▁which ▁was ▁file d ▁only ▁five ▁years ▁after ▁the ▁A DA ▁was ▁passed , ▁the ▁DO J ▁was ▁unable ▁or ▁unw illing ▁to ▁provide ▁clar ification ▁on ▁the ▁distribution ▁requirements ▁for ▁accessible ▁wheel ch air ▁locations ▁in ▁large ▁assembly ▁spaces . ▁While ▁Section ▁ 4 . 3 3 . 3 ▁of ▁AD AA G ▁makes ▁reference ▁to ▁lines ▁of ▁sight , ▁no ▁specific ▁reference ▁is ▁made ▁to ▁seeing ▁over ▁standing ▁pat rons . ▁The ▁M CI ▁Center , ▁designed ▁by ▁Ell er be ▁Be cket ▁Arch itect s ▁& ▁Engine ers , ▁was ▁designed ▁with ▁too ▁few ▁wheel ch air ▁and ▁companion ▁seats , ▁and ▁the ▁ones ▁that ▁were ▁included ▁did ▁not ▁provide ▁sight ▁lines ▁that ▁would ▁enable ▁the ▁wheel ch air ▁user ▁to ▁view ▁the ▁playing ▁area ▁while ▁the ▁spect ators ▁in ▁front ▁of ▁them ▁were ▁standing . ▁This ▁case ▁and ▁another ▁related ▁case ▁established ▁preced ent ▁on ▁seat ▁distribution ▁and ▁sight ▁lines ▁issues ▁for ▁A DA ▁enfor cement ▁that ▁continues ▁to ▁present ▁day . ▁ ▁Toy ota ▁Motor ▁Man ufact uring , ▁Kentucky , ▁Inc . ▁v . ▁Williams ▁Toy ota ▁Motor ▁Man ufact uring , ▁Kentucky , ▁Inc . ▁v . ▁Williams , ▁was ▁a ▁case ▁in ▁which ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁interpreted ▁the ▁meaning ▁of ▁the ▁phrase ▁" subst ant ial ly ▁imp airs " ▁as ▁used ▁in ▁the ▁Americans ▁with ▁Dis abilities ▁Act . ▁It ▁revers ed ▁a ▁Six th ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁decision ▁to ▁grant ▁a ▁partial ▁summary ▁judgment ▁in ▁favor ▁of ▁the ▁respond ent ,