U.S. Supreme Court to hear Maine hotel's bid to limit disability bias cases
Adds comment from lawyer for plaintiff, background on case
By Nate Raymond
March 27 (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider whether to curtail lawsuits accusing hotels and other places of lodging of discriminating against disabled people by not providing enough information about their accessibility on their websites in a case involving a quaint inn near the Atlantic coast of Maine.
The justices took up an appeal by the Maine hotel's owner of a lower court's ruling allowing a disability rights advocate to sue the business for not complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) even though she never planned to book one of its rooms.
The ADA is a landmark civil rights law that protects people with disabilities from discrimination in public accommodations, as well as areas including employment, transportation, communications and access to public programs and services.
Plaintiff Deborah Laufer is a self-proclaimed ADA "tester" in Florida who has filed more than 600 similar lawsuits after searching for websites of hotels that do not provide enough information about whether their rooms are accessible under the ADA.
That 1990 law requires hotels to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. A related regulation requires hotel owners to describe accessible features of their guest rooms on their websites.
The lawsuits by Laufer, who uses a wheel chair, include one she filed against Acheson Hotels, LLC, which operates the Coast Village Inn and Cottages in Wells, Maine, a small town and popular vacation destination on the state's southern coast.
Business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have said ADA "testers" have been fueling an explosion in lawsuits against small businesses accused of discriminating against disabled people.
The number of lawsuits brought under the ADA reached 11,452 in 2021, a 320% increase from 2013, according to the Chamber of Commerce. It called them "abusive lawsuits run by tester plaintiffs and their counsel who seek automatic attorneys' fees."
Laufer's lawyer, Thomas Bacon, said that without "testers" like his client filing lawsuits few businesses would comply with the ADA, a law that does not provide for any award of damages and is enforced by a small handful of advocates like Laufer.
"The reality is nobody has complied voluntarily with the ADA," Bacon said. "The only reason any place is in compliance with the law is because of these few plaintiffs. But for them, we would still be back in the 1970s."
Federal appeals courts have been divided over whether disability rights "testers" like Laufer who have no intention of visiting a place of public accommodation have experienced a legal injury that gives them proper standing to sue companies.
While some courts have concluded the testers have not suffered a concrete enough injury to be allowed to sue, the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in October reached the opposite conclusion in the Maine case.
The 1st Circuit said it was bound by a 1982 Supreme Court decision called Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman.
That ruling held that a civil rights "tester" who sought to determine if an apartment rental firm complied with the Fair Housing Act - a federal law barring discrimination by landlords, real estate companies, lenders and others due to disability, race and other factors - could sue it.
Lawyers for Acheson Hotels pointed to a more recent Supreme Court ruling, one issued in 2021 called TransUnion v. Ramirez, that held that no standing exists when there are no "downstream consequences from failing to receive the required information."
A lawyer for Acheson Hotels, Adam Unikowsky, declined to comment.
The case is due to be heard during the court's next term, which starts in October.
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Will Dunham
면책조항: XM Group 회사는 체결 전용 서비스와 온라인 거래 플랫폼에 대한 접근을 제공하여, 개인이 웹사이트에서 또는 웹사이트를 통해 이용 가능한 콘텐츠를 보거나 사용할 수 있도록 허용합니다. 이에 대해 변경하거나 확장할 의도는 없습니다. 이러한 접근 및 사용에는 다음 사항이 항상 적용됩니다: (i) 이용 약관, (ii) 위험 경고, (iii) 완전 면책조항. 따라서, 이러한 콘텐츠는 일반적인 정보에 불과합니다. 특히, 온라인 거래 플랫폼의 콘텐츠는 금융 시장에서의 거래에 대한 권유나 제안이 아닙니다. 금융 시장에서의 거래는 자본에 상당한 위험을 수반합니다.
온라인 거래 플랫폼에 공개된 모든 자료는 교육/정보 목적으로만 제공되며, 금융, 투자세 또는 거래 조언 및 권고, 거래 가격 기록, 금융 상품 또는 원치 않는 금융 프로모션의 거래 제안 또는 권유를 포함하지 않으며, 포함해서도 안됩니다.
이 웹사이트에 포함된 모든 의견, 뉴스, 리서치, 분석, 가격, 기타 정보 또는 제3자 사이트에 대한 링크와 같이 XM이 준비하는 콘텐츠 뿐만 아니라, 제3자 콘텐츠는 일반 시장 논평으로서 "현재" 기준으로 제공되며, 투자 조언으로 여겨지지 않습니다. 모든 콘텐츠가 투자 리서치로 해석되는 경우, 투자 리서치의 독립성을 촉진하기 위해 고안된 법적 요건에 따라 콘텐츠가 의도되지 않았으며, 준비되지 않았다는 점을 인지하고 동의해야 합니다. 따라서, 관련 법률 및 규정에 따른 마케팅 커뮤니케이션이라고 간주됩니다. 여기에서 접근할 수 있는 앞서 언급한 정보에 대한 비독립 투자 리서치 및 위험 경고 알림을 읽고, 이해하시기 바랍니다.
