Supreme Court to take case of Americans with Disabilities Act "tester" of hotels

[NewYorkExpress]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/27/politics/supreme-court-americans-with-disabilities-act-tester-case-maine/index.html

The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case concerning whether a self-appointed “tester” of the Americans with Disabilities Act has the right to sue hotels over alleged violations of the civil rights law.

The court was asked to take the case by Acheson Hotels, which owns and operates a hotel in coastal Maine. The company was sued by Deborah Laufer, who they say has filed hundreds of lawsuits against hotels across the country, claiming their websites are not in compliance with ADA rules that require hotels to disclosure information about how accessible they are to individuals with disabilities.

Though Laufer doesn’t intend to visit the hotels she’s suing, the lawsuits are brought in an effort to force the hotels to update their websites to be in compliance with the law.

A district court dismissed Laufer’s suit against Acheson Hotels, ruling she lacked the procedural threshold – known as standing – needed to bring the suit. But an appeals court later ruled in her favor.

Now, the justices will decide next term whether she has the right to act as a “tester” toward hotels she doesn’t intend to visit.

I'm thinking this will either be 8-1 (with either Sotomayor or Brown Jackson writing a solo dissent) or unanimous in favor of Acheson Hotels. I assume the ADA would require you to visit or at least intend to visit the place you are accusing of a violation.

[Skill and Chance]

Yes, this sounds like rent seeking and gives the many legit ADA plaintiffs out there a bad name.  I don't think they would necessarily have to physically stay at the hotel, but they would need to have some sort of business interaction with it?  For example, someone participating remotely in a conference hosted at the hotel might reasonably have standing?

On the other hand, I can imagine an egregious scenario where someone of group "XYZ" is surfing the web and randomly sees "no XYZ allowed here" on a public accommodation business's website, and XYZ is indisputably a protected class.  Would someone of group XYZ have to physically go there and illegally get kicked out to have standing to sue them?  Could some action be taken through a civil rights enforcement agency that would have legal force to rectify the situation based on the observation of the out-of-town individual searching the web?

[jamestroll]

One thing most hotels violate in the ADA are their shuttles are usually not ADA compliant. Technically, if if a hotel runs a continuous service on a schedule the shuttle or van must have a wheelchair lift if they can run vans for more than 15 passengers.

What they do to get around this is have smaller 10 or 14 passenger vans. But they still must provide an reasonable equivalent service. Which most do not.

[Joe Republic]

A couple years ago we had a guy going around filing lawsuits against virtually every business in South Lake Tahoe over perceived ADA violations.  The law is a good one, but there are grifters who abuse it to make it their primary income source.

See also: copyright trolls.  This very forum became a victim of at least one of those.

[Sol]

A couple years ago we had a guy going around filing lawsuits against virtually every business in South Lake Tahoe over perceived ADA violations.  The law is a good one, but there are grifters who abuse it to make it their primary income source.

See also: copyright trolls.  This very forum became a victim of at least one of those.

Unlike copyright trolls though, someone who does this with the ADA is doing a public service. Nothing but respect and admiration for them!

[Joe Republic]

A couple years ago we had a guy going around filing lawsuits against virtually every business in South Lake Tahoe over perceived ADA violations.  The law is a good one, but there are grifters who abuse it to make it their primary income source.

See also: copyright trolls.  This very forum became a victim of at least one of those.

Unlike copyright trolls though, someone who does this with the ADA is doing a public service. Nothing but respect and admiration for them!

Not if the plaintiffs are acting in bad faith to make a profit.

You could just as easily say that a copyright troll is simply preserving intellectual property rights.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

A couple years ago we had a guy going around filing lawsuits against virtually every business in South Lake Tahoe over perceived ADA violations.  The law is a good one, but there are grifters who abuse it to make it their primary income source.

See also: copyright trolls.  This very forum became a victim of at least one of those.

Unlike copyright trolls though, someone who does this with the ADA is doing a public service. Nothing but respect and admiration for them!

Not if the plaintiffs are acting in bad faith to make a profit.

You could just as easily say that a copyright troll is simply preserving intellectual property rights.

If the businesses are not accessible, making them become that way is generally good.

[Make America Grumpy Again]

If someone saw proof of a business that discriminated against a black person, would that violate the CRA? I don't understand the double standard or see how this situation would be any different even if she never visited it.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lujan should control, in which case the plaintiff could have merely made a reservation prior to suing but failed to do so, so no standing.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

A couple years ago we had a guy going around filing lawsuits against virtually every business in South Lake Tahoe over perceived ADA violations.  The law is a good one, but there are grifters who abuse it to make it their primary income source.

See also: copyright trolls.  This very forum became a victim of at least one of those.

Unlike copyright trolls though, someone who does this with the ADA is doing a public service. Nothing but respect and admiration for them!

Not if the plaintiffs are acting in bad faith to make a profit.

You could just as easily say that a copyright troll is simply preserving intellectual property rights.

If the businesses are not accessible, making them become that way is generally good.

The fact that there's apparently no federal agency with regularly-used enforcement power for ADA compliance strikes me as part of the problem here. This isn't the sort of thing that should have to rely on private individuals having standing to sue businesses.

[jamestroll]

One amendment we should make to the ADA is in regards to service dogs. Virtually all "service dogs" are fake.

No perfect solution as it wouldn't be that difficult to fake an ID card for service animals, but an ID requirement wouldn't even need to state the disability or the tasks required to perform.

By the ways, dogs who are random barking, attacking people, and playing around are not service animals.

When I was a manager in the hotel industry, I saw and pointed out so many ADA violations. But of course the time I got in a little  trouble was when I evicted a guest who had a "service dog" who was barking and literally attacking other dogs. I was not written up or anything, but the guests family was very upset as were several employees.

Hotel employees:

No ADA complaint van or equivalent service. No access to an in house restaurant for wheelchairs: A-OK.

A barking fake service dog attacking other dogs being evicted: OMG you are providing poor customer service.

I really do believe people who went to school for hospitality management are brainwashed, and quite frankly EVIL.

[Ferguson97]

Idk I think it's pretty obvious she has standing here - she's disabled. I don't think it matters whether or not she intends to visit the hotels.

[Donerail]

Idk I think it's pretty obvious she has standing here - she's disabled. I don't think it matters whether or not she intends to visit the hotels.

How are you injured by the mere existence of a non-accessible property you never intend to visit?

[Ferguson97]

Idk I think it's pretty obvious she has standing here - she's disabled. I don't think it matters whether or not she intends to visit the hotels.

How are you injured by the mere existence of a non-accessible property you never intend to visit?

Because it reduces your options in the event of a potential future visit. Right now she has no intention of visiting those hotels, but she may need to visit a hotel in the future. And if the number of hotels that are accessible to her are limited, then she is injured. I just don't buy that we have to wait until she actually makes the trip.

[Donerail]

Idk I think it's pretty obvious she has standing here - she's disabled. I don't think it matters whether or not she intends to visit the hotels.

How are you injured by the mere existence of a non-accessible property you never intend to visit?

Because it reduces your options in the event of a potential future visit. Right now she has no intention of visiting those hotels, but she may need to visit a hotel in the future. And if the number of hotels that are accessible to her are limited, then she is injured. I just don't buy that we have to wait until she actually makes the trip.

Court has repeatedly rejected that theory of standing — you may need to do a lot of things in the future. Injury needs to be concrete. Otherwise you could concoct a hypothetical scenario that would let you sue over pretty much anything (such as, for instance, whether or not mifepristone should be legal).

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Idk I think it's pretty obvious she has standing here - she's disabled. I don't think it matters whether or not she intends to visit the hotels.

How are you injured by the mere existence of a non-accessible property you never intend to visit?

Because it reduces your options in the event of a potential future visit. Right now she has no intention of visiting those hotels, but she may need to visit a hotel in the future. And if the number of hotels that are accessible to her are limited, then she is injured. I just don't buy that we have to wait until she actually makes the trip.

Court has repeatedly rejected that theory of standing — you may need to do a lot of things in the future. Injury needs to be concrete. Otherwise you could concoct a hypothetical scenario that would let you sue over pretty much anything (such as, for instance, whether or not mifepristone should be legal).

I do think Ferguson has identified a broader problem with the whole treatment of standing here, although, as the mifepristone example shows, it's hard to say what other treatment could plausibly and fairly replace it.