Macy’s Found to Violate Laws for the Disabled

From its entrance and aisles to its dressing rooms and cash registers, Macy’s flagship Union Square store here violates state and federal laws requiring access for disabled people and must be made easier for them to navigate, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The decision by Chief Judge Marilyn Hall Patel of the U.S. District Court applies only to the chain’s main San Francisco store and its Men’s Store, but advocates for the disabled hailed it as a victory.

“This is a case of nationwide importance,” said Larry Paradis, executive director of Disability Rights Advocates, the nonprofit legal advocacy group that filed the suit against Macy’s. “[The judge] sent a very clear message to the entire retail industry that the Americans With Disabilities Act really does have to be followed and really requires changes from business as usual,” he said.

Two other class-action lawsuits are pending against all of Macy’s California stores. One case--against just the Sacramento store--was put on hold to await Thursday’s decision. The larger suit--which accounts for 83 other stores--will also be presided over by Patel.

Rina Neiman, a spokeswoman for Macy’s West, said the company had not had a chance to review the 29-page decision and had no comment. Tim Pierce, one of the attorneys representing Macy’s, also declined to comment, saying he too had not reviewed the decision.

In recent years, the presence of Macy’s has greatly increased in California as its parent company--Federated Department Stores, which operates more than 400 department stores in 36 states--acquired Bullocks, Broadway and I. Magnin.

“The impact will go beyond Macy’s,” said Linda Kilb, an attorney with the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund in Berkeley. “Macy’s is a large, prominent chain and this case involved issues that are not unique to Macy’s. This will clarify the obligations of large retail chains.”

Disability Rights Advocates sued on behalf of several men and women with disabilities who complained that the retail giant violates the federal Americans With Disabilities Act and California law in the sprawling store in San Francisco’s premier shopping district.

The disabled shoppers argued that state and federal laws require Macy’s to make its stores more accessible, in part by widening aisles to fit the electric wheelchairs and scooters they use to get around.

Glen Vinton, one of the plaintiffs, suffered a spinal cord injury in a diving accident 28 years ago and testified during the 1998 trial that gaining access to the retailer is difficult at best.

“Once you’re in a wheelchair, the most difficult thing is asking for help,” Vinton testified. “Every time you have to do that, you lose a little bit of your independence, and to me, independence is very, very important.”

Macy’s argued that every available inch of floor space is needed for displaying wares for the massive retailer to stay competitive, and that if aisles were widened it would change the fundamental nature of the business and cause it to lose money.

Bill Dombrowski, president of the California Retailers Assn., could not be reached for comment Thursday. At the time of the trial, Dombrowski said the industry fully supported the Macy’s position, which he said was based on economic realities of the retail business.

But Patel said in her decision that Macy’s presented no evidence during the trial that sales would be lost if it widened its aisles to 36 inches.

Some Passages Just 1 Foot Wide

During trial, witnesses testified that areas between display racks can be as narrow as a foot.

“In fact, the evidence indicates that Macy’s may already be past the point of diminishing returns,” the judge wrote, “such that widening pathways might encourage shoppers who would otherwise be deterred from shopping at Macy’s Union Square as much as they would if the store environment were less crowded.”

The 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act required that “readily achievable” steps be taken by January 1992 to remove barriers to access at public facilities. Newly constructed and renovated facilities were held to a higher standard, including a requirement for 36-inch aisles to allow for wheelchairs.

In a litany of violations, Patel ruled that fitting rooms designated as accessible to the handicapped at Macy’s do not have the required lowered benches and clothing hooks, that floors with changing elevations impede accessibility, that many public telephones are too high, and that a company goal of providing 24-inch to 30-inch pathways breaks federal law.

Patel ordered Macy’s to designate an employee to review display layouts to “ensure that access is maximized,” to make at least one fitting room in each sales area accessible, and to bring all restrooms in renovated areas into compliance with federal law.

At least one main entrance in each renovated area must be made accessible, and signs must be posted to direct shoppers to features that improve maneuverability. And the judge ordered Macy’s and the plaintiffs to come up with a plan within 60 days to implement her orders.

“Macy’s has failed to even consider various alternative means of providing access, such as those utilized by other department stores,” Patel wrote. “The court was persuaded that, taken as a whole, plaintiffs’ testimony demonstrated a pattern overall of lack of access which worsens at certain times of the year when Macy’s increases its merchandise inventory.”

In fact, Paradis said that around this time of year his organization receives an increase in complaints from across the country from people who use wheelchairs, walkers, canes or scooters. As the holiday shopping season approaches, retailers crowd stores with more merchandise.