Four people in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building. Three people are wheelchair users, the person on the left has a service animal, and the person on the right holds a white can and a guide dog.

DREDF Statement Following SCOTUS Acheson Hotels LLC v. Laufer Oral Argument

Date: October 4, 2023

Our concern with the Acheson Hotels LLC v. Laufer case is that if individuals who are willing to take on the burden of enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as “testers” are stripped of the right to file lawsuits, the result will be less civil rights enforcement and the continued exclusion of people with disabilities from community life. ADA testers are people who intentionally investigate discrimination by businesses so they can challenge that discrimination and make the world more accessible. They are essential to the ADA’s effectiveness.

When an individual with disabilities visits a hotel’s online reservation system to get legally required information that will tell them whether the hotel will accommodate their disability-related needs, the failure of the hotel to provide that information causes a “dignitary” harm. In other words, it sends a message to the disabled person that they do not belong, and are not welcome as a potential customer. It devalues the person and makes them feel disrespected and “less than” because of their disability. This is one type of harm the ADA was specifically passed to address.

During today’s argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Acheson Hotels case, we were glad that the Justices recognized that unequal treatment and discrimination can cause harm to a person’s dignity. We were also glad that the Justices recognized that dignitary harm is a type of harm that gives people whose civil rights have been violated the right to go to court. We are hopeful that the Court will allow testers who experience such harms to continue going to court to help enforce this country’s civil rights laws.

We know that online services, like the hotel reservation system in the Acheson Hotels cases, present unique challenges. However, the ADA is supposed to adapt to changes in technology. When a business uses technology to reach more customers, it does not excuse them from making their goods and services accessible. Advances in technology are not an excuse to discriminate.

Listen to the Acheson Hotels LLC v. Laufer oral argument (or download MP3)
Read the transcript of Acheson Hotels LLC v. Laufer oral argument (PDF)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.