No person with a disability left standing

 No person with a disability left Standing

 

There is a legal principle called “standing” which essentially means an individual can’t sue about something unless he or she was harmed by whatever that something is.

Advocacy groups have, for a long time, used people as “testers” to see if such laws as public accommodations for race and/or disability were being upheld.

This fall the issue now will be raised to the level of the Supreme Court.

A Florida resident who uses a cane and/or wheelchair and has a significant visual impairment sued Coast Village Inn and Cottages because their website failed to offer sufficient information on accommodations for the disabled as required under Americans With Disability Act (ADA).   Her suit was dismissed by the lower court because she was not injured; and therefore, did not have standing to sue since she did not plan to visit the Inn.  

The suit was overturned on appeal.  The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that her “feelings of frustration and humiliation and second-class citizenry” were “downstream consequences” and “adverse effects of the informational injury she experienced”.

Now the Supreme Court will get to decide whether a person with disabilities has standing to sue under ADA if they have no intention of visiting the business in question.  What does not seem to be addressed is how can a person with a disability make an informed decision if he/she can’t test out the access before trying to access the business in question.

This issue has gained increasing attention because over 600 lawsuits have been filed nationwide by these so-called testers.  Obviously, business groups are angry.  But so are advocacy groups for the disabled.  The groups representing both sides of the issue have filed amicus briefs, over 18 and counting for advocacy groups for the disabled.

“Despite the ADA’s promise to create equal access, insufficient oversight and enforcement means that businesses frequently ignore the civil rights of disabled people, making their lives extremely difficult and undermining the rights guaranteed by the law” said the senior director of legal advocacy and general counsel for The ARC.  “ADA testers are essential to ensuring the rights of people with disabilities are enforced and protected and that the full promise of ADA is realized”.

One of the attorneys filing an amicus brief explained that if a person with a disability discovers noncompliance when trying to use a business, it is too late to file a lawsuit.  

An unexpected twist occurred when the Florida woman asked the high court to drop her case because her attorney had been disciplined in Maryland.    The Supreme Court declined to drop the case but said it would consider the request in oral arguments which are scheduled for October 4.

The commitment to full access for those with disabilities needs to left standing at our highest court.