UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
) No.: CV96-5012
versus )
) COMPLAINT
DAYS INNS OF AMERICA, INC., )
HOSPITALITY FRANCHISE )
SYSTEMS, INC., RICHARD HAUK, )
KARLA HAUK, DAVID BAUMANN d/b/a )
CAD DRAFTING PLUS, and )
DOUBLE H ENTERPRISES, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
)
The United States of America alleges:
1. This action is brought by the United States to enforce
title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the
"ADA" or the "Act"), 42 U.S.C. SS 12181 through 12189, against
a. Days Inns of America, Inc. ("DIA"), the licensor
of the Days Inn chain of economy hotels, including the Days
Inn hotel on 10th Avenue in Wall, South Dakota;
b. Hospitality Franchise Systems, Inc. ("HFS"), the
parent company of defendant DIA;
c. Richard and Karla Hauk, owners of the Days Inn
hotel in Wall;
d. David Baumann, d/b/a CAD Drafting Plus
("Baumann"), the architect of and for the Days Inn hotel in
Wall; and
e. Double H Enterprises, Inc., ("Double H"), the
general contractor of and for the Days Inn hotel in Wall.
01-01312
 2. This court has jurisdiction of this action under 42
U.S.C. S 12188(b)(1)(B) and 28 U.S.C. SS 1331 and 1345. The
court may grant declaratory and other relief pursuant to 28
U.S.C. SS 2201 and 2202.
3. Defendant HFS is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 339 Jefferson Road, Parsippany,
New Jersey 07054.
4. Defendant DIA is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 339 Jefferson Road, Parsippany,
New Jersey 07054. Defendant DIA is a wholly owned subsidiary of
defendant HFS.
5. Defendants Richard Hauk and Karla Hauk are individuals
who, upon information and belief, reside in Wall, South Dakota.
Their mailing address is Box 424, Wall, South Dakota 57790.
6. Defendant David Baumann is an individual residing in
North Dakota. He does business as CAD Drafting Plus, which, upon
information and belief, has its principal place of business at
3545 46th Street, NW, Fargo, North Dakota 58102.
7. Defendant Double H is a Minnesota corporation with its
principal place of business at Rural Route No. 4, Box 239,
Pelican Rapids, Minnesota 56572.
8. Venue is proper in this district. A substantial part
of the events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred
in this district. In addition, upon information and belief,
defendants Richard and Karla Hauk reside in this district.
Complaint Page 2
01-01313
 9. Defendant DIA and, upon information and belief,
defendant HFS, operate a system of approximately 1,500 hotels
throughout the United States under various trade and service
names and marks including "Days Inn," "Days Hotel," "Days
Suites," "DayStops," "Days Lodge," and others (collectively, the
"Days Inn system"). Defendants DIA and HFS do not own any of the
hotels that participate in the Days Inn system; rather, DIA has
entered into and maintains license agreements (the "license
agreements") with the owners or the agents of the owners of each
facility that participates in the Days Inn system.
10. One of the hotels in the Days Inn system is the newly
constructed Days Inn hotel in Wall, South Dakota (the "Wall Days
Inn" or "the hotel"). The mailing address for the Wall Days Inn
is Box 424, Wall, South Dakota 57790.
11. The Wall Days Inn is a non-residential facility whose
operations affect commerce. As such, it is a commercial facility
within the meaning of section 303(a) of the Act. 42 U.S.C.
S 12183(a). In addition, because the Wall Days Inn is a place of
lodging, it is also a public accommodation within the meaning of
section 303(a) of the Act. Id.
12. The last building permit for the Wall Days Inn was
applied for on or about December 8, 1992.
13. No certificate of occupancy for the Wall Days Inn was
required or issued. Upon information and belief, the hotel was
first occupied on or after July 1, 1993.
Complaint Page 3
01-01314
 14. Defendants Richard Hauk and Karla Hauk own the Wall
Days Inn, and initiated, contracted for, or participated in all
aspects of the design and construction of the hotel.
15. Defendant Baumann is an individual engaged in the
business of providing architectural and design specification
services. Baumann participated in the design and construction of
the Wall Days Inn by designing the hotel pursuant to a contract
with defendant Richard Hauk.
16. Defendant Double H is a private entity engaged in the
business of providing general contracting and consulting
services. Double H participated in the design and construction
of the Wall Days Inn by constructing the hotel pursuant to a
contract with defendant Richard Hauk, serving as general
contractor for the hotel.
17. Defendants DIA and HFS controlled or participated in
the design and construction of the Wall Days Inn. Among other
things, DIA or HFS or both of them
a. developed standard site plans, building plans,
 room details, and other architectural drawings and
specifications for new Days Inn facilities;
b. upon information and belief, furnished standard
plans, drawings, and specifications to defendant Baumann,
for use in designing the Wall Days Inn;
c. furnished defendant Richard Hauk with a conceptual
site plan for the Wall Days Inn;
Complaint Page 4
01-01315

d. by means of the license agreement, required

defendants Richard and Karla Hauk to design the hotel to
conform to the plans, drawings, and specifications contained
in the design standards prepared by DIA and HFS;
e. by means of the license agreement, required
defendants Richard and Karla Hauk, prior to construction of
the Wall Days Inn, to submit to DIA for DIA's review and
approval the facility's site plan, working drawings, and
 detail specifications;
f. reviewed and approved architectural plans or
drawings for the Wall Days Inn prior to construction of the
hotel;
g. by means of the license agreement, required
defendants Richard and Karla Hauk to construct the Wall Days
Inn in accord with the plans and drawings approved by DIA;
h. by means of the license agreement, required
defendants Richard and Karla Hauk, upon completion of
construction, to obtain from DIA a final approval of the
facility before the hotel could begin operating as part of
the Days Inn system; and
i. upon information and belief, have inspected the
Wall Days Inn on several occasions since its completion.
18. The Wall Days Inn is not readily accessible to or
usable by individuals with disabilities, as required by section
303(a)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. S 12183(a)(1). The hotel fails
Complaint Page 5
01-01316
in numerous respects to comply with the Department of Justice's
regulation implementing title III of the ADA, 28 C.F.R. Part 36,
("the regulation"), including the Standards for Accessible
Design, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appendix A ("the Standards"). See 28
C.F.R. SS 36.401, 36.406.
19. Illustrative examples of the failures of the Wall Days
Inn to comply with the requirements of the Act, the regulation,
and the Standards include, but are not limited to, the items set
forth below. "Accessible," as used below, means "readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities," as
required by section 303(a)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
S 12183(a)(1), and as specified by the Standards.
a. The hotel has no accessible entrance. The front
entrance to the lobby is not accessible because the walkway
leading up to the front doors slopes away from the doors,
making it difficult or impossible for wheelchair users to
stop and open the door without rolling away from the door.
See Standards S 4.13.6. The rear entrance to the lobby can
only be reached by means of five steps, which connect the
rear entrance to the rear parking lot. See Standards
S 4.3.8.
b. Guests with disabilities at the Wall Days Inn do
not have the same choice of accommodations afforded to other
guests. The hotel has guest rooms with two beds, but all of
Complaint Page 6
01-01317
 the guest rooms designated for use by individuals with
disabilities have only one bed. See Standards S 9.1.4.
c. The guest rooms that are designated for use by
individuals with disabilities are not accessible, because
various operating controls, mechanisms, and features are
mounted too high to be reached by an individual using a
wheelchair, are blocked by the placement of the beds,
tables, or other furniture, or require tight grasping,
pinching, or twisting of the wrist, which is difficult or
impossible for individuals with limited manual dexterity,
including many individuals with paraplegia or quadriplegia.
As a result, many individuals with disabilities will not be
able, in these guest rooms, to turn the doorknobs on the
guest room doors, operate the room's heating and air-
conditioning unit, or use the clothes rod and shelf. See
Standards SS 4.13.9, 4.25.3, 4.27.4, 9.2.2(2).
d. The hotel has three floors, but has no elevator.
See Standards S 4.1.3(5). As a result, many individuals
with mobility impairments will have no access to the guest
rooms on the hotel's upper floor, or to the spa, sauna,
restrooms, or other rooms and spaces on the hotel's basement
level.
e. The hotel has no accessible parking spaces. While
two parking spaces are designated for use by individuals
with disabilities, neither of those spaces is accessible,
Complaint Page 7
01-01318
 because neither has an access aisle. In addition, one of
the spaces is not level. The Standards require that an
accessible parking space be level and have an access aisle
(an area at least five feet wide next to and running the
length of the parking space), so that individuals who use
wheelchairs will be able to transfer safely from their cars
to their wheelchairs and back again. If there is no access
aisle, other cars may make it impossible to transfer, and if
the parking space and access aisle are not level, a
wheelchair will tend to roll away during the transfer. See
Standards S 4.6.3.
f. The doors to the bathrooms in the standard guest
rooms -- that is, the guest rooms that are not designated
for use by individuals with disabilities -- are too narrow.
If someone who uses a wheelchair must stay in a non-
accessible guest room (if, for instance, the accessible
guest rooms are already taken), or visits another guest in a
non-accessible guest room, he or she will not be able even
to enter the bathroom in that room. See Standards S 9.4.
20. The failures of the defendants to design and construct
the Wall Days Inn to be readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities constitute a pattern or practice of
discrimination within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.
S 12188(b)(1)(B)(i) and 28 C.F.R. S 36.503(a).
Complaint Page 8
01-01319

21. In addition to constituting a pattern or practice of

discrimination, the failures of the defendants to design and
construct the Wall Days Inn to be readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities constitute unlawful
discrimination that raises an issue of general public importance
within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. S 12188(b)(1)(B)(ii) and 28
C.F.R. S 36.503(b).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The United States prays that the Court:
A. Declare that the defendants have violated title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. SS 12181 through
12189, and the regulations thereunder, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, by
failing to design and construct a new facility for first
occupancy after January 26, 1993, that is readily accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities;
B. Order the defendants to undertake whatever repairs,
rebuilding, or other remedial steps are necessary to bring the
Wall Days Inn into full compliance with the requirements of title
III of the ADA and the Department of Justice's regulation
implementing title III, including the Standards for Accessible
Design;
C. With respect to any facilities that they may design and
construct in the future, order the defendants to design and
construct those facilities in such a manner that they will be
Complaint Page 9
01-01320

readily accessible to and usable by individuals with

disabilities, as required by section 303(a) of title III of the
ADA, 42 U.S.C. S 12183(a), sections 36.401 and 36.406 of the
title III regulation, 28 C.F.R. SS 36.401 and 36.406, and the
Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Appendix A;
D. Assess a civil penalty against each defendant in an
amount authorized by 42 U.S.C. S 12188(b)(2)(c), to vindicate the
public interest; and
Complaint Page 10
01-01321
E. Order such other appropriate relief as the interests of
justice may require.
JANET RENO
Attorney General
By:
KAREN E. SCHREIER DEVAL L. PATRICK
United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General
District of South Dakota Civil Rights Division
DIANA RYAN JOHN L. WODATCH, Chief
Assistant U.S. Attorney L. IRENE BOWEN, Deputy Chief
317 Federal Building Disability Rights Section
and Courthouse Civil Rights Division
Rapid City, South Dakota 57709
(605) 342-7822
THOMAS M. CONTOIS
ALYSE S. BASS
KEN S. NAKATA
Attorneys
Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Section
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 66738
Washington, D.C. 20035-6738
(202) 514-6014
(202) 616-9511
(202) 307-2322
Complaint Page 11
01-01322