By Minh N. Vu
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Plaintiff in Acheson v. Laufer dismisses her lawsuit with prejudice and asks SCOTUS to dismiss its pending review based on mootness.
In an unexpected and bizarre turn of events, Deborah Laufer, the plaintiff in the much-watched Acheson v. Laufer case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), has decided to dismiss that case
Continue Reading SCOTUS Might Not Rule on the Standing of ADA Title III Testers After All
By Minh N. Vu
Seyfarth Synopsis: SCOTUS grants certiorari on an ADA Title III case for the first time in 18 years to resolve a circuit split on whether an ADA plaintiff has standing to sue without having any intention of frequenting the business.
“Does a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act ‘tester’ have Article III standing to challenge a place
Continue Reading SCOTUS Agrees to Resolve A Circuit Split on Tester Standing in ADA Title III CasesSeyfarth Synopsis: Domino’s Likely to File Petition for Certiorari from Ninth Circuit’s Ruling in Robles v. Domino’s.
As we reported, the Ninth Circuit held in January that a blind plaintiff could move forward with his ADA Title III lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza for having an allegedly inaccessible website and mobile app. The court determined that allowing the claim to
Continue Reading Domino’s To Ask Supreme Court To Consider Whether ADA Website/Mobile App Accessibility Lawsuits Violate Due Process
Seyfarth Synopsis: In amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department agreed with the Fifth Circuit and defendant Coca-Cola that a vending machine is not a place of public accommodation and that public accommodations can comply with the ADA by providing assistance to customers in lieu of having accessible self-service equipment.
The Supreme Court recently asked the U.S.
Continue Reading Justice Department Says Vending Machines Are Not Places Of Public Accommodation—And So Much More
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Fry v. Napoleon Comm. Schools limits IDEA’s exhaustion requirement to those cases which seek relief for a denial of FAPE allowing for some claims brought under Title II and Section 504 on behalf of IDEA eligible students to proceed directly to court without implementation of IDEA’s administrative processes before litigation is commenced.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Rules Title II and Section 504 Claims Can Proceed to Court Without Exhausting IDEA’s Administrative Processes In Certain Circumstances