98 F.4th 346
1st Cir.2024Background
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, Boston University (BU) implemented a mandatory COVID-19 testing program for students.
- Plaintiff Caitlin Corrigan, a BU graduate student with a chronic medical condition, sought an exemption under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which BU denied.
- As a result, Corrigan was suspended for noncompliance; she never returned to campus or attempted to re-enroll after her suspension.
- Corrigan sued BU, alleging a violation of Title III of the ADA for failing to accommodate her disability.
- By the time of litigation, BU had ended its mandatory testing program and related protocols due to improved public health conditions.
- The district court dismissed Corrigan’s suit as moot, finding there was no ongoing conduct or imminent threat of recurrence, and no valid exception to mootness applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Corrigan’s ADA claim moot due to BU ending the mandate? | Her claim is not moot; BU could reinstate the program and ADA violations remain unaddressed. | The claim is moot as the challenged conduct ended for non-litigation reasons and is unlikely to recur. | Claim is moot; no live controversy exists. |
| Does the voluntary cessation exception apply? | BU could easily reinstate the testing, so case is not truly moot. | BU ended the program due to public health, not to avoid litigation; recurrence is unlikely. | Exception doesn’t apply; no reasonable expectation of recurrence. |
| Does the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception apply? | The issue could recur in future pandemics or health emergencies. | The mandate lasted nearly two years and is unlikely to recur; not inherently transitory. | Exception doesn’t apply; no likelihood of recurrence or inability to review. |
| Does a request for damages or prospective relief keep the case alive? | Damages and/or ADA relief provide a live controversy. | Damages aren’t recoverable under Title III; no imminent risk or prospective harm. | Damages unavailable; claim remains moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (Voluntary cessation mootness exception standard)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (Capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception is limited and requires likely recurrence to same party)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (Mootness and transitory nature of claims)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (Voluntary cessation must be absolutely clear to moot a case)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (Standing requires imminent and substantial material risk of future harm)