Equal Rights Center v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
767 F. Supp. 2d 510
D. Maryland2011Background
- ERC and Ciotti sue Abercrombie & Fitch Co., Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., and J.M. Hollister, LLC under the ADA and analogous state laws.
- Ciotti, a wheelchair user, alleges Hollister stores have barriers such as steps at entrances, narrow aisles, high counters, and inaccessible displays.
- ERC conducted surveys alleging widespread barriers across multiple states and received additional complaints from a member about Maryland Hollister stores.
- Plaintiffs filed original complaint November 24, 2009; First Amended Complaint filed May 12, 2010.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing; DOJ filed a statement of interest in support of standing.
- The court grants in part and denies in part the motion, allowing amendments; issues focus on standing and scope of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ciotti's standing to injunctive relief under the ADA | Ciotti has injury-in-fact and a likely future injury given proximity and intent to return. | Injuries occurred after filing; no imminent future injury due to daughter's continued interest. | Ciotti has standing to seek injunctive relief. |
| ERC's organizational standing under Title III ADA | Diversion of resources and frustration of mission constitute injury-in-fact for organizational standing. | prudential standing limits apply; Title III does not waive them for organizations. | ERC lacks organizational standing under Title III ADA due to prudential limits. |
| ERC's associational standing to sue on behalf of its members | ERC has associational standing to represent its members harmed by barriers at certain stores. | Associational standing limited to named members and only where those members have standing. | ERC has associational standing to pursue ADA claims for eleven store locations. |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state claims and standing to seek damages | Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims given related ADA claims. | If no original jurisdiction exists, state claims should be dismissed; damages require individual participation. | Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction; standing for damages under MPAL/WPAAL lacking; injunctive relief proceedable for certain state claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (organizational injury-in-fact from diversion of resources)
- Gillespie v. Dimensions Health Corp., 369 F. Supp. 2d 636 (D. Md. 2005) (standing factors for future injury in ADA case)
- Proctor v. Prince George's Hospital Center, 32 F. Supp. 2d 820 (D. Md. 1998) (factors for likelihood of future injury; distinguishes other cases)
- Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (U.S. 2004) (two additional showings for third-party standing)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (three-factor test for associational standing)
- Clark v. McDonald's Corp., 213 F.R.D. 198 (D.N.J. 2003) (prudential limits on Title III standing for organizations)