May 2023 | Volume 14, Issue 10

Read the full article from CNN.

According to the article, the U.S. Supreme Court recently 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 disclose information about how accessible they are to individuals with disabilities.

Though Laufer does not intend to visit the hotels she is suing, the lawsuits are brought to force the hotels to update their websites to comply 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 does not intend to visit.

“Laufer is one of numerous ‘testers’ who have collectively brought thousands of lawsuits under the ADA. A cottage industry has arisen in which uninjured plaintiffs lob ADA lawsuits of questionable merit, while using the threat of attorney’s fees to extract settlement payments,” the hotel told the justices in court papers. “These lawsuits have burdened small businesses, clogged the judicial system, and undermined the Executive Branch’s exclusive authority to enforce federal law.”

The hotel run by Acheson Hotels has a notice posted to its website that says, “Please Note: Unfortunately, we do not have the capabilities to provide pet-friendly or ADA compliant lodging. We apologize for the inconvenience!”

Laufer had urged the justices to take the case, with her attorneys arguing in court papers that they should affirm the appeals court ruling.

“Without civil rights advocates such as this plaintiff, there would be no enforcement of the ADA,” they wrote in part.

Discussion Questions

  1. Explain the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law enacted in 1990 that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in several areas, including employment, transportation, public accommodations, communications, and access to state and local government programs and services.

    For more information regarding the ADA, please see “Teaching Tip 1” of this newsletter, which refers to a U.S. Department of Labor website containing a guide to the ADA, with basic information and resource references. 
  2. What is the nature of Deborah Laufer’s complaint against Acheson Hotels, and what is Acheson Hotels’ essential defense regarding the complaint?
    As indicated in the article, Deborah Laufer’s complaint against Acheson Hotels is based on alleged ADA-related deficiencies on the company’s website. More particularly, Ms. Laufer claims that the company’s website is not in compliance with ADA rules that require hotels to disclose information about how accessible they are to individuals with disabilities.

    As noted in the article, a hotel owned and operated by Acheson Hotels in coastal Maine has a notice posted to its website that says, “Please Note: Unfortunately, we do not have the capabilities to provide…ADA compliant lodging. We apologize for the inconvenience!”
  3. In your reasoned opinion, does Ms. Laufer have legal “standing” to sue in this case? Why or why not?
    Legal standing refers to the capacity of a party to bring a lawsuit in court. Typically, standing requires that a plaintiff must have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm that is redressable. In federal court, a legal action cannot be brought simply on the ground that a party is displeased about something. A federal court only has the constitutional authority to resolve an actual dispute between parties.

    In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the U.S. Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue:

    The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent;

    There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court; and

    It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury. 

    In your author’s opinion, Deborah Laufer does not have legal standing to sue in this case. Even if Ms. Laufer has a personal disability (the information contained in the article does not indicate a disability), if she, by her own admission, does not intend to visit the hotel she is suing, she has not suffered an “injury in fact.”