Essay on Law case

United States v. Days Inns of Am., Inc., 22 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Ky. 1998)
In this case, the plaintiff is Federal government and the defendant is Days Inn of American Corporation. The defendant got the lawsuit because they fall to design and construct the disable accessible facility when connect the new construction or alternations. In generally, the plaintiff wants to win just need to demonstrate three categories things. First is demonstrated there is unequal treatment for individuals disable; second is that demonstrated that disable is difficult or impossible to gain access or use some area or feature; the third is that demonstrated their exist the potential safety hazard for disable. The defendant agreed that they needs to repair to follow the ADA regulations.
However the plaintiff lose the lawsuit, because plaintiff accused the franchisor of the company. In the § 302 there is clearly state that the owners, operators, lessors, and lessees have the liable, however the franchisor is not the any character of them. The plaintiff thought the defendant is the operator, but the hotel franchisor’s influence the franchisee’s day-to-day operation, it is not operator under the ADA. And the purpose of franchisor is the train the manager and employees of franchised hotels, improve the quality of the day-to-day running, and customer experience in hotel.
Also the words “design and construct” may cause the dispute, this may refer the material suppliers or someone else.
So overall, the plaintiff failed the lawsuit.
Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 643 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2010) In July 26, 2010, a paraplegic named Maurizio Antoninetti who used wheelchair brought action in the US District of California Court against the Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., which operated the famous Mexican fast-food restaurants. In this case, the point is whether the Chipotle’s restaurant unable accommodates customers with disabilities the requirements of the ADA. The ADA aim to protect the people who with disabilities avoid the discrimination during the daily life. The plaintiff Antoninetti shows his argues under this legal regulation. The restaurant has a wall with 45 inches high which separating the customers' service road and food preparation counter. Antoninetti considered the wall in the restaurant is against the ADA rules that ensure “lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public,” because he in wheelchair cannot see the food preparation counter. But this rule did not suitable for the wall between customer walking road and food preparation counter. The court in favor of Chipotle’s restaurant, this ADA rules does not apply to their food preparation counter. A maximum height of 36 inches is required a portion of the main counter by the ADA rules. The Chipotle’s restaurant the food preparation counter connect the transaction station, is only 34 inches above the floor. So Chipotle considered it is satisfied the requirement. The court dismissed this argument. Because there is a wall with 45 inches high which in front of food preparation counter. The wall prevents the wheelchair's customers to viewing food preparation. Also there are different functions between the food preparation counter and transaction station. Food preparation counter was used to customers view, select their food, and the transaction station was used for customers’ checkout. At last the court gives us a conclusion that Chipotle's restaurant did not violate the ADA rules and that Antoninetti was not entitled to reversing the verdict.
Sharp v. Islands Rest.-Carlsbad, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1114 (S.D.

Show More

Law and Case Law Questions Essay

Sociology Of Law Case

Case Study On Law

Law Case Essay

law case Essay

The Law Of The Case Of Mr. Chou's Law

Comstock Law Case Analysis

Unjust Law: Case Study

Canadian Law Case Study

law case study Essay