See Credit Details Below
To possess Article III standing, the U.S. Supreme Court requires a plaintiff to have suffered an “injury in fact” which is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent” not conjectural or hypothetical.
Title III of the ADA requires public accommodation businesses (restaurants, movie theaters, professional offices, hotels, etc.) to provide accommodations to people with disabilities so they can have the same level of access to goods and services as everyone else, including business websites and mobile apps.
Clearly a plaintiff who has experienced discrimination under the ADA has standing to sue for their injury, but what happens when a plaintiff is a “tester”? Does a “tester plaintiff” have Article III standing to sue? Have they suffered a concrete and particularized injury which is actual or imminent?
Please join expert faculty as they discuss:
- Brief overview of Article III standing (10 minutes)
- What is a “tester plaintiff”? (10 minutes)
- Circuit split on injury: Concrete, particularized and actual or imminent vs. frustration and humiliation (30 minutes)
- Writ of certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court on “tester standing” (10 minutes)
Who Should Attend: In-house counsel, outside attorneys, litigators and other allied professionals interested in learning more about Article III standing in “tester lawsuits”
Program Level: Overview
Advanced Preparation: None
Hon. Bernice Bouie Donald (Retired)
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Ronald J. Hedges
Ronald J. Hedges LLC
Stacey L. Turmel