On September 9, 1992, Theodore A. Pinnock filed one of the first ADA cases in the Nation.  The case name is Pinnock v. IHOP.  Click Here To Download Opinion In MS Word

Theodore A. Pinnock filed a complaint on September 9, 1992 against Defendant, Majid Zahedi, owner of an International House of Pancakes restaurant ("IHOP"). The complaint was filed after three months of attempting to resolve the case without litigation.

Pinnock is unable to walk and use a wheelchair. Pinnock dined at the defendant's restaurant on June 21, 1992, and then attempted to use the restroom. The entrance to the restroom, however, was not wide enough to admit his wheelchair. Pinnock therefore removed himself from his wheelchair and crawled into the restroom.

After the encounter Pinnock attempted to resolve the dispute with IHOP. At the time he contacted IHOP, Pinnock had a consulting firm to assist businesses in finding cost-effecting and alternative methods of complying with the ADA and authored two guidebooks to help businesses comply with the law, and to avoid lawsuits. However, IHOP was not interested in these methods nor in negotiating the dispute.

Therefore, as a result of the encounter and IHOP's unwillingness to negotiate, Plaintiff, Theodore A. Pinnock ("Pinnock") filed the complaint against Defendant, Majid Zahedi, owner of an International House of Pancakes restaurant ("IHOP"). Pinnock, an attorney representing himself, is unable to walk and use a wheelchair. Pinnock dined at the defendant's restaurant on June 21, 1992, and then attempted to use the restroom. The entrance to the restroom, however, was not wide enough to admit his wheelchair. Pinnock therefore removed himself from his wheelchair and crawled into the restroom. As a result of this encounter, Pinnock alleged nine causes of action against IHOP. Five of the causes of action arouse under state law, alleging violations of the state health and safety code, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and infliction of emotional distress. The remaining four causes of action were alleged under the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), based on IHOP's alleged failure to comply with the statue's provisions governing access for disabled individuals in public accommodations ("title III").

Pinnock v. IHOP is the first ADA case which clearly explains what businesses are required to do to comply with the accessibility features Title III of the ADA. Also, the case is a landmark court decision in the area of civil rights for persons with disabilities. The case was  reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari filed by IHOP.

There are several cogent reasons that Pinnock is a precedent setting case. First, the constitutional challenges raised by IHOP were questions of first impression for any Federal Court. Before Pinnock no federal or state court decided whether or not the accessibility requirements of Title III of the ADA violated the U.S. Constitution. 

Second, it is the first decision to clearly delineate guidelines for businesses and their attorneys to follow for the purposes of making facilities accessible and defending against ADA Title III lawsuits.

Third, Pinnock makes it incumbent on businesses to consult ADA Title III's statute, legislative history, administrative regulations and the Department of Justice ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual in their good faith efforts to comply with the title. Fourth, the case held because Title III is marked by well-reason flexibility and breadth, businesses need not fear it would cost too much to comply with the law. Fifth, Pinnock made it clear Title III does not deprive businesses of their reasonable investment backed expectations. Sixth, Pinnock unequivocally ruled failure to comply with the barrier removal requirement is a form of discrimination. Seventh, the mere loss of approximately 20 seating places will not deny businesses of all economically viable use of its property.

Eighth, ADA Title III does not displace local building codes and state and local officials are not required to enforce the title. Ninth, Congress properly enacted Title III under its power to regulate interstate commerce as provided by the U.S. Constitution and discrimination based on disability affects interstate commerce. Tenth, ADA Title III's terms do not violate the Constitution because the terms are not vague. Eleventh, ADA Title III does not violate the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Twelfth, ADA Title III does not apply retroactively to existing businesses because they had 18 months to comply with the law before they could be sued. Thirteenth, ADA Title III regulation of businesses is not a taking for which just compensation is required under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Fourteenth, Congress did not unconstitutionally delegate its authority to the Executive Branch by enacting Title III.

Telephone: 619.858.3671 * Facsimile: 619.858.3646

www.PinnockWakefieldLaw.com