Griffin v. Dep't of Labor Fed. Credit Union, 912 F.3d 649

Background

Plaintiff Clarence Griffin, a blind Virginia resident who uses a screen reader, sued the Department of Labor Federal Credit Union (the Credit Union) under the ADA alleging its website lacked accessibility (missing alt text, redundant links, missing form labels).
Griffin is ineligible to join or use the Credit Union’s products or services because federal law limits membership to Department of Labor employees, former employees, and their immediate families (12 U.S.C. § 1759(b)).
Griffin sought injunctive relief (website remediation) and fees; the Credit Union moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of Article III standing.
The district court granted the motion; Griffin appealed. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding he lacked a concrete, particularized injury and no imminent future injury to support injunctive relief.
The panel emphasized standing’s Article III limits (injury in fact, causation, redressability) and applied Supreme Court standing precedents to Internet-based ADA claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Griffin has Article III standing to sue for ADA website access	Griffin claimed dignitary and informational harms from inaccessible website; sought injunctive relief	Credit Union argued Griffin is legally barred from receiving services, so he suffered no concrete or particularized injury and has no plausible intent to return	No standing: injury not concrete or particularized; no imminent threat of future injury; dismissal affirmed
Whether inability to obtain website information constitutes a concrete injury	Griffin contended denial of information is a concrete harm under precedents recognizing informational injuries	Credit Union said the information was irrelevant to Griffin because federal law already bars him from using services	Denial of information not a concrete injury here because information lacked relevance to Griffin given statutory bar
Whether dignitary/stigmatic harm from unequal treatment is sufficient	Griffin argued ADA protects against dignitary harms and that unequal access to website inflicted such harm	Credit Union argued dignitary harms must be personal and particularized; statutory exclusion severs any personal connection	Dignitary harm insufficient here: legal barrier made harm abstract (not personally experienced)
Whether plaintiff’s status as an ADA tester or asserted intent to return supports injunctive relief	Griffin asserted he acts as a tester and could return to the site	Credit Union argued tester status alone cannot make a return plausible where plaintiff is ineligible to use services and has no reason to revisit	Tester status insufficient; plaintiff failed to plausibly allege intent to return or likelihood of future injury

Key Cases Cited

Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014) (standing requires the irreducible constitutional minimum)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability; particularization requirement)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (injunctive relief requires real or immediate threat of future injury)
Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (denial of information can be a concrete injury when information is relevant to plaintiff)
Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) (dignitary/stigmatic harms may confer standing but must be personal and particularized)
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Congress intended ADA to protect against stigmatic injury)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (testers may have standing when deprived of statutorily required information)
Nanni v. Aberdeen Marketplace, Inc., 878 F.3d 447 (4th Cir. 2017) (past injury plus plausible intent to return can support injunctive-relief standing under ADA)
Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) (imminence requirement for future injury; speculation insufficient)
Menkowitz v. Pottstown Mem’l Med. Ctr., 154 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (employment or privileges can particularize an ADA plaintiff’s injury)