582 F. App'x 576
6th Cir.2014Background
- Gaylor, disabled by multiple sclerosis, sues TRU and others under ADA Title III for barriers at a Hamilton Crossing shopping center.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing, granting 12(b)(1) on the basis that Gaylor failed to allege injury or intent to return.
- Gaylor’s FAC identifies TRU as operator/owner of the property and alleges barriers at TRU’s store and other shopping-center tenants.
- Gaylor alleges barriers like excessive slopes in TRU’s parking area and that removal would be readily achievable, enabling equal access.
- Gaylor asserts ongoing intent to visit the property and to return as an ADA tester to determine if barriers were removed.
- The court reverses, holding Gaylor has standing to pursue injunctive relief under ADA Title III and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Gaylor have standing to sue TRU under ADA Title III? | Gaylor has injury-in-fact and intent to return. | Gaylor lacks a concrete injury and imminent return. | Yes, Gaylor has standing. |
| Are the alleged barriers sufficiently concrete and particularized injuries? | Barriers personally affected Gaylor by impairing access. | Injury requires more concrete proof of actual harm. | Yes, injury-in-fact is established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability; injury need not be meritorious on the merits)
- Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (threat of future injury must be real and immediate for injunctive relief)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (standing requires actual threat, not past injuries alone)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990) (standing requires plausible injury traceable to defendant)
- RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78 F.3d 1125 (6th Cir. 1996) (pleading stage allows general allegations to support standing)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing independent of merits; no merits review on jurisdictional issue)
- Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2012) (district court may not make factual merits findings when addressing jurisdiction)