A federal judge won’t force the Chicago National League Ball Club to revamp the Federal League-era Wrigley field, calling the final out on a lawsuit from a man who accused the Cubs of coming up short on accessible seating options during a major renovation project.
David F. Cerda, who filed his initial complaint in December 2017, has Duchenne muscular dystrophy and requires a wheelchair for mobility. He said the right-field seating area he formerly used became a specially ticketed area with a bar following renovations completed to Wrigley’s bleachers. While wheelchair areas remain in the lower box portion of Wrigley’s stadium bowl, Cerda asserted the accessible seats were several more rows removed from the field of play than they had been prior to the 2014 overhaul, making it more difficult to watch the game, particularly when other fans stood. Cerda also claimed the ADA requires the Cubs to offer 217 accessible seats, while he claimed the Cubs only offered 42 such seats during the 2018 season.
In an opinion filed June 21, U.S. District Judge Jorge Alonso — who earlier refused to fully dismiss the complaint and also turned away the team’s summary judgment motion — explained that after a five-day bench trial he conducted in April, as well as review of post-trial submissions, he determined Cerda didn’t meet the burden of proving liability.
In August 2022, Alonso said the team’s filings show the stadium only has 188 seats designated as accessible, about two dozen shy of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s 2010 minimum requirement. But following the trial, he said the team showed a total of 225 accessible seats even excluding those included in suite or group areas.
Cerda, according to Alonso, claimed “15 accessible seats on the 300 level are not compliant with the ADA because they do not meet the minimum applicable dimensions required by the 2010 Standards for wheelchair spaces.” However, the judge continued, Cerda had “no credible evidence” supporting that allegation.
Regarding the 300 level, the Cubs used as an expert witness Doug Anderson, who was on the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board when it drafted the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Anderson then led the Access Board when the U.S. Department of Justice adopted the 2010 Standards.
Alonso said Anderson measured the seats in question and asserted ADA compliance. He further noted Cerda didn’t provide his own measurements, but disputed the impact of angled railings in a few sections. But that argument relied on the concept of a “circulation path” for assistive mobility devices, Alonso wrote, a subject on which “the 2010 Standards are silent.”
“Common sense dictates that egress safety requirements for any given facility depend in part upon considerations of its intended use and occupancy,” Alonso wrote. He said Anderson offered further testimony regarding aisle widths, then rejected Cerda’s contention the Cubs couldn’t count the space under angled railings in their calculations — a situation he personally viewed while considering his decision.
“The railings at issue here are affixed in concrete between the wheelchair spaces and a not-insubstantial vertical drop-off to the row of seats immediately in front of and below the wheelchair platform and would prevent patrons from stepping or falling off the drop-off,” Alonso wrote. “They plainly function as a safety guardrail and/or handrail” and are to be considered as architectural components and design elements.
Alonso further examined “the specific knee and toe clearance required by the 2010 Standards” and noted Anderson’s “unrebutted evidence” the Cubs are in compliance. Although Alonso said it is “most unfortunate” that Cerda’s specific wheelchair doesn’t fit in some of the 300-level seats, “these circumstances in and of themselves do not constitute a violation of the ADA.”
Cerda’s complaint also addressed the 200 level, section 501 and the Wrigley batter’s eye. Alonso agreed with the team’s position it was obligated to offer choices to patrons needing accessible seating substantially equivalent to the options available to all customers and said Cerda’s reliance on viewing angles isn’t substantially relevant to the 2010 standards in general and in the context of sports arenas.
“Most importantly, the evidence submitted at trial showed that patrons requiring accessible seats have a wide variety of seating locations, views of the field and experiences to choose from throughout Wrigley Field,” Alonso wrote. He pointed to Anderson’s testimony the terrace level, which represents 36% of all Wrigley seats, includes 34% of the park’s 225 total accessible seats.
Alonso also said that although some such seats provide limited access to the outfield scoreboards and video displays, “substantially equivalent information” is provided in other areas directed at the seats in question.
“Witnesses for the Cubs testified that the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ seat in the house is subjective, and any particular patron’s seating preferences, regardless of his or her need for an accessible seat, varies depending on his or her preferred view of the field, time of year, budget, the Cubs’ opponent during a particular game, weather, with whom the patron is attending or proximity to an accessible route, restrooms or concessions,” Alonso wrote. “The Cubs further introduced unrebutted evidence that season ticket sales for nonaccessible seats include thousands of seats on the Terrace Level, including approximately 3,000 behind the support columns for the upper deck and approximately 900 for which the videoboards in left and right field are not visible.”
Alonso entered judgment in favor of the Cubs.
Cerda is represented in the action by attorney David A. Cerda, of Chicago.
The Cubs are represented by attorneys Noah A. Finkel, Minh N. Vu and Kevin A. Fritz, of the firm of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, of Chicago.