An intriguing matter involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the concept of “tester standing” is currently under scrutiny at the US Supreme Court. The case revolves around Deborah Laufer, an individual with multiple sclerosis who identifies as a civil rights tester, focusing on identifying hotels with websites that lack information on accessibility. Laufer has brought legal action against over 600 of these establishments since 2018, although the right for her, and other ‘testers’, to bring such lawsuits is now being challenged.
Signed into law in 1990, the ADA prohibits businesses from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Subsequent regulations, known as the “reservation rule”, obligate hotels to detail accessibility information sufficiently to allow individuals with disabilities to independently assess if a given hotel or room meets their needs. One hotel Laufer sued, The Coast Village Inn, argued that as Laufer had no intention to stay at their hotel, she lacks the right to sue, known legally as standing.
A decision in the case could hold significant implications, not simply for lawsuits under the ADA, but also for broader questions related to the right to sue. Acheson Hotels, the proprietor of The Coast Village Inn, asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the matter. Laufer agreed that the court should review the case, urging for a resolution to the conflict among lower courts over whether testers have standing. The high court agreed in March to review the case.
From Laufer’s perspective, the language of the ADA permits any individual with disabilities to file a lawsuit if they encounter a barrier to accessibility, thus being subjected to disability-based discrimination. She asserts that her experience on Acheson’s website, which failed to provide accessibility information, amounted to personal discrimination, despite her not intending to stay at the hotel. Acheson, on the other hand, maintains that as Laufer didn’t plan on using their accessible facilities, the mere lack of information on these facilities doesn’t grant her the right to sue.
The importance of these ‘tester lawsuits’, as highlighted by those supporting Laufer, is their crucial role in furthering the goals of the ADA, particularly considering most individuals with disabilities lack the resources to challenge accessibility barriers. The wider consequences of the court’s decision, as elaborated by Acheson, may have far-reaching ramifications; if the plaintiff can establish injury merely from visiting a website, this could dramatically expand standing laws far beyond this case. The Supreme Court is expected to continue its review despite the complexities surrounding the debate and recent updates to the hotel’s website.
For more detailed coverage on this case, please visit the original article on SCOTUSblog.