942 F.3d 752
6th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Daimeon Mosley, a wheelchair user, visited Kohl’s stores in Northville and Novi, MI in April 2018 and alleges men’s restrooms had multiple ADA accessibility barriers (doors, grab bars, sinks, mirrors, dispensers).
- Mosley (an Arizona resident who visits Detroit-area family and performs in southeast Michigan) sued Kohl’s under Title III of the ADA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to compel restroom remediation.
- Kohl’s moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing, arguing Mosley lacked a plausible intent to return to those stores or to use their restrooms (he had visited each store only once and lives out of state).
- The district court dismissed, finding no real and immediate threat of future injury because Mosley had no definitive plan to return to those specific Kohl’s locations.
- The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded: at the motion-to-dismiss stage courts must accept complaint allegations as true and a plaintiff can show standing by alleging a plausible intent to return to the geographic area and an interest in the accommodation or deterrence from visiting because of barriers.
- The court rejected requiring a definitive plan or multiple prior visits, and held that ADA testers are not categorically barred from standing; one prior visit plus plans to return to the area can support a plausible intent to return.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for prospective injunctive relief | Mosley alleged past injury and that he would return to the stores (visits planned to Detroit area, would visit stores if made ADA-compliant). | Kohl’s: Mosley lacks standing because he lives in Arizona, visited stores only once, and has no definitive plan to return to those stores or use restrooms. | Reversed: At pleading stage, allegations that plaintiff will return to the geographic area and would visit the accommodation when accessible are sufficient to plausibly allege future injury. |
| Pleading standard for intent to return | A plaintiff need not plead precise dates or travel arrangements—plausible intent to return suffices. | District court required a “credible”/definitive plan to return, more than pleading-stage plausibility. | The court reaffirmed plausibility standard (Iqbal/Twombly) and rejected a requirement of a definitive plan at the motion-to-dismiss stage. |
| Requirement to re-visit (futile-gesture doctrine) | Plaintiffs need not engage in a futile gesture by repeatedly attempting access once they have actual notice of barriers; one visit can suffice. | Kohl’s implied plaintiff should show repeated use or concrete plans to use the restroom. | The court held plaintiffs need not repeatedly attempt to access an accommodation; one visit plus deterrence/intent can establish standing. |
| ADA tester status and standing | Tester status does not defeat standing where plaintiff encountered barriers; motive is irrelevant to the injury. | Kohl’s suggested frequent ADA lawsuits undermine credibility of intent to return. | The court held ADA tester status does not categorically preclude standing and may not be used to dismiss pleadings when intent-to-return is plausibly alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires concrete, particularized, and imminent injury; “some day” intentions insufficient).
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires a real and immediate threat of future injury).
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: courts accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and assess plausibility).
- Gaylor v. Hamilton Crossing CMBS, [citation="582 F. App'x 576"] (6th Cir. 2014) (plaintiff may show future injury by plausible intent to return or deterrence; court evaluated multiple factors supporting plausibility).
- D'Lil v. Best Western Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2008) (when plaintiff regularly visits an area and prefers the accommodation, intent to return can be inferred).
- Scherr v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 703 F.3d 1069 (7th Cir. 2013) (frequent travel to area and specific plans to stay at hotel supported standing).
- Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff’s regular travel past store and desire to visit supported plausible future injury).
- Nanni v. Aberdeen Marketplace, Inc., 878 F.3d 447 (4th Cir. 2017) (tester status does not automatically defeat standing and standing can be shown without proximate residence).
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (ADA’s remedial aim is integration into mainstream commercial and social life).