Feldman v. Pro Football, Incorporated

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1021

SHANE FELDMAN; BRIAN KELLY; PAUL SINGLETON,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

PRO FOOTBALL, INCORPORATED; WFI STADIUM, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellants.

No. 09-1023

SHANE FELDMAN; BRIAN KELLY; PAUL SINGLETON,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

PRO FOOTBALL, INCORPORATED; WFI STADIUM, INCORPORATED,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:06-cv-02266-AW)

Argued: March 25, 2010 Decided: March 25, 2011

Before MICHAEL and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and James A. BEATY,
Jr., Chief United States District Judge for the Middle District
of North Carolina, sitting by designation.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge Beaty wrote a
separate opinion dissenting in part.

ARGUED: Roger William Yoerges, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants/Cross-Appellees. Joseph B.
Espo, BROWN, GOLDSTEIN & LEVY, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Kathryn J. Gainey,
STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants/Cross-
Appellees. Marc P. Charmatz, Rosaline Crawford, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, Law And Advocacy Center, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2
PER CURIAM:

Defendants Pro Football, Inc. and WFI Stadium, Inc.

operate, respectively, the Washington Redskins football team and

FedEx Field, where the Redskins play home games. Plaintiffs are

three individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who

regularly attend Redskins games at FedEx Field. Plaintiffs

argue that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) obligates

defendants to provide auxiliary access to the content of

broadcasts from FedEx Field’s public address system. Soon after

plaintiffs filed their complaint, defendants captioned most of

the aural content to which plaintiffs seek access. The district

court nevertheless held that the case was not moot and granted

summary judgment to plaintiffs.

The district court’s holding rested in part on the

fact that defendants were not providing plaintiffs with access

to the lyrics to music played over the stadium’s public address

system. Defendants appeal the district court’s summary judgment

ruling that the ADA requires them to provide plaintiffs with

auxiliary access to the aural content broadcast over the public

address system, including music lyrics. They ask this court to

decide whether deaf and hearing-impaired game spectators require

access to music lyrics in order to fully and equally enjoy

defendants’ goods, services, privileges, and facilities.

Whatever the poetic merit of the lyrics and their relevance to

3
the sport of football, 1 we agree with the district court that the

music played over the public address system during Redskins home

games is part of the football game experience that defendants

provide as a good or service, and that the ADA requires full and

equal access to the music lyrics. Accordingly, we affirm the

district court’s declaratory judgment requiring defendants to

provide auxiliary access to the aural content broadcast over

FedEx Field’s public address system. We also affirm the

district court’s holding that plaintiffs’ complaint cannot be

construed as requesting auxiliary access to aural content that

is not broadcast over the public address system, including the

content of a separate radio program.

I.

A.

Plaintiffs Shane Feldman, Brian Kelly, and Paul

Singleton are Maryland residents who regularly attend Washington

Redskins football games at FedEx Field in Landover, Maryland.

They are deaf or hard of hearing to a degree that renders them

unable to benefit from assistive listening devices. Defendant

1
Defendants’ “Half-Time Mix” includes lyrics like “Y’all
don’t really want it but the young got time / With a flow so
spec like . . . technologic / Shawty get loose, baby do what you
do, let me see you let down your hair.” Lil’ Mama, “Shawty Get
Loose” (Jive Records 2008). J.A. 586.

4
Pro Football, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that owns and

operates the Redskins. Defendant WFI Stadium, Inc. is a

Delaware corporation that owns and operates FedEx Field, where

the Redskins play home games. FedEx Field seats more than

91,000 fans. Defendants have always provided assistive

listening devices to spectators who are hard of hearing, but the

2006 football season marked the first time that defendants

captioned announcements made over the stadium’s public address

system. This change was prompted by communications between

defendants and plaintiff Feldman. Feldman first emailed

defendants in 2003, introducing himself as a season ticket

holder who was deaf and unable to benefit from assistive

listening devices. Feldman explained that during the games he

was “often at a loss” when the referees called penalties and

that he was unable to catch the number of the player who just

made a play. J.A. 94. His email also mentioned an incident

involving pepper spray during a 2002 night game when he was

unable to understand the stadium’s emergency announcement.

Feldman asked defendants to consider captioning the Jumbotron at

FedEx Field.

Feldman maintained correspondence with defendants in

2004 regarding possible auxiliary aids. Defendants did not want

to caption the Jumbotron because doing so would take up one-

third of the screen, significantly reducing the remaining video

5
portion. As an alternative, defendants proposed hand-held

captioning devices. Feldman responded that spectators who are

deaf or hard of hearing would not be pleased with these devices,

in part because of reported time delays between announcements

and the appearance of the captions and the nuisance of having to

glance repeatedly from the device to the field. In February

2006 the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), on behalf of

Feldman, wrote to defendants and explained that as a place of

public accommodation under the ADA, FedEx Field had a legal

obligation to afford full and equal enjoyment of its goods,

services, facilities, and privileges to spectators who are deaf

or hard of hearing. The NAD demanded that defendants caption

the stadium’s public address system announcements on the

“scoreboards/Jumbotrons.” J.A. 101. Specifically, the NAD

demanded captioning of “anything that is said by the referee,

the public address announcer, or anyone else using the public

address system.” Id.

Plaintiffs sued defendants on August 31, 2006. The

complaint alleged that defendants were violating Title III of

the ADA by refusing to caption the Jumbotrons and video monitors

at FedEx Field. Plaintiffs requested a declaratory judgment

that defendants were violating the ADA and an injunction

requiring defendants to “provide individuals with disabilities

equal access to the benefits of [defendants’] facilities,

6
programs, services, and activities.” J.A. 16. Specifically,

plaintiffs asked the court to order defendants to “provide and

display captioning on the Jumbotrons and video monitors at FedEx

Field for all announcements made over the public address system,

including all of the plays that just occurred, all of the

penalties called, safety and emergency information, and any

other announcements made over the public address system.” Id.

The first Redskins home game of the 2006 season was on

September 11, 2006. During the first game the only content

broadcast over the public address system that defendants

captioned was an emergency evacuation video. However,

defendants started captioning game information shortly

thereafter at the third Redskins home game on October 15, 2006,

just over a month after being served with the complaint. After

receiving Feldman’s criticisms of the hand-held captioning

devices in 2004, defendants had explored other options. They

decided to provide most of the captioning on FedEx Field’s two

light-emitting diode ribbon boards (LED boards) rather than on

the Jumbotrons. The LED boards are located on each side of the

stadium at the fifty-yard line and are visible from almost every

seat. Defendants hired a stenographer, Stephen Clark, as an

independent contractor to provide the captioning.

During the October 15 home game defendants captioned a

considerable amount of game information and other announcements.

7
On the LED boards defendants captioned: (1) a pre-game

announcement encouraging the fans to cheer; (2) after each play

an announcement stating the type of play, the names of the key

players involved, the number of yards gained or lost, the yard

line location of the ball, the down, and the number of yards

remaining until first down; (3) two-minute warning announcements

and announcements that the quarter had ended; (4) the referee’s

penalty explanations; (5) announcements that cheerleaders were

entering the field; (6) announcements regarding check

presentations and other non-musical entertainment during breaks

and halftime; (7) public service announcements and advertising;

and (8) the announcement of the game’s end, along with the final

score and information regarding the next home game. On the

Jumbotrons located in the stadium bowl, defendants captioned an

emergency evacuation video played before the game.

Additionally, defendants provided captioning in the concourse

areas of the stadium so that spectators who are deaf or hard of

hearing would not lose track of what was occurring on the field

when using the restroom or buying refreshments. The concourse

areas contain around 150 televisions, half of which caption the

network broadcast from the field while the other half display

the Jumbotron video feed. Defendants continue to provide this

captioning, and they represent to this court, just as they did

to the district court, that they will do so indefinitely.

8
 Three months after filing their complaint, plaintiffs

retained expert Lawrence Goldberg. Goldberg founded the

National Center for Accessible Media, a research center

dedicated to making new media technologies accessible to persons

with disabilities. Goldberg attended a Redskins home game in

December 2006 and wrote a report that analyzed the captioning

that defendants were providing and recommended captioning of

additional aural programming, including lyrics to songs played

for entertainment and a radio program (the Red Zebra program)

that is broadcast in the concourse areas and is separate from

the public address system broadcast. Goldberg based his

recommendation on the principle that “if there is spoken or

performed speech, or essential non-speech information provided

via audio systems, a usable text-equivalent should be provided

for people who cannot fully perceive such audio.” J.A. 399. As

he explained in his deposition: “[I]f audio is heard by a

hearing person, then it has some reason for being projected;

and, therefore, a deaf person should have equal access to that.”

J.A. 337.

B.

Defendants moved for summary judgment in January 2008,

and plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment in February

2008. Defendants contended that the case was moot because they

were captioning game and emergency information as requested in

9
the complaint and would do so indefinitely. Plaintiffs

responded that there remained a live controversy because

defendants could, with the “flip of a switch,” return to

violating the ADA. J.A. 109. Further, plaintiffs alleged that

defendants continued to violate the ADA by failing to caption

music lyrics and the Red Zebra radio program. Plaintiffs also

maintained that defendants were not providing full aural

accessibility because the LED board captions were not in the

same line of sight as the Jumbotrons, but they abandoned this

claim after the summary judgment hearing. Defendants urged that

the court could not grant relief on the captioning of music

lyrics and the radio program because these claims were outside

the scope of the complaint and were raised for the first time in

plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion.

The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ case was

not moot because defendants’ voluntary provision of captioning

did not satisfy the heavy burden of showing no reasonable

expectation that the alleged ADA violations would recur. On the

issue of which alleged ongoing violations were within the scope

of the complaint, the district court concluded that plaintiffs’

request for captioning music lyrics, but not their request for

captioning the radio program, was encompassed in the complaint.

The court relied upon the ongoing disputes regarding the

10
captioning music lyrics and the line-of-sight positioning of the

LED captions to bolster its holding that the case remained live.

On the substance of the ADA claim, the district court

awarded summary judgment to plaintiffs and held that the ADA

requires defendants to provide auxiliary aids for the aural

content broadcast over FedEx Field’s public address system,

including music lyrics. The court found it undisputed that the

Redskins could provide auxiliary access to the music lyrics

without undue burden. Because the ADA does not dictate a

particular auxiliary aid, the court declined to issue an

injunction requiring captioning as the means of access for the

music lyrics. Plaintiffs do not appeal this portion of the

district court’s ruling. Pursuant to the district court’s order

defendants make available typed copies of the lyrics to

plaintiffs by email before each game.

II.

On appeal defendants maintain that the district court

erroneously held (1) that plaintiffs’ claims were not moot and

(2) that the ADA requires defendants to provide auxiliary aids

for aural content broadcast over FedEx Field’s public address

system. Defendants take particular issue with the court’s

conclusion that the ADA requires them to furnish plaintiffs with

access to the lyrics to music that is played over the public

11
address system. Plaintiffs cross appeal, arguing that the

district court wrongly construed their request for captioning

the radio program as outside the scope of the complaint.

Alternatively, plaintiffs contend that their request for

captioning the Red Zebra radio program was tried by consent of

the parties. We affirm the district court’s order in its

entirety.

A.

We first address defendants’ assertion that

plaintiffs’ claims are moot. We review the district court’s

ruling on constitutional mootness de novo. 2 Green v. City of

Raleigh, 523 F.3d 293, 298 (4th Cir. 2008). A “case is moot

when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties

lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v.

McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). “Litigation may become

moot during the pendency of an appeal.” Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507

F.3d 281, 286 (4th Cir. 2007). “The requisite personal interest

that must exist at the commencement of the litigation . . . must

continue throughout its existence.” United States Parole Comm’n

v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 397 (1980) (quoting Henry P.

2
The district court also held that plaintiffs’ claims were
not prudentially moot. Defendants do not challenge this
holding.

12
Monaghan, Constitutional Adjudication: The Who and When, 82 Yale

L.J. 1363, 1384 (1973)).

A case may remain live even if the events giving rise

to the lawsuit cease. The “voluntary discontinuance of

challenged activities by a defendant does not necessarily moot a

lawsuit.” United States v. Jones, 136 F.3d 342, 348 (4th Cir.

1998). The exception to this general rule is when there is “no

reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” Lyons

P’Ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789, 800 (4th

Cir. 2001) (quoting United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S.

629, 633 (1953) (emphasis added)). “But this exception is just

that – an exception – and defendants ‘face a heavy burden to

establish mootness in such cases because otherwise they would

simply be free to return to [their] old ways’ after the threat

of a lawsuit has passed.” Id. (quoting W.T. Grant, 345 U.S. at

632).

While we commend defendants for providing most of the

relief that plaintiffs requested and for engaging with

plaintiffs on the benefits and burdens of particular auxiliary

aids, we agree with the district court that defendants have not

discharged their heavy burden of showing no reasonable

expectation that they will repeat their alleged wrongs.

Although defendants were investigating possible auxiliary aids

years before plaintiffs’ lawsuit, they did not actually provide

13
captioning until after plaintiffs filed their complaint. See

Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173, 1184 (11th

Cir. 2007) (noting that “whether the defendant’s cessation of

the offending conduct was motivated by a genuine change of heart

or timed to anticipate suit” is relevant to the voluntary

cessation analysis). Further, this is not a case in which

plaintiffs “control[] [their] own fate.” Incumaa, 507 F.3d at

289. Defendants maintain complete control over the captioning.

They hired one stenographer, Stephen Clark, as an independent

contractor to provide the captioning. If Clark for some reason

cannot provide his services at a Redskins home game, he arranges

for another certified stenographer to take his place. Given the

ease with which defendants could stop providing captioning, we

simply cannot say that they have made an affirmative showing

that the continuation of their alleged ADA violations is “nearly

impossible.” Lyons, 243 F.3d at 800; see also Tandy v. City of

Wichita, 380 F.3d 1277, 1291 (10th Cir. 2004) (observing in an

ADA case that defendants’ heavy burden under the voluntary

cessation doctrine is “typically . . . met only by changes that

are permanent in nature and that foreclose a reasonable chance

of recurrence”).

Equally important is the continued existence of a live

dispute over captioning music lyrics at Redskins games. The

district court construed plaintiffs’ complaint to encompass a

14
request for captioning of music lyrics. Because defendants had

not provided auxiliary aids for the lyrics, the court concluded

that this issue also remained live. As explained below, we

agree with the district court’s construction of the complaint

and therefore hold that plaintiffs’ case was not moot when the

court ruled on the parties’ summary judgment motions, nor is the

case moot before this court. Ramer v. Saxbe, 522 F.2d 695, 704

(D.C. Cir. 1975) (“A case is not moot so long as any single

claim for relief remains viable, whether that claim was the

primary or secondary relief originally sought.”) (citing Powell,

395 U.S. at 496-97).

Defendants argue that even if plaintiffs’ request for

captioning music lyrics is a live claim, this request must be

separated for mootness purposes from captioning emergency and

game-related information that defendants are voluntarily

providing. Because we agree with the district court that

defendants have not shown that a continuation of their alleged

ADA violations is nearly impossible, we likewise treat all of

plaintiffs’ requested relief as presenting a live claim.

B.

We now turn to the district court’s interpretation of

plaintiffs’ complaint. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)

requires a “pleading that states a claim for relief” to include

“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

15
pleader is entitled to relief” and “a demand for the relief

sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different

types of relief.” The statement of the claim must give the

defendant “fair notice” of the claim and the “grounds upon which

it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007). A “formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of

action will not do.” Id. “Factual allegations must be enough

to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id.

Plaintiffs did not explicitly request that defendants

caption the music lyrics accompanying the football game; this

specificity appeared for the first time in plaintiffs’ summary

judgment motion. Although the complaint never explicitly

mentions music lyrics, it does refer repeatedly to

“announcements made over the public address system” and

“captioning on the Jumbotrons and video monitors.” J.A. 8, 10,

11, 12, 15, 16. Besides requesting captioning of “plays that

just occurred,” “penalties called,” and “safety and emergency

information,” plaintiffs requested captioning of “any other

announcements made over the public address system.” J.A. 16.

The complaint also referred to “equal access to the information

. . . made over the public address system.” J.A. 15. Music is

part of the aural content that defendants broadcast on FedEx

Field’s public address system. By repeatedly referring to the

“public address system,” plaintiffs gave defendants fair notice

16
that they were seeking as much auxiliary access as possible to

the football game as experienced from the stadium bowl, an

experience which includes music.

C.

Before turning to defendants’ argument on the merits

of plaintiffs’ ADA claim, we dispose of plaintiffs’ cross-appeal

challenging the district court’s holding that the complaint did

not encompass a request for captioning the Red Zebra radio

program. As with the music lyrics, plaintiffs did not

specifically mention captioning the radio program until they

moved for summary judgment. Unlike the music lyrics, however,

the Red Zebra program is not part of the aural content broadcast

over FedEx Field’s public address system, which plaintiffs did

repeatedly reference in their complaint. The Red Zebra program

is a separate broadcast heard only in FedEx Field’s concourse

areas, and it includes different commentary than what is heard

in the stadium bowl. Although the complaint refers to the

“video monitors located in the concession areas,” J.A. 10, it

describes the content on the monitors to which plaintiffs sought

access as the “announcements made over the public address

system.” J.A. 16. The complaint describes the purpose of the

concourse monitors as “enabl[ing] attendees to keep track of

events on-field when they are not in their seats.” J.A. 10.

Because the requested relief focuses on what is broadcast from

17
the field, the district court properly held that plaintiffs’

request for captioning the Red Zebra program was outside the

scope of the complaint and could not be sought at the summary

judgment stage.

Plaintiffs argue that even if their complaint cannot

be construed to encompass captioning the radio program, this

issue was tried by implied consent of the parties under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b)(2). Rule 15(b)(2) provides that

“[w]hen an issue not raised by the pleadings is tried by the

parties’ express or implied consent, it must be treated in all

respects as if raised in the pleadings.” “Because notice to the

defendant of the allegations to be proven is essential to

sustaining a cause of action, Rule 15(b) applies only when the

defendant has consented to trial of the non-pled factual issues

and will not be prejudiced by amendment of the pleadings to

include them.” Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of

Richmond, 80 F.3d 895, 901 (4th Cir. 1996). The plain language

of Rule 15(b)(2) suggests that the non-pled issue must have gone

to trial. The rule “is designed to allow amendment of a

pleading when the facts proven at trial differ from those

alleged in the complaint, and thus support a cause of action

that the claimant did not plead.” Id. (emphasis added).

Courts of appeals are split regarding whether Rule

15(b)(2) applies at the summary judgment stage. See Ahmad v.

18
Furlong, 435 F.3d 1196, 1203 n.1 (10th Cir. 2006) (noting

circuit split). In People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v.

Doughney, 263 F.3d 359, 367 (4th Cir. 2001), we affirmed a

district court’s grant of summary judgment on an issue raised

for the first time in the plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment. We found that although the district court did not

allow formal amendment of the complaint to include the

plaintiffs’ subsequently raised claim, the court recognized

constructive amendment of the complaint by granting summary

judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor on the non-pled issue. Id. at

367-68.

Here, in contrast, the district court declined to

grant summary judgment on plaintiffs’ radio station claim

because it found that defendants did not consent to trial of

that claim. The court in Doughney found that the defendant had

fair notice of the non-pled claim because although the defendant

objected to plaintiffs’ belated claim, the defendant “also

vigorously defended against the claim.” Id. at 367.

Because defendants here merely objected to plaintiffs’

raising the radio program at the summary judgment stage, and did

not vigorously defend against it, they did not essentially try

or litigate the issue. In their response to plaintiffs’ summary

judgment motion, defendants focused primarily on their argument

that the radio program was not raised in the complaint and

19
therefore could not be used to avoid mootness. Moreover, the

bulk of that mootness argument focused on the undisputed fact

that defendants were already captioning play-by-play information

from the field in the concourse areas. Defendants’ only

response to the Red Zebra program specifically, other than their

general assertion that the ADA does not require captioning the

program, was a footnote observing that none of plaintiffs

claimed to read the captioned coverage from the field while in

the concourse areas. Thus, defendants maintained that there was

no factual basis for plaintiffs’ argument that “the content of

the radio broadcast is superior to that provided by the

television network broadcasters.” J.A. 21 (emphasis in

original). This does not amount to a vigorous defense against

providing auxiliary access to the Red Zebra program.

Plaintiffs also argue that implied consent may be

found in defendants’ failure to object to the introduction of

evidence relevant to the request for captioning the Red Zebra

program, namely Goldberg’s expert report that recommended

captioning the program. However, as the Ninth Circuit has said,

although “a party’s failure to object to evidence regarding an

unpleaded issue may be evidence of implied consent to trial of

an issue, it must appear that the party understood the evidence

was introduced to prove the unpleaded issue.” Campbell v. Bd.

of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ., 817 F.2d 499, 506 (9th

20
Cir. 1987). There is no indication of such an understanding on

this record.

D.

Defendants challenge the district court’s holding

requiring them to provide auxiliary aids that enable “equal

access to the aural information broadcast over the stadium bowl

public address system at FedEx Field.” J.A. 578. The court

defined the aural information as the “music with lyrics, play

information, advertisements, referee calls, safety/emergency

information, and other announcements.” Id. Defendants contend

this sweeps far broader than what the ADA requires, particularly

with regard to the lyrics to music broadcast over the stadium’s

public address system.

Title III of the ADA mandates that individuals who

visit places of public accommodation like FedEx Field may not

“be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full

and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,

privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public

accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Title III defines

discrimination in part as the

failure to take such steps as may be necessary to
ensure that no individual with a disability is
excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise
treated differently because of the absence of
auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can
demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally

21
 alter the nature of the good, service, facility,
privilege . . . or would result in an undue burden.

Id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). A Department of Justice (DOJ)

regulation implementing Title III further provides that “a

public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids

and services where necessary to ensure effective communication

with individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c).

Defendants do not contend that captioning the aural

information described in the district court’s order would

constitute a fundamental alteration or an undue burden. Our

inquiry is therefore limited to whether the ADA requires

defendants to provide auxiliary aids for the aural content

broadcast over the stadium bowl’s public address system in order

to provide plaintiffs with “full and equal enjoyment” of

defendants’ goods, services, facilities, and privileges. Id.

§ 36.201(a). Neither the ADA nor the regulations implementing

the ADA impart guidance on the specific content that places of

public accommodation must communicate to individuals who are

deaf or hard of hearing. The DOJ’s Technical Assistance Manual

for Title III indicates that the type of auxiliary aid that

ensures “effective communication” varies by context. U.S. Dep’t

of Justice, Civil Rights Division, The Americans with

Disabilities Act: Title III Technical Assistance Manual III-

4.3200. The regulation contemplates that, like the type of

22
auxiliary aid, the content that must be communicated by

auxiliary aids is also context-sensitive. What constitutes

“full and equal enjoyment” of a place of public accommodation’s

goods, services, facilities, and privileges necessarily varies

based on what the place provides to visitors and consumers.

We agree with the district court that in the context

of a professional football game at a large stadium like FedEx

Field, effective communication requires defendants to provide

auxiliary aids beyond assistive listening devices, which are

useless to plaintiffs, to convey the: (1) game-related

information broadcast over the public address system, including

play information and referee calls; (2) emergency and public

address announcements broadcast over the public address system;

and (3) the words to music and other entertainment broadcast

over the public address system. Plaintiffs need access to this

aural content to have full and equal access to the goods and

services that defendants provide at FedEx Field.

To resolve the issue, we must determine the goods and

services defendants provide. First and foremost, defendants

provide a live football game at FedEx Field. For plaintiffs to

enjoy a game on a level as equal as possible with hearing

spectators, they must be able to access, in both the stadium

bowl and concourse areas, the game-related information broadcast

over the public address system. Title III of the ADA also

23
requires defendants to provide auxiliary aids for the content of

emergency information, advertisements, and public service

announcements broadcast over the stadium bowl’s public address

system. Without auxiliary aids that provide emergency

information, spectators with disabilities are almost certain to

experience more stress in an emergency than hearing spectators.

Knowing that understandable instructions will accompany an

emergency, then, is necessary to the full and equal enjoyment of

the game. Advertisements and public service announcements are

also part of the services and privileges that defendants provide

because they communicate to spectators a message about the

Redskins’ stature and recognition among businesses and other

organizations. Advertisements communicate which entities

support the Redskins. Public service announcements indicate

which causes the Redskins support and how spectators might

become involved in those causes.

We also agree with the district court that defendants

“provide more than a football game.” J.A. 577-78. They provide

an entertainment experience. This experience includes aural and

visual components that, although not part of the game action,

play an important role in generating support for the game and

promoting spectator attendance. Full and equal enjoyment of

defendants’ goods, services, privileges, and facilities includes

aural access to the lyrics to music broadcast over the stadium

24
bowl’s public address system. Without this access plaintiffs

are “otherwise treated differently” because of the “absence of

auxiliary aids.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii). Music played

during a football game arouses enthusiasm and fosters a sense of

shared participation. The lyrics may be nonsensical, as

defendants point out, but even nonsensical lyrics may enhance

the environment of collective excitement that defendants provide

as part of their goods and services. By having access to the

lyrics, plaintiffs have the opportunity to participate in the

communal entertainment experience. Without access to lyrics

played, for example, during cheerleader dance routines and the

halftime show, plaintiffs would not fully and equally experience

the planned and synchronized promotional entertainment that

large stadiums like FedEx Field provide.

In holding that defendants must provide access to the

lyrics, we emphasize that, like the district court, we do not

require the auxiliary aids and services to take a particular

form. When an auxiliary aid of some kind is required, the

regulations acknowledge (1) that the type of aid necessary for

effective communication inevitably will vary with context and

(2) that “[t]he auxiliary aid requirement is a flexible one.”

28 C.F.R. pt. 36 App. B. What is more, “full and equal

enjoyment” is not so capacious as to “mean that an individual

25
with a disability must achieve an identical result or level of

achievement as persons without a disability.” Id.

The DOJ’s rulemaking activity does not alter this

result. The DOJ issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in June

2008 regarding the issue of captioning at sports stadiums. The

notice announced the DOJ’s awareness “that individuals who are

deaf or hard of hearing have expressed concern that they are

unaware of information that is provided over the public address

systems” at sports stadiums with a capacity of 25,000 or more.

Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public

Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities, 73 Fed. Reg. 34508,

34531-32 (proposed June 17, 2008). The DOJ therefore proposed

that large stadiums “provide captioning for patrons who are deaf

or hard of hearing for safety and emergency information

announcements made over the public address system.” Id. at

34532. The notice also announced the DOJ’s awareness that

several major stadiums, including FedEx Field, “currently

provide open captioning of all public address announcements, and

do not limit captioning to safety and emergency information.”

Id. The notice solicited comments on “the effect of a

requirement to provide captioning for patrons who are deaf or

hard of hearing for game-related information (e.g., play-by-play

information), safety, and emergency announcements, and any other

relevant announcements.” Id.

26
 On July 23, 2010, after oral argument in this case, the

DOJ issued final rules enforcing the accessibility standards of

Title III of the ADA. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of

Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities,

28 C.F.R. § 36, available at

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_combined.html.

With respect to the issue of captioning of “all public address

announcements,” rather than simply “safety and emergency

information,” the DOJ elected to “postpone rulemaking on this

complex issue.” Id. The DOJ based this decision on “a number of

factors, including the multiple layers of existing regulations by

various state agencies and levels of government, and the wide

array of information, requests, and recommendations related to

developing technology by the public.” Id. Thus, the DOJ

“concluded that further consideration and review is prudent

before it issues specific regulatory requirements.” Id.

Defendants maintain that the DOJ’s solicitation of

input and postponement of rulemaking on this issue indicates

that the DOJ does not interpret the ADA to require large

stadiums to provide auxiliary access to game-related

information, let alone music lyrics. We disagree. This action

demonstrates the DOJ’s alertness to problems like those

experienced by plaintiffs. It does not preclude the conclusion

that the ADA requires defendants to provide auxiliary access to

27
more than just safety and emergency information. The earlier

notice of proposed rulemaking explicitly contemplated that the

ADA may require captioning of game-related information and “any

other relevant announcements.” Nondiscrimination on the Basis

of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial

Facilities, 73 Fed. Reg. at 34531-32. The DOJ is continuing to

evaluate the effect of such a requirement. This evaluation

raises the possibility that the requirement could pose an undue

burden for some stadiums, or that it could fundamentally alter a

stadium’s goods and services, thus providing defenses to what

the ADA otherwise requires. The DOJ’s action does not, however,

indicate that large stadiums like FedEx Field need only furnish,

at most, auxiliary access to play-by-play game information. The

notice cited play-by-play information as one example of game-

related information and mentions “other relevant announcements,”

leaving open the possibility that spectators who are deaf or

hard of hearing must have auxiliary access to the promotional

and entertainment content of a stadium bowl’s public address

system in order to fully and equally enjoy the goods, services,

facilities, and privileges of the stadium.

28
 III.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the

district court is

AFFIRMED.

29
BEATY, Chief District Judge, dissenting in part:

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion to the

extent that it affirms the scope of the declaratory judgment

entered by the district court in this case. In my view, the

district court in this case erred by announcing a broad

declaratory judgment that required “equal access” to all “aural

content” at FedEx Field, rather than focusing on whether the

auxiliary aids provided by Defendants were sufficient to ensure

“effective communication.” By setting out an “equal access to

aural content” standard, the district court set out a rule that

would potentially require that all content broadcast over the

public address system at an athletic event at a public stadium

be captured and provided to deaf or hearing impaired individuals

in order to comply with the ADA, even though the ADA itself does

not include such a requirement, instead of following the

“auxiliary aid” analysis set out in the applicable statutory and

regulatory provisions.

The Americans with Disabilities Act prevents discrimination

on the basis of disability “in the full and equal enjoyment of

the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 12182(a). Under the statute, a place of public accommodation

must take necessary steps to ensure that hearing-impaired

individuals are not “excluded, denied services, segregated or

30
otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of

the absence of auxiliary aids and services,” unless such steps

would result in an undue burden or fundamental alteration in the

nature of the good, service, facility or privilege. 42 U.S.C.

§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) (emphasis added). The Department of

Justice regulations that implement these provisions state that

“[a] public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary

aids and services where necessary to ensure effective

communication with individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R.

§ 36.303(c). “The term ‘auxiliary aids and services’ includes

. . . [q]ualified interpreters, notetakers, computer-aided

transcription services, written materials, telephone handset

amplifiers, assistive listening devices, assistive listening

systems, telephones compatible with hearing aids, closed caption

decoders, open and closed captioning, telecommunications devices

for deaf persons (TDD’s), videotext displays, or other effective

methods of making aurally delivered materials available to

individuals with hearing impairments.” 26 C.F.R. § 36.303(b).

The Department of Justice has noted that “[t]he auxiliary aid

requirement is a flexible one. . . . [T]he Department believes

that Congress did not intend under title III to impose upon a

public accommodation the requirement that it give primary

consideration to the request of the individual with a

disability.” 28 C.F.R. part 36, App. B, Sec. 36.303. Thus,

31
“[a] public accommodation can choose among various alternatives

as long as the result is effective communication.” Id.

Under these statutory and regulatory provisions as they

relate to hearing-impaired individuals, public accommodations

should follow a three-step process: (1) a public accommodation

must provide auxiliary aids where necessary to ensure effective

communication; and (2) if this requirement is triggered and

auxiliary aids are needed to ensure effective communication, the

public accommodation can choose what auxiliary aids are provided

as long as the result is effective communication; but (3) the

public accommodation need not provide an auxiliary aid or

service if it would result in an undue burden or fundamental

alteration. Thus, the relevant focus is on whether auxiliary

aids are needed for, and result in, “effective communication.”

In the present case, under this analysis, the first

question is whether an auxiliary aid or service of some type

must be provided to ensure effective communication at

FedExField. If so, the analysis then moves to the second step:

whether the auxiliary aids chosen by Defendants result in

effective communication. In this regard, there were two types

of auxiliary aids or services offered by Defendants in this

case. First, there is no dispute that Defendants have been

providing assisted-listening devices as an auxiliary aid or

service since 1997. However, there is also no dispute that

32
those devices did not benefit Plaintiffs due to the nature of

Plaintiffs’ hearing impairments. Second, after this suit was

filed, Defendants attempted to address Plaintiffs’ concerns by

providing auxiliary aids that included captioning on the LED

boards at the 50-yard line of all public service announcements,

play calls, game announcements, emergency announcements, and

other announcements and information broadcast over the public

address system, in addition to captioning of the video feeds in

the concession areas. 1 However, the professional

stenographer/captioner providing the captioning did not caption

the lyrics to songs, because he testified that he followed the

“industry standard” of not captioning song lyrics due to

difficulty in understanding and correctly captioning the lyrics,

and because the software that he used did not allow him to

“prescript” the lyrics in advance. (Stephen Clark Dep., J.A.-

0433 to JA-0434).

Before the district court, Defendants disputed whether the

ADA required them to provide deaf and hard of hearing fans with

any type of auxiliary aids and services beyond the assistive-

listening devices in order to ensure effective communication.

The district judge properly rejected this contention, finding

1
Defendants also offered the possibility of a hand-held
captioning system. However, Plaintiff Feldman rejected this
option and the district court did not consider whether this type
of auxiliary aid would result in effective communication.

33
that the assistive-listening system provided by Defendants did

not result in effective communication for Plaintiffs, and

further finding that simply watching the game without any

auxiliary aid or service did not provide effective

communication. These findings rightly would have supported a

declaratory judgment that an auxiliary aid of some type must be

provided by Defendants beyond the assistive-listening devices,

unless undue burden or fundamental alteration could be

established.

However, the district court went beyond this analysis, and

rather than declaring that an auxiliary aid of some type was

necessary for effective communication, the district court

instead declared that “the ADA requires Defendants to provide

deaf and hard of hearing fans equal access to the aural

information broadcast over the stadium bowl public address

system at FedExField.” The district court then specifically

concluded that the ADA requires Defendants to provide auxiliary

aids with respect to the lyrics to the songs played during the

cheerleader’s dance routines. On this point, the district court

did not consider whether the captioning system being provided by

Defendants resulted in effective communication as a whole, and

instead created a separate analysis focusing on “equal access”

to a particular communication. While the ADA provides for “full

and equal enjoyment” of the services at a place of public

34
accommodation, the primary obligation is to furnish auxiliary

aids and services that provide an “effective method” of

communication. Thus, the district court’s focus on providing

“equal access” to the “aural content” but failure to evaluate

whether the auxiliary aids actually provided resulted in

“effective communication” goes beyond the regulatory framework. 2

In addition, the district court’s failure to consider

whether the auxiliary aids that were provided resulted in

effective communication left the second step in the analysis

unanswered. The Complaint in this case specifically requested

that all public announcements be captioned on the JumboTrons,

not the LED boards, but the district court did not consider

whether the auxiliary aid of captioning on the Jumbotrons, as

requested, was necessary for effective communication, nor did

2
The Department of Justice Technical Assistance Manual
includes a reference to “equal access.” However, the Technical
Assistance Manual explains that “[i]n order to provide equal
access, a public accommodation is required to make available
appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to
ensure effective communication.” Thus, even under the Technical
Assistance Manual, the obligation is framed in terms of
“effective communication.” The Technical Assistance Manual
further notes that “[t]he type of auxiliary aid or service
necessary to ensure effective communication will vary in
accordance with the length and complexity of the communication
involved” and “the ultimate decision as to what measures to take
to ensure effective communication rests in the hands of the
public accommodation, provided that the method chosen results in
effective communication.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civil Rights
Division, The Americans with Disabilities Act: Title III
Technical Assistance Manual III-4.3200.

35
the district court consider whether the auxiliary aid provided

by Defendants of captioning on the LED boards resulted in

effective communication. The district court did conclude that a

trial was necessary on one issue related to the LED captioning,

specifically, the “line of sight” issue regarding the location

of the LED boards, but that issue was subsequently dropped by

the Plaintiffs. Thus, the only issue remaining related to the

song lyrics, for which the district court concluded that “equal

access” was required, apart from any analysis of the auxiliary

aids that were being provided. Thus, the ultimate issues raised

in this case were not addressed, leaving ongoing questions

regarding the impact of the district court’s Judgment. 3

In my view, the auxiliary aids provided here, i.e., the

captioning that was provided on the LED boards and in the

concourse area, were sufficient to result in effective

communication, even if Defendants did not provide word-for-word

captioning of the songs in the cheerleader’s dance routines. Of

3
The difficulty in this conclusion is exemplified by the
ultimate result here: the district court ruled that “equal
access” to the lyrics of the dance routines must be provided,
and Defendants have therefore been providing the lyrics by e-
mailing song lyrics to Plaintiffs prior to the games. However,
if, as the district court concluded, equal access to the lyrics
of the dance routines is required, the auxiliary aid provided by
Defendants must still be evaluated in terms of whether it
results in “effective communication,” and the district court’s
decision leaves open the question of whether prior e-mailing of
the full lyrics of songs that may be played during the dance
routines results in “effective communication.”

36
course, even this conclusion does not mean that captioning is

required for all stadiums, since other auxiliary aids could also

be sufficient to result in effective communication. In

addition, other stadiums may be able to raise defenses of undue

burden or fundamental alteration, which were not raised by

Defendants in this case. In this regard, I would note that the

Department of Justice has undertaken the process of rulemaking

to consider these various issues, but has concluded that

“further consideration and review is prudent” given the

complexity of the issues involved. Thus, the issues potentially

raised in this case and the requirements of the ADA in this

context would be matters of public importance and potential

future rulemaking, but many of these issues were not fully

litigated below or on appeal, given Defendants’ decision to

voluntarily provide auxiliary aids, including captioning on the

LED boards and on the video screens in the concourse area.

Indeed, this appeal came before us driven not by the substantive

issues, but instead by Plaintiffs’ claim for attorney’s fees, as

was candidly discussed during oral argument. Therefore, in my

view, this case is not an appropriate forum or proceeding to

determine these potential issues, and particularly to announce

the broad rule set out in the district court’s declaratory

judgment.

37
 Therefore, given all of the issues outlined above, I would

reverse the declaratory judgment in this case, as it was entered

by the district court, and I respectfully dissent from the

majority opinion to the extent that it affirms that declaratory

judgment. 4

4
However, as in the majority opinion, I would affirm the
district court on Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal with respect to the
determination that issues related to the FM radio broadcast were
not raised in the Complaint and therefore are not properly
before the court. I therefore join that portion of the majority
opinion related to the FM radio broadcast issue.

38