AUG 9 1993

DJ 202-PL-612

Mr. Marc Fiedler

Koonz, McKenney, Johnson & Regan
2020 K Street, N.W.
Suite 840
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Fiedler:

This letter is in response to your inquiry of July 12, 1993,

about whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42
U.S.C. 12101 et seq. ("ADA"), applies to places of public
accommodation housed in federally owned buildings or facilities.

The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide

technical assistance to individuals and entities having rights or
obligations under the Act. This letter provides informal
guidance to assist you in understanding the ADA's requirements.
However, it does not constitute a legal interpretation or legal
advice, and it is not binding on the Department of Justice.

You are correct to assume that a privately owned, operated,

or leased place of public accommodation which is housed in a
federally owned facility may be covered by the Architectural
Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq. ("ABA"), and may
have to comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards.
However, wholly apart from the question of whether such a place
of public accommodation must comply with the ABA, it is covered
by, and must comply with, the ADA.

Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis

of disability by any person who owns, operates, leases, or leases
to, a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C. 12182(a). See
also 28 C.F.R. 36.201(a). Thus, even if a private entity does
not own the facility housing a place of public accommodation, if
that private entity operates or leases a place of public
accommodation, it is covered by title III of the ADA. The fact
that the landlord in a particular case is not covered by the ADA
-- such as the federal government in the case you describe --
does not negate the ADA's coverage of the private entities
which lease or operate places of public accommodation within the
facility. Thus, there may be cases where a place of public

cc: Records, Chrono, Wodatch, Magagna, Contois, FOIA MAF

Udd:Contois:PL:Fiedler

01-02504

- 2-

accommodation operated by a private entity is covered both by the

ADA and ABA (because it is housed in a federal facility).

I hope this information is useful to you in understanding

the requirements of the ADA.

Sincerely,

John L. Wodatch
Chief
Public Access Section

Enclosure
Title III regulation
01-02505

LAW OFFICES
KOONZ, McKENNEY, JOHNSON & REGAN
A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
SUITE 840
2020 K STREET, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
FAX (202) 785-3719

JULY 12, 1993

WRITER'S DIRECT
DIAL
(202) 822-1868

Joan Magagna, Esquire

Deputy Chief
Public Access Section
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
P.O. Box 66738
Washington, D.C. 20035-6738

Re: Request for Interpretive Let-

ter or Amicus Participation
Dear Ms. Magagna:

I am writing to request an interpretive letter from your office

or your office's involvement on an amicus curiae basis with
respect to an issue that has arisen in the case of Fiedler v.
American Multi-Cinema, Inc., Civil Action No. 92-0486 (TPJ), now
pending in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia.

The case involves claims for compensatory damages and injunctive

relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the District of
Columbia Human Rights Act, and the common law by myself, a
wheelchair-user, against American Multi-cinema, Inc. (AMC) which
operates the AMC Union Station Nine Theatres in Washington, D.C.
The claims arise from the fact that seating for wheelchair-users
in all nine theaters of the Union Station multiplex (one of which
has a seating capacity greater than 300) is clustered in or
behind the back row of seats. The action seeks dispersal of
wheelchair seating in each of the theaters.

01-02506
Joan Magagna, Esquire
Deputy Chief
July 12, 1993
Page 2

AMC has now moved for summary judgment. One of their arguments
is that they are exempt from compliance with Title II of the ADA
because the Union Station Nine Theatres is located in a federal
building and is leased from the federal government.

In light of the foregoing, the following question is presented:

Is a private entity that meets the definition of a place of
public accommodation under Title II of the ADA and the Justice
Department's rules and regulations exempt from the application of
the statute and rules by virtue of the fact that it leases its
space from the federal government and is located in a federal
building and therefore is required under the Architectural
Barriers Act to comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards? I would appreciate it if your office could issue an
interpretive letter on this matter or could enter an appearance
as an amicus curiae to respond to AMC's argument. Our response
to the motion for summary judgment is due on August 31, 1993.

For your information, I am enclosing a copy of the Amended

Complaint, the Answer to the Amended Complaint, AMC's motion for
summary judgment, AMC's motion for leave to file an amended
answer to the Amended Complaint, and the most recent
scheduling
order.

Thank you kindly for your attention to this matter. Please do

not hesitate to contact me if you need further information.

Very truly yours,

Marc Fiedler

MF/jmm
Enclosures

01-0250