Panayi's Lawsuit Against Six Flags

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15
Page 1 of 14 PageID 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LARRY W. PANAYI,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.
v.
SIX FLAGS OVER TEXAS, INC.,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant.
Plaintiffs*Original*Complaint*
To the Honorable Court:
Plaintiff Larry W. Panayi (Panayi) complains of Defendant Six Flags Over
Texas, Inc. (Six Flags or Defendant), and would show as follows:
I.#Introduction#
1.!
This is a disability discrimination action under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the disability discrimination provisions of the Texas Human
Resources Code. Plaintiff Panayi has one good leg; the other is missing. As do millions
of other people, he enjoys riding amusement rides at amusement parks. Defendant
operates the Six Flags amusement park in Arlington, Texas. While it offers patrons a
wide range of activities, it is most well-known for its roller coasters and other rides.
Recently Six Flags changed its policy regarding rider qualifications for many of the rides
in its park, particularly with respect to disabled riders. Disappointingly, Defendant has
________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiffs Original Complaint
Page 1
implemented an unlawful policy of discrimination based on disability under which it

categorically refuses to permit park patrons to ride a variety of rides if they are missing a
leg. On Plaintiff Panayis two most recent visits to the park, Defendants employees
refused to permit him to ride multiple rides that he had ridden without difficulty before
Defendant implemented its unlawful no leg, no ride policy of disability discrimination.
Defendants employees refused to permit him to ride the rides in question because he is
missing one leg. Consequently, Plaintiff Panayi has been forced to bring this action
against Six Flags for its violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq. (ADA), and Chapter 121 of the Texas
Human Resources Code, 121.001, et seq. (THRC).
II.#Jurisdiction#and#Venue#
2.!
This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28
U.S.C. 1343(a)(3) and (4). Plaintiff requests that this Court exercise its supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiffs THRC claim under authority of 28 U.S.C. 1367. Plaintiffs
THRC claims depend upon the same facts as Plaintiffs federal claims.
3.!
Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391. Plaintiffs claims
arose in this district and a substantial portion of the unlawful acts that make up the basis
of this complaint occurred within this district. Further, Defendant maintains offices in this
district, including its principal executive offices, and conducts business in this district.
III.#Parties#
4.!
Plaintiff Larry W. Panayi (Panayi) is a resident of Tarrant County,
Texas.
________________________________________________________________________
Page 2
5.!
Defendant Six Flags Over Texas, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Tarrant County, Texas. Defendant Six Flags Over Texas,
Inc., may be served by serving its registered agent in Texas: Corporation Service
Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701-3218.
IV.#Statement#of#Facts#
A.*
6.!
Panayi is an otherwise able-bodied adult male who lost a leg in an
automobile accident while he was serving in the United States military. Since then,
Panayi has adapted to the change in his condition and leads a largely normal life. Panayi
goes through his day-to-day life both using a prosthetic leg and without one, depending
on the situation. Panayi has trained himself to perform daily tasks so that he may live as
fully and independently as he can.
7.!
Panayi has repeatedly frequented amusement parks in his lifetime,
including Six Flags Over Texas. Panayi has enjoyed the parks rides for many years as an
amputee. Panayi has ridden almost every ride at this park, and has also ridden similar
rides at other amusement parks, without difficulty and without posing a direct threat to
the health or safety of himself or others. Not once has he suffered an injury on a roller
coaster or other ride.
8.!
In July of 2013, Panayi visited the Six Flags amusement park in Arlington,
Texas, with some of his relatives. Unfortunately, when Panayi went to ride several of the
amusement rides in the park he was turned away and denied his right to board and ride
the rides in question. Defendants sole stated reason for refusing to permit Panayi to ride
the rides in question was his disability, to-wit, the fact that he is missing one leg. Before
________________________________________________________________________
Page 3
this, Panayi had never been turned away from any amusement park ride, including those
operated by Defendant. Plaintiff was humiliated, embarrassed and confused as to why his
disability disqualified him from being able to ride the rides in question as he had many
times without incident in his past visits to the Six Flags amusement park.
9.!
In January of 2014, Panayi again visited the Six Flags amusement park in
Arlington, Texas. Once again, when Panayi went to ride several of the amusement rides
in the park he was summarily turned away and denied his right to board and ride the rides
in question. Defendants sole stated reason for refusing to permit Panay to ride the rides
in question was his disability, to-wit, the fact that he is missing one leg.
B.*
10.!
Defendants refusal to permit Panayi to ride the amusement rides in
question was based on Defendants Extremity Requirements for those rides. The
Extremity Requirements appear in Defendants Safety & Accessibility Guide which
was in place at the time of Panayis visits in July 2013 and January 2014. Defendant had
an Executive Committee devise the Extremity Requirements and implemented them in
2012. Under Defendants Extremity Requirements, Panayi is prohibited from riding:
a.! Batman the Ride, a roller coaster ride (an inverted looping coaster)
requiring at least two (2) natural legs with lower extremities to the knee
on both legs;
________________________________________________________________________
Page 4
b.! Conquistador, a swing ride (swinging ship) requiring two (2) natural
functioning legs with two (2) natural feet in order to ride1;
c.! El Sombrero, a spinning hat ride requiring two (2) natural functioning
legs with two (2) natural feet in order to ride;
d.! Judge Roy Scream, a wooden roller coaster ride requiring two (2) natural
functioning legs with two (2) natural feet in order to ride;
e.! Freeze Reverse Blast, a launched roller coaster ride requiring two (2)
natural functioning legs with two (2) natural functioning feet in order to
ride;
f.! New Texas Giant, a hybrid roller coaster ride requiring two (2) natural
g.! Pandemonium, a roller coaster ride requiring two (2) natural functioning
legs with two (2) natural feet in order to ride;
h.! Rodeo, a spinning ride requiring two (2) natural functioning legs with
two (2) natural feet in order to ride;
i.! Shock Wave, a looping roller coaster ride requiring two (2) natural
j.! Silver Star Carousel, a low speed antique carousel ride requiring one (1)
natural functioning leg with a natural foot, and a second natural
functioning leg to the knee to utilize a horse;
1
Defendants Extremity Requirements specify that a [f]unctioning leg is a leg with a

foot. Defendants Extremity Requirements also provide that [a] functioning extremity
is a limb over which a person has control. A prosthetic device is not considered a
functioning extremity.
________________________________________________________________________
Page 5
k.! Six Flags Speedway, a go cart ride (a flat ride) requiring two (2) full
legs;
l.! Texas SkyScreamer, a spinning swing ride requiring at least two (2)
natural legs with lower extremities to the knee on both legs in order to
ride; and
m.! Titan, a steel roller coaster ride requiring two (2) natural functioning legs
with two (2) natural feet in order to ride.
11.!
The impact of the Extremity Requirements is significant. Of some 40
rides, Panayi is excluded from riding nearly 1/3 of the rides overall (13 of the rides);
some 59% of the adult rides; nearly 2/3 of the roller coasters; and most of the rides that
Six Flags classifies as High Thrill rides, including Batman The Ride, Judge Roy
Scream, Freeze Reverse Blast, New Texas Giant, Pandemonium, Shock Wave, Texas
SkyScreamer, and Titan.
12.!
The Extremity Requirements in question as applied to Panayi are not
necessary for the safe operation of the rides in question. Panayi could safely ride each of
the rides, with or without his prosthetic, as the case may be, and has ridden many of them
in the past without incident, without injury to himself or others, and without posing a
direct threat to the health or safety of himself or others, but is now prevented from doing
so by Defendants Extremity Requirements and Defendants failure to accommodate his
disability as required by the ADA and the Texas Human Resources Code.
C.*
13.!
Plaintiff wishes to continue patronizing the Six Flags amusement park but
is being deterred and excluded from doing so because of Defendants discriminatory

________________________________________________________________________
Page 6
policies, which have deterred him from returning to Six Flags and excluded him from
enjoying the full range of rides at the park. Defendant has instituted discriminatory
policies and practices that deny Plaintiff, and otherwise similarly situated disabled
persons, the full and equal use of the amusement rides in question, and has failed to
ensure that its policies and practices do not subject persons with disabilities, such as
Plaintiff, to discrimination on the basis of speculation, stereotypes, and generalizations
about their disability.
14.!
Until the discriminatory policies are changed, Plaintiff will continue to
suffer discrimination by being excluded and deterred from returning to the Six Flags
amusement park and will continue to be denied the same full and equal access to and use
of the amusement park rides in question as Defendant offers to the general public.
15.!
As a result of Defendants discriminatory acts and omissions, Plaintiff has
suffered, and will continue to suffer, damages, and has been, and will continue to be
prevented and/or deterred from accessing and using Defendants and facilities to the same
extent as, and in a manner equal to, his peers with two legs. Plaintiff has suffered
discrimination, deterrence, humiliation, distress, and embarrassment, all to his damage.
Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks (i) a declaration that Defendants Extremity
Requirements, as applied to otherwise able-bodied persons missing one leg, violate the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Chapter 121 of the Texas Human Resources Code;
(ii) compensation for his injuries as the result of Defendants discriminatory conduct and
actions, including statutory damages under the Texas Human Resources Code; (iii) an
injunction prohibiting Defendant to from discriminating against him in the future by
________________________________________________________________________
Page 7
refusing him full and equal access to its amusement park rides based on the fact that he is
missing one leg; and (iv) court costs and reasonable attorneys fees.
VI.#Causes#of#Action#
Count*1.**
Violation*of*the*Americans*with*Disabilities*Act**Title*III*
16.!
Panayi is a person with a disability under 42 U.S.C. 12102(1)(A). He is
missing a leg, which satisfies the first definition of disability under that section because it
is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities.
17.!
Alternatively, Panayi was regarded as having such an impairment by
Defendant. Defendant subjected Panayi to its policy because of an actual or perceived

physical impairment and Panayis impairment is not transitory or minor as it is something
Panayi must live with every day, for the rest of his life.
18.!
Defendant operates a public accommodation. Six Flags Over Texas is an
amusement park which is expressly included in the definition of public accommodation

under the ADA.
19.!
Defendant has discriminated against Panayi on the basis of his disability
by improperly imposing the Extremity Requirements for the 13 rides listed above. See 42
U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(i) (discrimination under the ADA includes the imposition or
application of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a
disability... from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the
________________________________________________________________________
Page 8
provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations

being offered.). Defendant has, among other violative conduct:
a.! imposed Extremity Requirements, as described above, that screen out
individuals with disabilities from the full and equal enjoyment of
Defendants amusement rides;
b.! imposed Extremity Requirements, as described above, that are not based
on actual risks but rather on speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations
about individuals with disabilities, see 28 C.F.R. 36.301(a) & (b)
(Safety requirements must be based on actual risks and not on mere
speculation, stereotypes, or generalizations about individuals with
disabilities.); and
c.! imposed Extremity Requirements, as described above, without making
individualized assessments, based on reasonable judgments and objective
evidence, to determine whether otherwise able-bodied persons missing a
single leg pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others on each of
the rides in question, see 28 C.F.R. 36.208.2
Under the ADA, The term direct threat means a significant risk to the health or safety
of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures
or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services. 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(3). The
determination that a disabled individual is a direct threat is an individualized
assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on
the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: The nature, duration, and severity of
the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether
reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary
aids or services will mitigate the risk. 28 C.F.R. 36.208(b).
________________________________________________________________________
Page 9
20.!
Defendant has also discriminated against Panayi on the basis of his
disability by failing to make reasonable modifications to its discriminatory policy to

allow Panayi to ride the rides, even where such a modification would not fundamentally
alter the nature of the rides or Defendants provision of the rides to non-disabled persons.
See 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (discrimination under the ADA includes the failure
to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such
modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can
demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.).
21.!
Defendant has also discriminated against Panayi on the basis of his
disability by failing to provide such auxiliary aids or services as may be needed to allow
Panayi to ride the rides e.g., a car or seat with an enhanced passenger restraint system
even where the provision of such auxiliary aids or services would not fundamentally alter
the nature of the rides or Defendants provision of the rides to non-disabled persons, and
would not result in an undue burden, i.e., significant difficulty or expense. See 42 U.S.C.
12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) (discrimination under the ADA includes 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 than other individuals because
of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking
such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege,
advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden); 28
C.F.R. 36.303(a).
________________________________________________________________________
Page 10
Count*2.*
Violation*of*the*Texas*Human*Resources*Code**Chapter*121*
22.!
Persons with disabilities have the same right as the able-bodied to the full
use and enjoyment of any public facility in the state. TEX. HUM. RES. CODE
121.003(a).
23.!
Panayi is a person with a disability within the meaning of Chapter 121 of
the Texas Human Resources Code because he only has one leg.
24.!
Defendant operates an amusement park called Six Flags Over Texas,
which is a public facility within the meaning of Chapter 121 of the Texas Human
Resources Code because it is a place of public accommodation, amusement, convenience,
or resort to which the general public or any classification of persons from the general
public is regularly, normally, or customarily invited.
25.!
Defendants repeated refusals to admit Panayi to ride the rides in question
based on his disability, to-wit, the fact that he is missing one leg, were in violation of
121.003(c) of the THRC. See TEX. HUM. RES. CODE 121.003(d) ([t]he discrimination
prohibited by this section includes a refusal to allow a person with a disability to use or
be admitted to any public facility).
26.!
Defendants failures and refusals to make reasonable accommodations in
its policies, practices, and procedures in order to permit Plaintiff, and other otherwise
able-bodied persons missing one leg, to ride the rides in question, were in violation of
121.003(c) of the THRC. See TEX. HUM. RES. CODE 121.003(d)(2) ([t]he
discrimination prohibited by this section includes a failure to: make reasonable
accommodations in policies, practices, and procedures).
________________________________________________________________________
Page 11
27.!
Defendants failures and refusals to provide such auxiliary aids and
services as may be necessary to allow the full use and enjoyment of the amusement rides
in question by Plaintiff, and other otherwise able-bodied persons missing one leg, were in
violation of 121.003(c) of the THRC. See TEX. HUM. RES. CODE 121.003(d)(3) ([t]he
discrimination prohibited by this section includes a failure to: provide auxiliary aids
and services necessary to allow the full use and enjoyment of the public facility.).
28.!
Each refusal by Defendant to permit Plaintiff to ride one of the amusement
rides in question constituted a separate violation of the THRC.

29.!
Each failure and refusal by Defendant to make reasonable
accommodations in its policies, practices, and procedures in order to permit Plaintiff, and
other otherwise able-bodied persons missing one leg, to ride the rides in question
constituted a separate violation of the THRC.
30.!
Each failure and refusal by Defendant to provide such auxiliary aids and
services as may be necessary to allow the full use and enjoyment of the amusement rides
in question by Plaintiff, and other otherwise able-bodied persons missing one leg,
constituted a separate violation of the THRC.
31.!
Defendants violations of the Texas Human Resources Code entitle
Plaintiff to statutory damages under 121.004 Texas Human Resources Code for the July
2013 violations under the version of the statue then in effect, and for the January 2014
violations under the statute as amended effective January 1, 2014.
VII.#Jury#Demand#
32.!
Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial.
________________________________________________________________________
Page 12
VIII.#Attorneys#Fees#
33.!
Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys fees, including litigation
expenses, and costs, under the remedial provisions of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. 12205.
IX.#Relief#Requested#and#Prayer#
34.!
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that
Defendant be summoned to appear and that, after a trial, Plaintiff be awarded:

a.! A declaration that Defendants Extremity Requirements, as applied to
otherwise able-bodied persons missing one leg, violate the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Chapter 121 of the Texas Human Resources Code;
b.! Compensatory damages;
c.! Statutory damages under 121.004(b) of the Texas Human Resources Code
for the July 2013 violations under the version of the statue then in effect,
under which there is a conclusive presumption of damages in the amount
of at least $100 to the person with a disability for each violation, and for
the January 2014 violations under the statute as amended effective
January 1, 2014, under which there is a conclusive presumption of
damages in the amount of at least $300 to the person with a disability for
each violation;
d.! An injunction prohibiting Defendant to from discriminating against him in
the future by refusing him full and equal access to the amusement park
rides in question based on his disability, to-wit, the fact that he is missing
one leg;
e.! Expert witness fees;
________________________________________________________________________
Page 13
f.! Attorneys fees, including litigation expenses, and costs;

g.! Costs of court;
h.! Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as permitted by law; and
i.! All such other and further relief as may be necessary to eradicate the
effects of Defendants unlawful discriminatory practices, and to which
Plaintiff may show himself entitled, whether at law or in equity, whether
general or special.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ James A. McCorquodale
__________________________________________
James A. McCorquodale
Texas State Bar No. 13464900
A M LAWYERS
4015 Main Street, Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75226
Tel. (214) 712-4472
Fax (815) 572-9448
Email: sandy @ theamlawyers.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Larry W. Panayi
________________________________________________________________________
Page 14
Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/15
CIVIL COVER SHEETPage 1 of 1 PageID 15
JS 44-TXND (Rev. 12/12)
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
Larry W. Panayi
Six Flags Over Texas, Inc.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
Tarrant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

NOTE:
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Tarrant
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
James A. McCorquodale, A M Lawyers, 4015 Main Street, Suite 200,

Dalas, TX 7526-1231. Tel. 214-712-4472.
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only)

1
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Defendant
Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only)

CONTRACT
DEF
1
Citizen of Another State
Incorporated and Principal Place

of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country
Foreign Nation
TORTS
110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veterans Benefits
160 Stockholders Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise
(For Diversity Cases Only)

PTF
Citizen of This State
1
REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property
PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
370 Other Fraud
371 Truth in Lending
380 Other Personal
Property Damage
385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
463 Alien Detainee
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil Rights
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement
625 Drug Related Seizure

of Property 21 USC 881
690 Other
and One Box for Defendant)

PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
4
4
of Business In This State
BANKRUPTCY
422 Appeal 28 USC 158
423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
820 Copyrights
830 Patent
840 Trademark
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS

870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
871 IRSThird Party
26 USC 7609
OTHER STATUTES
375 False Claims Act

400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
IMMIGRATION
462 Naturalization Application
465 Other Immigration
Actions
V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only)

1 Original
Proceeding
2 Removed from
State Court
Remanded from
Appellate Court
4 Reinstated or
Reopened
5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
6 Multidistrict
Litigation
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC 12181 et seq.
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Disability discrimination; refusal of admission to amusement rides based on missing leg
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

DEMAND $
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Injunction and damages
Yes
No
JURY DEMAND:
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED PENDING OR CLOSED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
Jorge A. Solis
IF ANY
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER 3:13-cv-00705-P
DATE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
July 3, 2015
/s/ James A. McCorquodale
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT #
AMOUNT
Print
APPLYING IFP
Save As...
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
Reset

Panayi's Lawsuit Against Six Flags

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Panayi's Lawsuit Against Six Flags

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Action No.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

This is a disability discrimination action under the Americans with

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

implemented an unlawful policy of discrimination based on disability under which it

Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. 1391. Plaintiffs claims

Plaintiff Larry W. Panayi (Panayi) is a resident of Tarrant County,

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

Panayi is an otherwise able-bodied adult male who lost a leg in an

Panayi has repeatedly frequented amusement parks in his lifetime,

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

Defendants refusal to permit Panayi to ride the amusement rides in

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

Defendants Extremity Requirements specify that a [f]unctioning leg is a leg with a

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

The impact of the Extremity Requirements is significant. Of some 40

The Extremity Requirements in question as applied to Panayi are not

is being deterred and excluded from doing so because of Defendants discriminatory

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

Until the discriminatory policies are changed, Plaintiff will continue to

As a result of Defendants discriminatory acts and omissions, Plaintiff has

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

Panayi is a person with a disability under 42 U.S.C. 12102(1)(A). He is

Alternatively, Panayi was regarded as having such an impairment by

Defendant. Defendant subjected Panayi to its policy because of an actual or perceived

Defendant operates a public accommodation. Six Flags Over Texas is an

amusement park which is expressly included in the definition of public accommodation

Defendant has discriminated against Panayi on the basis of his disability

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

Defendant has also discriminated against Panayi on the basis of his

disability by failing to make reasonable modifications to its discriminatory policy to

Defendant has also discriminated against Panayi on the basis of his

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

Panayi is a person with a disability within the meaning of Chapter 121 of

Defendant operates an amusement park called Six Flags Over Texas,

Defendants repeated refusals to admit Panayi to ride the rides in question

Defendants failures and refusals to make reasonable accommodations in

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

Defendants failures and refusals to provide such auxiliary aids and

Each refusal by Defendant to permit Plaintiff to ride one of the amusement

rides in question constituted a separate violation of the THRC.

Each failure and refusal by Defendant to make reasonable

Defendants violations of the Texas Human Resources Code entitle

Plaintiff respectfully demands a jury trial.

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorneys fees, including litigation

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that

Defendant be summoned to appear and that, after a trial, Plaintiff be awarded:

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1 Filed 07/03/15

f.! Attorneys fees, including litigation expenses, and costs;

Case 3:15-cv-02222-B Document 1-1 Filed 07/03/15

CIVIL COVER SHEETPage 1 of 1 PageID 15

JS 44-TXND (Rev. 12/12)

Six Flags Over Texas, Inc.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)