LongHorn Steakhouse Handicap Parking Challenged in ADA Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A proposed class action lawsuit filed against Darden Restaurants Inc. claims the restaurant chain operator fails to accommodate persons with disabilities by denying appropriate access, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The lawsuit alleges that Darden Restaurant facilities are not compliant with ADA regulations because at least one of it’s facilities is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, as required by the ADA. 

Darden Restaurants Inc. owns and operates several restaurant chains across the country, including LongHorn Steakhouse.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Wells has suffered from a long history of mobility-related impairments, which began with the removal of the cartilage in both knees stemming from a work injury in the 1980s.

Despite having undergone a double knee replacement, Wells still has limited mobility, trouble walking distances and up and down steep inclines or on uneven surfaces.

In addition to these mobility impairments, she is currently recovering from ankle surgery and uses a physician-prescribed walker or cane daily, and at times has needed to use a wheelchair.

Because of her condition, Wells has a registered handicapped vehicle and requires the use of handicap parking spaces. However, according to Wells, Darden Restaurant’s parking lots are non-compliant with ADA.

Wells says she patronized a LongHorn Steakhouse location in Pennsylvania in November, where she has visited previously and intends to do so again in the future. During her visit, Wells was using her physician-prescribed cane but experienced barriers that impeded her access to the restaurant.

Specifically, Wells alleges that the “purportedly handicap accessible parking spaces were not located on the shortest accessible route to the restaurant’s accessible entrance” – a violation of ADA rules.

Additionally, the curb ramp located at the end of the handicapped access aisle adjacent to LongHorn Steakhouse’s “purportedly handicap accessible parking spaces” extends into the access aisle – another ADA violation.

The Americans with Disabilities Act is a federal law aimed at providing “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” The act requires places of public accommodation operated by private entities to be “designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with its accessibility standards,” including restaurants.

In fact, any restaurant opened after Jan. 26, 1993 must be readily accessible to people with disabilities, unless it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements. The standard applies to everything from parking spaces to entrances, dining areas, and restrooms.

Restaurants that opened before the 1993 cutoff date do not have to be fully accessible. But they must remove architectural and communication barriers if readily achievable and, if not readily achievable, provide an alternative method of making goods and services available to people with disabilities.

Wells is seeking to represent a nationwide Class of individuals with disabilities who have attempted to access, or will attempt to access Darden Restaurant facilities.

Along with declaratory judgment that Darden Restaurants is in violation of the ADA, Wells is asking for a permanent injunction mandating that Darden Restaurants make renovations and modifications to its Pennsylvania LongHorn Steakhouse location and other locations that are not ADA compliant in order to make them accessible and usable to those with disabilities.

Wells is represented by Arkady “Eric” Rayz and Demetri A. Braynin of Kalikhman & Rayz LLC.

The Darden Restaurants ADA Violations Class Action Lawsuit is Elizabeth Wells v. Darden Restaurants Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06295, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.