11th Circuit Court of Appeals Vacates Ruling Against Plaintiff in Amusement Park Discrimination Case

In this case, the plaintiff argued that the amusement park imposed discriminatory eligibility criterion, in violation of the ADA, when it refused to permit him to ride on the Krakatau Aqua Coaster as he presented with only one hand, but no prosthetic. The ADA prohibits discriminatory eligibility requirements unless the criterion is “necessary.” Campbell argued that two natural, grasping hands was not necessary for safe riding. Universal argued that the eligibility requirements were “necessary” because it was required to comply with Florida law, which included complying with ASTM Standards and the manufacturer’s recommendations.

In this case, Universal received push back from the manufacturer on the chart of eligibility requirements related to limb permutations, which ultimately lead to the recommendation not to permit one-hand riders. While the court agreed that “necessary” can include preventing a direct threat to the health and safety of the individual rider, as well as others, it found that the manufacturer’s basis for excluding those with a natural missing limb was not founded. The manufacturer had raised concerns about the risk of a prosthetic coming off and striking someone or the ride.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the amusement park, in refusing to permit Campbell, who had only one hand, on the Krakatau Aqua Coaster could not rely on the manufacturer’s exclusion recommendation because there was no specifically known risk for anyone with a limb difference provided by the manufacturer. It then fell to the amusement park to show that the term “necessary” includes a manufacturer’s safety recommendation, which is based on an actual or known risk. As a result, the court vacated and remanded this case to the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida.

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}