Langer v. Kiser

“[N]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182. A facility is “all or any portion of buildings, structures, sites, complexes, equipment, rolling stock . . . roads, walks, passageways, parking lots, or other real or personal property, including the site where the building, property, structure, or equipment is located.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Courts cannot use the doctrine of standing to keep meritorious ADA cases out of federal courts simply because they are brought by serial litigants.

Langer, a paraplegic individual and “serial litigant,” could not access a business located at the Kisers’ property because they lacked van-accessible parking. He filed a claim under the American Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The district court ruled against him, rejecting his credibility due to his litigation history and concluding no ADA violation was established because the parking lot was not a place of public accommodation. Courts cannot use the doctrine of standing to keep meritorious ADA cases out of federal courts simply because they are brought by serial litigants. The district court improperly relied on Langer’s litigation history to reject his credibility when assessing whether he had standing. The record shows Langer’s intent to return to the business once the facilities were made accessible, and his “serial litigant” status cannot undermine 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, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C.  § 12182. A facility is “all or any portion of buildings, structures, sites, complexes, equipment, rolling stock . . . roads, walks, passageways, parking lots, or other real or personal property, including the site where the building, property, structure, or equipment is located.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 (emphasis added). Because the text of Title III of the ADA specifies that parking lots constitute a facility of a place of public accommodation, and because the parking lot was open to and used by the business’s customers, the district court was incorrect to conclude otherwise. Reversed and vacated.