Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer: Do ADA Testers Have Standing To Call Out Organizations Lacking Accommodations?

Tetra Images

On Oct. 4, the Supreme Court heard and participated in the oral arguments for the Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act. This case is unique due to all the aspects surrounding the case and the case could also be thrown out instead of having an outcome. 

There was even discussion over whether this case should be heard in the first place since Laufer had asked for the case to be withdrawn and Acheson Hotels is now owned by a new organization. There was discussion over whether this was important to discuss now so that if there were cases in the future, there would be precedents to refer to. Even with all of the debates, the arguments were an hour and a half long. 

The arguments with the Supreme Court created debate over standing and went into hypotheticals for websites when it comes to people with disabilities.

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law in 1990 by President George H. W. Bush. This prohibits discrimination towards individuals in the areas of employment, transportation, public accommodations, communications, and access to state and local government programs and services. There are many subsections of this law that are specific to different areas in which people can be discriminated against. 

The Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer started due to an issue in 2020 with Florida resident Deborah Laufer. Laufer is a self-appointed civil rights tester with multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair or a cane in order to get around. She also has visual impairments. She goes through websites to find those who do not have the necessary information on their websites for those with disabilities at their hotels. 

Since 2018, Laufer has sued over 600 hotels and she has stated that it has prompted many hotels to add the necessary information about accommodations to their website. This current case is with Acheson Hotels in Maine which is now under new management. 

Those who back the Acheson Hotels believe that since Laufer had no intentions of staying at Acheson Hotels, she has no standing to be able to sue. This is due to the “reservation rule” that is part of the Americans with Disabilities Act which allows hotels to describe the accessibility of their facilities through the reservation service. With this rule, if a person were to book the hotel room then they can get the list of accommodations after so it does not mean that the accommodations have to be on the website themselves but in the space in which the booking is reserved. 

The reservation service must be “in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs.”

There was a lot of debate about whether a self-appointed tester for the Americans with Disabilities Act had the standing to determine whether websites have their ADA accommodations to the point of taking it to the courts. There is also the debate of whether this is all okay if the person has no intentions of ever visiting the hotel. 

Here is a look into what previous courts have already decided on the case. 

• The district court dismissed the case entirely. They stated that Laufer had no standing since she had no intention of visiting the hotel. She did not suffer an injury for visiting the hotel’s website that did not have the accommodations since she had no intentions of visiting anyway. 

• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit believed that Laufer not planning on booking a room does not mean she did not suffer the injury of there not being accommodations on the website. 

Acheson asked the judge to throw out the case because Laufer did not have standing and the district court agreed to do this. It is now up to the Supreme Court. Deborah Laufer has asked that the case be dismissed.

Those who presented the case orally include:

Adam G. Unikowsky, Esquire, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the Petitioner.

Unikowsky has a specialized area of interest in communications, internet, and technology. 

Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting neither party.

She has argued ten cases before the Supreme Court. 

Kelsi B. Corkran, Esquire, Washington, D.C.; on behalf of the Respondent.

She has served as lead counsel in the cases of Torres v. Madrid and Taylor v. Riojas. These are two of the most significant cases that were heard in the 2020 term of the Supreme Court. 

The Arguments

Adam G. Unikowsky 

Adam G. Unikowsky is defending the Acheson Hotels started the opening arguments. The main arguments are that:

• Deborah Laufer does not have an informational injury nor a stigmatic injury because Acheson Hotels did not have their accommodations immediately on their website.

• Laufer had no intentions of ever visiting the hotel that she had researched.

• Laufer has misinterpreted the laws in the Americans with Disabilities Act and that the Acheson Hotels are within their rights with the ADA.

• The Supreme Court should not side with an individual who files hundreds of lawsuits and has now withdrawn from the lawsuit now that it is at the Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court also would like clarification since the hotel was moved to new management and the plaintiff has withdrawn. They would like to understand that if they decide this case, it would not be an advisory opinion and it would be substantial since there are “no live controversies” currently in the case.  

Laufer has withdrawn from the lawsuit, the petitioner believes that it is important to still hear because if they do not then she may file another lawsuit or someone else will. It is believed to be best to hear it now and determine the Constitutionality of not having the accommodations immediately on the website. 

Typically in this situation, the case would be abandoned, the petitioner believes that it should still be heard and decided in the Supreme Court and believes that it sets a precedent. 

During the arguments with Unikowsky, they started the arguments and debates of what gives someone standing when it comes to disabilities. The main reason for this is because of the fact that Laufer never had the intention of staying at the hotel.

They also discussed whether or not an individual saying “I will someday” is not good enough to constitute standing. Saying “someday” in itself is not good enough to make someone have standing in this case. 

Some Justices believe that since those with disabilities want to be treated the same way as everyone else this would mean not needing to add the accommodations on the website. 

Erica L. Ross

Erica L. Ross spoke for the United States, as Amicus Curiae, and supported neither of the parties involved. 

Ross agrees that this case is moot because there is no longer a plaintiff and because the website has updated and the issues that originated the case are no longer there. She argues that if the court were to hear and decide this case, it would be to decide that Title III and the Reservation Rule would give her the right to information about accommodations on the website. 

Ross argues that the court has no jurisdiction over the case and that the court should decide to not make a ruling on the standing issue. 

Kelsi B. Corkran 

Corkran argues that at the time that the case was filed, the website did not have the information needed for those with disabilities to be able to use the online reservation system. This makes the website noncompliant with the ADA regulations.

She argues that when places do not have the proper accommodations for those with disabilities it tells people “disabled people are unwelcome participants in the marketplace and contribute to their day-to-day experience of being isolated, invisible, and ignored.”

She goes on to say that if the Court decides to side with Acheson Hotels and believes that Laufer does not have standing, it would indicate that those with disabilities do not have enough harm done to themselves when they open a hotel website and do not have the abilities to properly make a hotel reservation. 

Conclusion

The arguments with the Supreme Court went into discussing hypotheticals and attempting to figure out the standing debate. The Supreme Court was debating whether or not to discuss or throw it out due to the possibility of having to hear a similar case again. 

The Court stated that they have a lot of cases to hear and a larger workload and they find that hearing the case is a waste of their time. They did end up going through and hearing the arguments and debating if websites not having their accommodations easily accessible is not ADA compliant. 

It was mentioned by Justice Sotomayor that not having the ADA accommodations has come across as those with disabilities are not welcome. 

Justice Alito stated “But the case before us is dead as a doornail and is not going to arise again between these parties.”

As of now, new people run the hotel and the website has been updated with the ADA-compliant information going forward. There is no decision from the Supreme Court at the current moment. 

There is no clear indication of what way the court leans based on the oral arguments.