 1127, 1137 (E.D.Cal. 2007).

It naturally begs the question: if the Unruh Act has incorporated the ADA (and the ADA does not require a finding of intentional discrimination), then why should the Unruh Act require a finding of intent?

Not surprisingly, the private business sector wants the California Supreme Court to require proof of intentional discrimination in order to avoid the statutory damage minimum of $4,000 under Civil Code section 52. To that end, a number of amicus briefs have been submitted from business-related entities including the National Federation of Independent Business and Los Burritos, Inc.

Pro-access groups have filed competing amicus briefs, including the California Council of the Blind, the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers, Californians for Disability Rights, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the Disability Rights Legal Center, the Aids Legal Referral Panel, and The Impact Fund.

Where we end up is anyone’s guess. Taco anyone?