Brito sued Wyndham Hotels and Resorts for various violations of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). According to the case Brito v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, 2018 WL 317464 (D. Colo., 01082018), the plaintiff required a wheelchair to ambulate due to his paraplegic state ( Brito v. JP ANTLERS LLC, 2018) . The refusal of the hotel to accord him the necessary effects impacted negatively on his enjoyment and use of the hotel services.
Although the hotel challenged the standing, the plaintiff proved that he was a frequent visitor at the hotel, and he confirmed that he used the hotel on various occasions for “pleasurable purposes.” The plaintiff also proved that he lived close to the hotel and would frequently make a return for the said services. During his two day stay, the plaintiff alleged that he encountered numerous violations that denied him the opportunity to enjoy the facilities at the premises. The said violations impacted negatively on him. As a frequent visitor, the plaintiff argued that he deserved excellent service, and his condition was to remain a priority for the hotel.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Applicants, employees, and customers are eligible for protection as per the Federal Americans with Disabilities (Francis & Silvers, 2015). Persons with a disability require reasonable accommodation that includes but not limited to restructuring premises to accommodate their needs, adjusting policies, constructing accessibility features, and offering assistive devices, among others ( Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 2008) . However, a business is not required to provide every demand as some may put unnecessary strain on the business operations. Such may exists if the requirement by the disabled person puts high straining needs that may affect the financial ability of the business or nature of activities (Lovett, 2014). At the same time, the premises may offer an alternative that is within reasonable grounds for use by the disabled person.
In the Brito v. Wyndham Hotels and Resorts, LLC, 2018 WL 317464 (D. Colo., 01082018), the defendant must prove to the court that the client’s demands were beyond the reach of the hotel. It must also attest to the court that it offered an alternative to the client that would have provided similar enjoyment and privileges as was required to constitute full enjoyment. The defendant also had the task to show that it did not violate any or discriminate the client due to his disability status ( Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island, 2008) . For example, the hotel premises argued that over the years, since the client started using its premises, it has often provided the best services and realigned most of its operations to accommodate the unique needs of the client. The defendant had the task to prove that it has, over the years, provided the best services to the client, and the current misunderstanding was due to too many demands placed on the establishment.
The long history of the client’s use of the hotel was proof enough that he received the best services from the hotel. The plaintiff had the task of proving that he had suffered an injury due to the violations (Lovett, 2014). The legal issue of a breach thus rested on how frequent the client used the hotel services, any case of an infringement in the previous years, and the hotel’s facilities towards the customer on the earlier visitations. If the client can prove an injury and a history of the same over the years, then the case is in favor of the plaintiff. However, the case may be thrown out on a technicality basis is given that the premises have over the years accorded the excellent client services. These have often enticed the client to come back to the hotel for his “pleasurable purposes,”
References
Brito v. JP ANTLERS LLC , Civil Action No. 17-cv-01956-CMA-NYW (D. Colo. Jan. 8, 2018).
Francis, L., & Silvers, A. (Eds.). (2015). Americans with disabilities . Routledge.
Lovett, B. J. (2014). Testing accommodations under the Amended Americans with disabilities act: the voice of empirical research. Journal of Disability Policy Studies , 25 (2), 81-90.
Schwarz v. City of Treasure Island , 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008).
