In a case that could set important precedent for how teams and stadiums handle wheelchair seating requests, a federal district judge Wednesday denied the San Francisco 49ers’ motion to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit brought by 78-year-old Enrique Maya, who uses a wheelchair since suffering from polio as a child, and his son, Rick Maya.
“We believe all fans should be able to enjoy events regardless of accommodation needs, and we comply fully with all accessibility regulations,” a 49ers spokesperson told Sportico in a written statement. “We cannot comment further on an ongoing piece of litigation.”
The case centers on whether the ADA requires a team to provide alternative seating for a wheelchair users whose ticket is not for a wheelchair accessible seat.
While the legal issues stemming from Enrique Maya’s time at Levi’s Stadium on Dec. 10, 2023, remain contested, there’s no dispute he had a terrible experience watching the 49ers host the Seattle Seahawks.
Enrique Maya’s complaint says he joined Rick and two grandsons in what was a “last-minute” change in plans. Rick’s wife was supposed to go but became unable, so Rick invited his dad, who said yes. The wife’s seat, which was seven steps from the concourse level, was not intended for a wheelchair user.
When they arrived at the stadium, the family realized they couldn’t push Enrique’s wheelchair to their seats. So, Rick pushed the wheelchair to an unoccupied wheelchair-designated seat on the concourse level. An usher told them that they couldn’t use that space since they didn’t have a ticket. Rick asked where else they could go, but the usher didn’t know.
The usher then called security, and soon thereafter a security staff member named Sean arrived. Sean, who the Mayas claim said it’s “not my problem” that they didn’t have the right ticket, said Enrique could watch the game on a TV hung from the ceiling in the concourse. But Rick said that was an unacceptable arrangement. His dad would then be situated in a busy area next to the men’s bathroom and a beer stand and in the path of foot traffic. Sean allegedly responded that was their only option, and he directed them to “move the chair” or else they’d be asked to leave.
Then, the Mayas claim, three uniformed Santa Clara City police officers arrived to monitor the conversation, which included Sean threatening to eject the family from the stadium. The complaint contends Enrique told his family to stay, because he “did not want his family’s outing ruined on his account.”
At that point, Rick and his two sons lifted Enrique out of his wheelchair and carried him to his ticketed seat. Enrique felt “embarrassed” as “people were staring” at him—a grown man—being carried, especially after those people had just seen the police arrive. He also felt “ashamed” that his son and grandsons were carrying him in front of a crowd of onlookers.
The situation went from bad to worse when Enrique had to use the bathroom.
Although he “tried not to drink anything so that the need [to urinate] would not arise,” Enrique “hated the experience of being carried so much” that he didn’t ask for help when “it became urgent to use the restroom.” He instead urinated on himself and “spent the rest of the game in humiliation, dreading that his family would know when they had to carry him back up the stairs at the end of the game.”
He also became “worried that others would see or smell the urine.”
The Mayas say this whole time the wheelchair spaces remained unoccupied. After the game Rick called the 49ers’ customer service line but was told the staff followed applicable procedures and “the rules of the NFL.” A supervisor noted that a person who doesn’t have a ticket to a particular seat or space, even if it remains unoccupied, doesn’t have a right to occupy that space.
The Mayas say the experience was nightmarish and has made Enrique unwilling to leave the house for other events, including to watch his grandson’s college baseball games. Through their attorney, disability rights specialist Celia McGuinness, Enrique and Rick bring claims under the ADA and state statutes. The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of accommodation, including sports stadiums.
In his order, U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts noted there’s no debate that Enrique Maya has a limitation that qualifies as a disability under the ADA or that Levi’s Stadium must comply with the ADA.
The debate is whether the ADA protected Maya in a situation where despite his ticket going to an area inaccessible to wheelchairs, he wished to occupy a wheelchair-accessible area for which he had no ticket.
The 49ers argue it is telling how despite “robust” ADA regulations regarding ticketing and seating at sporting events, “nowhere” do those regulations “include a requirement that a venue must permit a non-ticketed person with a disability to occupy an accessible ticketed location on demand.” The team also points out that the ADA doesn’t require a team or facility to allow a spectator to occupy a seat for which they didn’t purchase a ticket. As the 49ers see it, the law is clearly on their side.
But the Mayas insist the ADA still applies in their favor. They note the 49ers have a policy requiring wheelchair users “to buy wheelchair seat tickets in advance if they wish to have a viewing experience comparable to that of other spectators” but that “non-disabled” fans aren’t required to pre-purchase tickets and can make a “last-minute” decision to change who uses a ticket. The Mayas argue that disabled persons are thus denied “full and equal enjoyment” of the stadium.
The Mayas also insist that the 49ers failed to make a reasonable accommodation, which could have been giving Enrique access to the empty wheelchair spaces. The 49ers reject that argument, saying there is no ADA requirement that they permit a spectator to occupy a seat for which the spectator doesn’t have a ticket.
Pitts reasoned that the Mayas, who claim damages for emotional distress, humiliation and unwanted negative attention, have offered plausible arguments that ought to advance. He noted that the Mayas didn’t request a specific modification, but instead a reasonable one.
The case thus moves to pretrial discovery, meaning both sides will be asked to give sworn testimony and share evidence. This setback for the 49ers doesn’t mean they will lose the case, but they’ll need to continue to litigate. It’s possible the two sides could reach an out-of-court settlement.
