2022 Supreme(US)(ca11) 60
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Deborah Laufer – Appellant
Versus
Arpan LLC – Respondent
[PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 20-14846 ____________________ DEBORAH LAUFER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ARPAN LLC, d.b.a. America’s Best Value Inn,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-00200-AW-GRJ ____________________ USCA11 Case: 20-14846 Date Filed: 03/29/2022 Page: 2 of 68
2 Opinion of the Court 20-14846
Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges.
NEWSOM, Circuit Judge:
Another day, another standing case. In this iteration, we
have to decide whether an ADA plaintiff suffered a “concrete” in-
jury when she viewed a hotel’s website that omitted accessibility-
related information required by federal regulations and as a result,
she says, experienced “frustration and humiliation”—even though
she admits that she had (and has) no intention to personally visit
the hotel. Today’s case raises difficult questions about how to ap-
ply sometimes dissonant standing precedents. But in the final anal-
ysis, our recent decision in Sierra v. City of Hallandale Beach, 996
F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2021)—which, in turn, relied on the Supreme
Court’s decisions in Heckler v. Mathews,
20-14846 Opinion of the Court 3 alone, Laufer filed more than 50 ADA lawsuits against hotel own- ers. Arpan, LLC, the owner of America’s Best Value Inn in Mari- anna, Florida, maintains an online reservation system that Laufer says violates the ADA and its implementing regulations. In pertinent part, the ADA states that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, ad- vantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommoda- tion.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). In particular, the Act prohibits afford- ing disabled persons an unequal ability to participate in or benefit from a service or accommodation, id. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii), and fail- ing to make “reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or pro- cedures” when “necessary” to ensure such participation, id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). The ADA provides a cause of action for any person “aggrieved” by a violation of the statute, see id. §§ 2000a- 3(a), 12188(a)(1) (noting that § 2000a-3(a) applies to those “being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability” or who have “reasonable grounds for believing” that they are “about to be sub- jected to discrimination”), and directs the Attorney General to promulgate regulations to carry out the Act’s provisions, id. § 12186(b). One of those regulations applies to hotel owners and opera- tors, and governs “reservations made by any means, including by telephone, in-person, or through a third pa