Update: a wide-aisle mandate?

Trial is now underway in Oakland in Disability Rights Advocates’ suit against the Mervyn’s discount clothing chain, charging that it is unlawful for racks and displays of merchandise to be placed so close together in the stores that persons in wheelchairs cannot navigate without assistance (see Aug. 12; also Jun. 29-Jul. 2, 2001). The chain […]

Trial is now underway in Oakland in Disability Rights Advocates’ suit against the Mervyn’s discount clothing chain, charging that it is unlawful for racks and displays of merchandise to be placed so close together in the stores that persons in wheelchairs cannot navigate without assistance (see Aug. 12; also Jun. 29-Jul. 2, 2001). The chain has estimated that it would face losses of $40 million a year if it had to uncrowd its merchandise displays by providing a minimum of 32 inches between aisles as is being demanded, with losses particularly severe at peak shopping times such as the Christmas season. Macy’s and Robinson’s-May’s, which operate generally higher-priced retail stores in California, have already capitulated to DRA lawsuits demanding 32-inch aisles. (“Mervyn’s defends aisle size”. San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 22). Update Dec. 13: store wins.

Comments are closed.