618 F.Supp.3d 275
M.D.N.C.2022Background
- Plaintiff Emily Bartell is blind, uses a Seeing Eye–trained service dog since 2015, and has been a routine plasma donor at the Asheville PDC since 2019.
- After Grifols acquired Interstate Blood Bank (IBBI) in Dec. 2020, Defendants adopted a policy excluding service animals from the donor floor; staff began denying Bartell’s dog access during donation.
- Bartell alleges violations of Title III of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for (a) denial of her service animal on the donor floor and (b) failure to provide effective communication (kiosk inaccessibility and privacy/time issues).
- The court held an evidentiary record on written submissions and concluded for preliminary-injunction purposes that Bartell likely will succeed on the service-animal claim but not yet on the communication claim (a factual dispute exists about privacy/timeliness).
- The court granted a preliminary injunction requiring Defendants to permit Bartell’s service animal on the donor floor, imposed a $500 bond, and ordered Defendants to certify compliance and respond about the factual dispute within 10 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether excluding Bartell’s service animal from the donor floor violates Title III/Section 504 | Denial is per se discrimination; dog is trained, well-behaved, and necessary for safe navigation | Policy excludes service animals to protect donors/staff and preserve infection control (equated to operating/burn units) | Court: Likely success for Bartell; exclusion unlawful absent an applicable exception |
| 2) Whether an ADA exception applies: direct threat, fundamental alteration, or lack of control | Dog poses no demonstrated infection or safety risk; was previously allowed and never caused contamination or disruption | Service animals can unpredictably threaten safety; donor floor is a limited-access, infection-sensitive area | Court: Defendants failed to show individualized direct-threat assessment or evidence of fundamental alteration or lack of control; exceptions not met |
| 3) Whether Defendants provided effective communication (auxiliary aids) for kiosk access | Kiosk inaccessible; staff reader delays check-in, compromises privacy and takes longer than sighted donors | Staff reader is a qualified auxiliary aid; overall donation time comparable and reader may offer as much or more privacy | Court: Disputed facts (privacy and timeliness). Court did not rule on merits and asked parties whether to hold an evidentiary hearing |
| 4) Equitable factors for preliminary relief (irreparable harm, balance, public interest, bond) | Denial causes irreparable harm from discrimination and practical injury (bruising, loss of independence); little hardship to Defendants | Injunction risks FDA noncompliance and operational harm; plaintiff still donates with a cane so harm not irreparable | Court: Irreparable harm presumed; balance and public interest favor Plaintiff; bond $500 required (speculative harm to Defendants) |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (four-factor preliminary-injunction test)
- Di Biase v. SPX Corp., 872 F.3d 224 (4th Cir. 2017) (separate consideration of Winter factors)
- Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454 (4th Cir. 2012) (ADA and Rehabilitation Act impose similar requirements)
- Berardelli v. Allied Servs. Inst. of Rehab. Med., 900 F.3d 104 (3d Cir. 2018) (refusing to permit service animals can constitute discrimination)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (requirement to show likelihood of future injury for injunctive relief)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (irreparable harm standard in injunctive relief)