Latest news with #UnruhCivilRightsAct
Epoch Times
02-05-2025
- Business
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Grapples With Discrimination Lawsuit Against Labcorp
The Supreme Court struggled this week with a complex discrimination lawsuit that blind patients filed against Labcorp over self-service kiosks they could not use. The case, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, was heard on April 29. The petitioner does business with the public as Labcorp. The respondents are blind Labcorp patients, including Luke Davis and Julian Vargas. The issue in the case is whether a federal district court may certify a class action that includes claimants who have not experienced an injury. In a class action, one or more plaintiffs sue on behalf of a 'class,' or a larger group of people who claim to have suffered the same injury because of a defendant. Federal and state court rules govern whether a class action gets certified and is allowed to proceed. The case goes back to 2017, when Labcorp, a major provider of diagnostic services, offered patients a new way to check in for appointments, according to the company's Related Stories 1/27/2025 6/8/2023 The company began offering self-service kiosks at its patient service centers, but blind individuals could not access them without help, the petition said. In 2020, a group of legally blind people filed a putative—or proposed—class action lawsuit, claiming that the kiosks violated the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Labcorp claims that not all blind people in the class actually experienced injuries as a result of the company's policies. When it granted the petition on Jan. 24, the Supreme Court said it would consider whether federal civil procedure rules allow a federal court to certify a class action 'when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.' Article III of the U.S. Constitution governs federal courts and has been interpreted as saying that those courts may only hear cases involving actual controversies in which at least one litigant has standing to sue. Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the claim to justify their participation in a lawsuit. The company stated in the petition that 'it is very hard to find blind patients actually harmed by the availability of Labcorp's new kiosks.' Many blind patients 'either do not know these kiosks exist or, if they did, have zero interest in using them, preferring instead to use the front-desk option that has served them well for years,' it said. Moreover, the other side could not point to any patients who could not avail themselves of Labcorp's services because they could not access a kiosk, according to the petition. The plaintiffs in the original lawsuit defined the proposed classes as 'all blind patients who had been merely exposed to these allegedly unlawful kiosks—i.e., blind patients who had walked into a [patient service center] with a kiosk, regardless of whether they knew about or wanted to use it.' The plaintiffs said this meant the classes could number as many as hundreds of thousands of people and could lead to about half a billion dollars per year in damages, the petition states. In May 2022, a federal district court certified two classes in the lawsuit. One class consisted of patients in California seeking damages under the Unruh Act; the other class consisted of patients across the country seeking relief under the ADA and two other federal statutes—the Rehabilitation Act and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Labcorp appealed the class certifications to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which sided with the patients in a February 2024 'Neither court ... disputed that each class contained a sizable number of members who lacked Article III injuries—which makes good sense, because a person simply proximate to an allegedly unlawful kiosk has not suffered any concrete injury,' the petition said. The Ninth Circuit's 'lax approach to certification' has been rejected by about half the federal circuit courts, it added. Allowing uninjured persons into a class 'can drive up potential liability, and thus manufacture leverage with which to extort a settlement.' This means that weak claims can move forward and millions of dollars can be 'extracted from companies who have done nothing wrong—but nonetheless cannot tolerate a massive litigation risk,' the petition said. During the April 29 oral 'If a class is defined to include plaintiffs without Article III standing and, as a result, you need thousands of mini-trials to separate the wheat from the chaff, the Article III issue necessarily swamps any common ones,' said Francisco, who was U.S. solicitor general for most of the first Trump administration. In this case, 'plaintiffs who don't want to use kiosks don't have standing to challenge how kiosks work any more than a vegan has standing to challenge how a restaurant defines a medium rare steak,' he said. It follows that the Supreme Court 'needs to assess whether each of the 8,000 to 112,000 class members actually want to use kiosks, and that will necessarily swamp any common issues, as the D.C. and First Circuits correctly held' in two prior cases, Francisco said. Justice Clarence Thomas asked Francisco if the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to deal with this case. 'This court has the jurisdiction to address that judgment, reverse it, and send it back to the Ninth Circuit,' the attorney said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said Labcorp is responsible 'for the confusion that we are in right now.' She said Labcorp previously argued that the class definition was 'too narrow' but that today, it is 'saying it's improper because it's too broad.' The definition 'now includes uninjured people, whereas, before, it … contained only injured people,' she said. Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern that the Ninth Circuit's opinion may be an advisory opinion. An advisory opinion is a non-binding opinion in which a court provides advice on a hypothetical legal question. The Supreme Court has long held that Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which gives federal courts jurisdiction, or authority, over live disputes, During a discussion with Department of Justice attorney Sopan Joshi, Justice Neil Gorsuch said the Ninth Circuit ruling 'really does start to sound sort of like an advisory [opinion].' The respondents' attorney, Deepak Gupta, said the Supreme Court has previously ruled that 'Article III doesn't give federal courts the power to give relief to any uninjured plaintiff, class action or not.' The lawyer said if the court rules on the merits of the case and issues an 'advisory opinion,' that opinion should state 'that at the class certification stage, the proper inquiry is whether there will be an administratively feasible mechanism to weed out the uninjured.' The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.
Reuters
24-04-2025
- Health
- Reuters
This Supreme Court case could upend class actions
April 24 (Reuters) - When the U.S. Supreme Court next week hears arguments in a case that could reshape class action litigation, the justices will consider some lofty questions about constitutional standing and jurisdiction. My curiosity, however, has more to do with the practical effects. If the high court sides with diagnostic-testing company Laboratory Corporation of America and holds that class actions can't be certified if they include uninjured members, what might the real-world legal impact be? In a word, huge. Multiple interest groups in friend-of-the-court briefs have offered hypothetical scenarios if the court should bar classes with uninjured members. Among them, this could thwart class actions involving low dollar claims, upend private antitrust enforcement or stymie defendants looking for 'global peace' to resolve cases where liability is widespread. Conversely, what if the respondents – two legally blind patients who sought medical testing and the American Council for the Blind – prevail in establishing a more lenient class certification standard nationwide? Will this allow plaintiffs to 'lard up classes with the uninjured,' as Labcorp lawyers put it, opens new tab, and coerce settlements from companies spooked by potential liability? To be clear, no one is suggesting that uninjured class members are entitled to compensation. The key question is when and how they're weeded out of the class. The high court has been circling the issue for several years after pointedly leaving it open in two prior class certification decisions – Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo in 2016 and TransUnion v. Ramirez in 2021. In Labcorp vs. Davis, which is set for argument on April 29, the justices will confront it head-on. Originally filed in Los Angeles federal court in 2020, the class action was brought on behalf of visually impaired people who were unable to use Labcorp's check-in kiosks when arriving for blood draws or other medical tests. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which carries statutory penalties of $4,000 per violation. Labcorp did not respond to a request for comment. Lead counsel Noel Francisco, a Jones Day partner who served as solicitor general during President Donald Trump's first administration, declined comment through a firm spokesperson. Labcorp argues that thousands of class members were unaware of or uninterested in using the kiosks. That means they sustained no injury and lack standing to sue under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, Labcorp says. The company also asserts that Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes a class only where common questions of law and fact predominate, does not permit a putative class 'saturated with significant numbers of uninjured members.' Sorting out the injured from the uninjured would 'overwhelm any common questions — destroying predominance,' Labcorp says. If Labcorp's position prevails, 'it will make it a lot harder for people to get into the courthouse door,' said Deepak Gupta, of Gupta Wessler, who represents the blind patients. In an amicus brief, opens new tab, the AARP and other consumer advocates offer a hypothetical example for support. What if members of the U.S. National Guard who worked for the same civilian employer were discriminated against when they took leave for training and wanted to bring a class action? (In a footnote, the amici cite four prior cases with such allegations.) If the Supreme Court changed the rules to require every putative class member to provide proof of injury at the onset of litigation, plaintiffs lawyers would need to get detailed payroll and military records for them all, the amici theorize, plus records from the defendant covering civilian benefits. Then they'd need to hire an expert to review and analyze the data and calculate the individual financial injury for each member of the proposed class. This would 'frontload an enormous amount of work' properly saved for later damage calculations – after the case has been litigated on the merits, the amici argue. That result would make it harder and more costly to bring class actions. Or as Gupta's clients put it, opens new tab, such a rule "would eviscerate the operation of the class device" in many instances. Antitrust watchdogs are also sounding the alarm if the court should rule that classes cannot contain any uninjured members. Antitrust class actions are different from statutory damages cases, the American Antitrust Institute in an amicus brief, opens new tab points out. That's because antitrust class actions – where plaintiffs typically claim the defendant's anticompetitive behavior distorted the free market – rely on econometric analysis to determine damages for the class as a whole. Similar analysis can be used to identify which members are injured. As a result, it is 'generally untrue' that including uninjured class members inflates damages or overwhelms common questions in antitrust class actions, the American Antitrust Institute said, urging the court to 'write narrowly' in crafting its decision. Even some corporate defendants could rue a ban on certifying classes with a signifcant number of uninjured members – at least in some circumstances, cautioned Harvard Law School professor William Rubenstein and New York University Law School professor Arthur Miller in a brief supporting neither party, opens new tab. 'When liability is more likely – crashes, derailments, environmental spills, diesel emissions fraud – defendants often embrace the class mechanism' as a way to provide closure, the professors wrote – and the bigger, the better. Such defendants 'have an interest in maximizing the breadth of the class, lest future litigation seep through the seams of the settlement.' Still, Labcorp and its allies counter that certifying classes with uninjured members is fundamentally improper, arguing that federal courts have no power to assess their claims 'even if bundled with the claims of those who do have standing.' Doing so has consequences, Labcorp says. 'For in class actions, certification is often the ballgame. Once a class has been certified, the next step is usually settlement, not trial.' If a plaintiffs can inflate the size of a class with people who aren't injured, Labcorp says, it can 'drive up potential liability, and thus manufacture leverage to extort a settlement for all members, whether harmed or not.'
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
A luxury resort in California recently banned kids. Is that legal?
ENCINITAS, Calif. (FOX 5/KUSI) — A luxury resort in northern San Diego County recently began banning guests under the age of 18 from staying overnight to create a 'tranquil' experience for adults. The move by the Alila Marea Beach Resort, located in the city of Encinitas, has called into question whether making a hotel 'adult-only' potentially violates California civil rights laws that ensure equal access to businesses and public accommodations. The hotel said on its website that the policy, which went into effect on Feb. 14, aims to create an experience 'tailored to adult travelers seeking relaxation, exploration and a peaceful stay by the beach.' Disneyland to update attractions, add new entertainment for 70th anniversary celebration It mirrors other Alila Marea properties across the world, including two in California, that only accommodate adults on site. However, a spokesperson for the resort said kids are still welcome to attend events on-site or dine at its restaurants. The policy is also not unique among short-term accommodations in San Diego County. Countless hostels have age restrictions in place, as well as other major resorts like a Vista health spa hotel and the two major casino resorts — Sycuan and Viejas. So is Alila Marea Beach Resort's policy legal? Experts say it depends. Whether or not these kinds of rules barring kids from their hotels are above board largely depends on the why. California has rather broad protections against discrimination by businesses under a 1959 law called the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The law prevents enterprises from implementing policies that arbitrarily deny equal access to their services based on a person's characteristics, like race or sex. According to the state's Civil Rights Department, unlawful policies could be akin to a doctor refusing to treat a patient who has been diagnosed as HIV positive, hosting 'ladies night' discounts at a bar, or preventing someone with a service dog from entering a store. That's not to say businesses have to serve everyone. Legal experts explain there needs to be a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason or compelling social interest to restrict its business to a subset of the public. Examples offered by California officials include rental car agencies not renting to people under 25 years old, a funeral home excluding uninvited guests from a private service, or a restaurant refusing to serve a customer with a history of disruptive behavior. As for hotels, there can be sound reasons for implementing age-restrictive policies, notably if allowing kids would violate other state laws — as in the case of San Diego's casino resorts due to the state's minimum gambling age of 21. Bay Area lottery player wins $30 million But beyond that, businesses like hotels are generally not allowed to adopt blanket policies prohibiting guests under a certain age, even if they are 'nosier, rowdier, more mischievous and more boisterous' than adults, as the California Supreme Court wrote in a 1983 opinion. Whether Alila Marea Beach Resort's policy would hold up against legal snuff remains an open question, because it's unclear if maintaining a peaceful environment for adults is a compelling enough reason to exempt the civil rights law. Violations of the law could hit the hotel with a $4,000 fine for each instance. FOX 5/KUSI reached out to the hotel and Hyatt for comment but did not hear back prior to publication. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Associated Press
13-02-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
California court rules against baker in revival of same-sex wedding cake disputes
A Kern County baker violated California law when she refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple for their wedding, a state appeals court ruled this week in a suit brought by the state's Civil Rights Department. If the scenario sounds familiar, that's because it's central to a series of cases that have for years been shaping the nation's legal debate over free speech and anti-discrimination laws. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado ruling that a baker had violated that state's nondiscrimination law when he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding. The ruling was based on the court's finding that the Colorado civil rights commission handling the case had been prejudiced against the baker's religious beliefs. The court in 2023 ruled, also in a Colorado case, in favor of a website designer who opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds and who was afraid the same state statutes could in theory force her to design a wedding website for a gay couple. That would violate the designer's First Amendment rights to free expression, the Supreme Court ruled in a decision that LGBTQ rights activists said could open the door to more discrimination in public spaces. The California decision this week draws boundaries on what counts under a business owner's right to free expression. In a statement, California Civil Rights Department director Kevin Kish praised the ruling for upholding 'the longstanding principle guaranteeing all Californians full and equal access to services and goods in the marketplace.' The case stemmed from the marriage of Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, who visited Tastries bakery in Bakersfield to buy a cake for their wedding in August 2017. The couple spoke with an employee and selected a pre-designed plain, white, three-tiered cake that the bakery often sells for various celebrations including birthdays and baby showers, according to court filings. When the couple returned with friends and family for a tasting the following week, Tastries' owner Catharine Miller refused to sell the cake upon learning it would be served at a same-sex wedding. Miller is a devout Christian who also refuses to make cakes depicting marijuana use or sexual imagery. She later told the courts she has a bakery policy stating that 'wedding cakes must not contradict God's sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman.' The couple filed a complaint with the state Civil Rights Department, which sued Miller in 2018. Miller, who is represented by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, argued her policy was based on her religious beliefs about marriage, not animus toward LGBTQ people. A Kern County judge sided with her, ruling that Miller's policy did not violate the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act because it applies to all customers, and because Miller referred the couple to another bakery that had previously agreed to sell cakes to same-sex couples (but which the Rodriguez-Del Rios had already ruled out). The state appealed the decision last year, and a three-judge panel of the 5th Appellate District reversed it in a unanimous ruling. The judges ruled Miller's policy is not neutral because it could only apply to customers on the basis of their sexual orientation. They also ruled that reproducing a plain cake with no writing or decorations that Miller would have sold to anyone else does not count as being forced to express support for a same-sex wedding. 'Drawing the contours of protected speech to include routinely produced, ordinary commercial products as the artistic self-expression of the designer is unworkably overbroad,' the judges wrote. Miller, through a spokesperson at the Becket Fund, declined to comment. In a statement, her attorney and Becket Fund vice president Eric Rassbach said Miller would continue to run the bakery while they appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. 'This case is not just about Cathy Miller — it's about protecting the rights of all Americans to live and work according to their deeply held beliefs,' said another of her attorneys, Charles LiMandri. 'We will continue to fight in the courts on Cathy's behalf to ensure that the freedom to live out her faith through her creative work is upheld and that justice is fully served.' The case could be primed for more appeals by conservative legal groups that ultimately seek to extend the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Colorado web designer case and establish exceptions to anti-discrimination laws allowing businesses to refuse services to gay Americans, said Matt Coles, a law professor at UC Law San Francisco. But he said the California ruling makes important distinctions between designing a wedding website and making a standard cake. 'This was not a great case for them,' Coles said. 'The challenge in this case was, how do you draw a line between stuff that's clearly speech or expression, and stuff that's clearly not? If what you're selling is some kind of generic cake, you don't have 1st Amendment claims.'
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Tastries decision reversed on appeal
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) — A state appeals court on Tuesday reversed a Kern County judge's ruling in the long-running Tastries case — finding the bakery's refusal to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple established 'intentional discrimination.' It doesn't matter that Tastries' owner Cathy Miller referred the couple to another bakery, the appeals court said. If that's all it took to satisfy the state's Unruh Civil Rights Act — which says all people, regardless of sexual orientation, must be given equal services at all businesses — 'business establishments would be free to refuse service to anyone on account of protected characteristics so long as they told those customers there was another comparable business in existence confirmed to have no objection to providing service,' court said. The court also rejected the argument that the creation of the cake was protected free speech. 'A three-tiered, plain white cake with no writing, engravings, adornments, symbols or images is not pure speech,' the court said. The case has been remanded to Kern County. It's unclear when the next hearing will take place — or if further appeals will follow. In 2017, Miller, owner of Tastries Bakery, refused to bake a wedding cake for Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio after learning their sexual orientation. She was sued. State attorneys argued at trial she discriminated against the couple, while Miller's attorneys with the Thomas More Society said she's a devout Christian who believes baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple would violate her religious beliefs. Miller's attorneys also argued the creation of a wedding cake is a form of artistic expression, and as such is protected speech under the First Amendment. They said she can't be compelled to create a work of art against her will. Judge Eric Bradshaw ruled in her favor, finding her 'pure and expressive speech is entitled to protection under the First Amendment' and the baking of a Tastries wedding cake is 'labor-intensive' and 'artistic.' The state appealed. Arguments were heard in December, after which the court began preparing its decision. Of Miller's refusal to make a cake for a same-sex couple due to religious beliefs, the court said the following: 'Despite that the underlying rationale for the policy is rooted in a sincerely held religious belief about marriage, held in good faith without ill will or malice, the policy nonetheless requires a distinction in service that is based solely on, and because of, the end users' sexual orientation. The relevant and undisputed facts about the policy and its application here necessarily establish intentional discrimination.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
