In Bd. of Regents of Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ. on
Behalf of Univ. of Nevada, Reno v. Worth Grp. Architects, P.C., 499 P.3d
1177 (Nev. 2021), the Nevada Supreme Court held a Plaintiff’s non-indemnity
claims against an architect were not preempted by the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”).
The University of Nevada, Reno (“UNR”) contracted with Worth
Group Architects, P.C. (“Worth”) to design renovations for UNR's Mackay Stadium. The
contract required Worth’s designs to comply with the applicable ADA Guidelines.
After construction was complete, UNR discovered the stadium was not ADA compliant,
which prompted a redesign and a lawsuit against Worth.
The District Court concluded UNR's claims were preempted
by the ADA, as UNR was attempting to contractually delegate ADA compliance to Worth.
On appeal, UNR argued the District Court erred in granting Worth summary judgment and misapplied the Rolf Jensen
& Associates, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court holding.
In Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 128 Nev. 441 P. 3d 734 (2012), a
resort sought indemnity from its consultant for costs associated with retrofitting
to comply with the ADA. The Court
held permitting these types of indemnity claims would allow owners to contractually
maneuver themselves to ignore the nondelegable responsibilities under the
ADA. If owners were permitted to pursue indemnity for their own ADA
violations, Congress's goal of preventing discrimination would be frustrated.
Thus, the Court held the ADA preempts indemnity claims brought by owners for
their violations.
Unlike Rolf Jensen, the Court found
UNR was not seeking indemnity. Rather, UNR was asking Worth to pay for the
shortcomings in its contractual performance. The Court noted that public
entities must contract with private contractors, such as architects, to create
or remedy structures to ensure they are ADA-compliant. The Court found those
public entities should be able to require vendors to provide services in accordance
with ADA principles.
The Court held the state law claims at issue in this case were not preempted by the ADA, because they did not pose “an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress's objectives.” Congress’s objectives in enacting the ADA are to prevent and remedy discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Allowing UNR to collect damages based on Worth’s non-performance, the Court found, did not undermine those Congressional objectives
