A group of wheelchair users and disability rights advocates sued
Macy's West yesterday for allegedly failing to widen aisles and take
other steps to make merchandise accessible to mobility-impaired
customers.
The class-action lawsuit is the third such case to hit Macy's West
in the past two years. The latest legal action covers all Macy's
department stores in California except for San Francisco's Union
Square stores and Sacramento's Downtown Plaza location, which are the
targets of separate but similar suits filed in 1996.
A Macy's spokeswoman declined comment yesterday, saying the
company does not discuss pending litigation. However, the company has
denied wrongdoing in court filings in the previous suits.
The plaintiffs allege violations of the California civil code as
well as the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, a civil
rights law designed to give disabled people similar access to public
facilities as able-bodied people.
Oakland-based Disability Rights Advocates, a nonprofit group that
has brought all three suits, receives more complaints about Macy's
than any other retailer, said Laurence Paradis, DRA's lead attorney
and a wheelchair user.
The floor of the Union Square main store is sometimes so
crowded with racks that walkways are as narrow as 10 inches, said
Paradis. ``It's like being a rat in a maze, you're not able to get to
things, you get caught in some areas and it's gotten worse over the
years.''
Under the ADA, businesses are required to evaluate facilities
built or renovated before January 1992 and make accommodations that
are ``readily achievable'' and not unduly burdensome.
Buildings that are constructed or renovated after January 1992 are
required to meet a strict list of ADA requirements, including
maintaining aisle widths of at least 36 inches and making certain
that doors, bathrooms, drinking fountains and other facilities are
accessible to people who use aids such as wheelchairs, walkers and
crutches.
The three suits, which are being tried separately and encompass a
total of 83 stores, maintain that Macy's has failed to abide by the
law in both instances.
In depositions taken for the Union Square stores trial, which
begins next week, Macy's executives ``admitted that they never made a
single effort to reconfigure anything to improve access,'' Paradis
said.
Lawyers yesterday were divided over the potential impact of the
lawsuits. Rulings in the three cases would be legally binding on only
the named stores -- not on other Macy's locations or other merchants
doing business in the state.
However, Macy's parent company, Cincinnati-based Federated
Department Stores, operates more than 400 department stores in 36
states, including the Bloomingdales, Burdines and Stern's chains.
Paradis asserts that Federated could feel pressured to change its
practices company
wide and that other retailers would follow its lead.
As a precedent, Paradis cited the 1996 settlement of a lawsuit he
brought against United Artists Theatres. ``Throughout the industry,
theaters began paying a lot more attention to access for people with
all kinds of disabilities,'' said Paradis, who also led the recently
settled lawsuit against BART.
But Stephen Gold, a disability rights attorney in Philadelphia,
noted that any court action in San Francisco would not ``set a legal
precedent for Macy's in any other state'' or for other merchants in
California.
A top issue of contention in the Union Square case is whether
reconfiguring the selling floors would have a significant financial
impact on Macy's business.
In next week's trial, Macy's plans to present as evidence a report
by Price Waterhouse which found that any reduction in selling space
would lead to an equivalent decline in sales. For example, if 5
percent less of the selling floor were stocked with
merchandise, sales would decline by 5 percent, according to
the accounting firm.
This would hurt Federated's stock price, said the report, which
was provided to The Chronicle by the plaintiffs.
But Peter Blanck, a law professor at the University of Iowa, said
that just the opposite proved true in a study he performed for Sears,
Roebuck & Co.
Widening the aisles at Sears ``had a ripple effect that enhanced
their shareholder value'' and sales because the stores attracted more
people such as mothers with strollers and elderly people, said
Blanck.
``The costs are rather minimal compared to the payoff'' of ADA
compliance, he said.
Even if the court is convinced that Macy's would lose sales,
Federated would still have to prove that the loss would be a
significant burden to stave off a court order to widen its aisles,
lawyers said.
Given Federated's profits last year of $536 million on sales of
$15.7 billion, that might be a difficult case to make, they said.
Macy's aside, retailer violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act are rampant, according to disability rights lawyers.
Since many merchants believe the necessary changes would be costly,
and since the ADA does not allow for financial penalties, there is
little financial incentive to comply.
The U.S. Justice Department, which has limited enforcement
authority over the ADA, is overwhelmed by a backlog of thousands of
complaints, said Gold.
A Justice spokeswoman said the department is currently
investigating about 1,300 ADA cases including 115 retailers for
alleged violations. None of the investigations involve Macy's or
other Federated subsidiaries.
The three separate filings are the result of the way the cases
evolved, said Paradis. DRA initially received a host of complaints
about the Union Square and Sacramento stores. But complaints about
additional stores also started rolling in, so the attorneys decided
to lump them all into a third suit.
The plaintiffs in yesterday's suit are Theresa Camalo of San
Rafael, Renee Pollard of Larkspur, the Marin Center for Independent
Living and Californians for Disability Rights.
In the class action against the Union Square main store and men's
store, Ellen Lieber and Glen Vinton are the plaintiffs.
The Sacramento case, also a class action, was filed in U.S.
District Court in Sacramento. It is expected to move to trial next
year. The plaintiffs are Susan Barnhill, Catherine Campisi, Hollyn
DeLil and Patricia McPartland of Sacramento, and Chico residents
Howard Ripley and Brenda Pickern, as well as Californians for
Disability Rights.
The DRA plaintiffs are requesting undetermined monetary damages
under the California civil code.
