Press "Enter" to skip to content

Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America

Luke Davis, Julian Vargas, and American Council of the Blind, individually and behalf of others similarly situated v. Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, d/b/a Labcorp,
No. 22-55873, 2024 WL 489288 (2024).
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,
February 8, 2024

Keywords: class action, standing, injury, blindness, accommodation preference, medical facility, Unruh Act.

Summary

A class action is a type of lawsuit where a group of people sue on behalf of a larger group of people who join together in one lawsuit. The group of people is called a “class” and is made up of people who experienced similar harm.

To proceed with a class action lawsuit, the court needs to certify the class and make sure that all people in the class experienced a similar injury.

In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s granting of class certification to two classes. The court agreed with both class certifications.

Facts of the Case

Vargas contends that he entered a LabCorp facility for an appointment and intended to check in using the kiosk system. However, he was unable to use the kiosk because it was inaccessible to him as a blind person. Instead, he had to wait until a staff member noticed him and helped him check in.

Because Vargas could not use the kiosk due to its inaccessibility, he was not able to hold a spot in the patient queue like sighted patients could. Vargas could also not access any of the other features the kiosk offered, such as changing account information.

Julian Vargas sued LabCorp, saying that he was denied effective communication, and as a result, did not have the ability to fully enjoy LabCorp’s services because of his disability.

Issues of the Case

  1. Do the plaintiffs have Article II standing for their Unruh claim?
  2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in certifying the Unruh class over LabCorp’s objection to commonality, predominance, typicality, manageability, and superiority?
  3. Did the district court abuse its discretion in certifying the nationwide class based on its determination that a nationwide injunction could provide relief to all members?
  4. Was the district court wrong in certifying two fail-safe classes?

Arguments and Analysis

1. Do the plaintiffs have Article II standing for their Unruh claim?

The Unruh Act protects each person’s right to equal and full access to business establishments that are open to the public.

To bring a lawsuit in any court, the person suing, called the plaintiff, must have standing. To have standing, the plaintiff must demonstrate that they had a specific injury for which only the court can provide a remedy.

In this case, LabCorp argues that Mr. Vargas and the class members do not have standing to bring their lawsuit because they did not have an injury and were not specifically harmed.

The court described that in a case of disability discrimination, someone does not have to be completely prevented from entering or using a facility; instead, they must show that the barrier kept them from their full and equal enjoyment of the facility.

The court decided that Mr. Vargas did have standing because he was harmed when he was denied full and equal enjoyment of LabCorp’s services.

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion in certifying the Unruh class over LabCorp’s objection to commonality, predominance, typicality, manageability, and superiority?

To certify a class, plaintiffs must show commonality meaning they are similar, numerosity meaning that there is a number of people to form the class, typicality or they have similar claims, and adequacy of representation, meaning their representatives protect the interests of all class members, in addition to fitting into one of three categories.

In this case, the court ruled that the case falls into the third category which allows certification of a class if there are common questions of law or fact that apply to all class members.

LabCorp disagreed with the district court’s finding that there was commonality among the class. LabCorp argued that there should question each individual member of the class. However, the court ruled that questioning each plaintiff is not required and that the more relevant question was whether the members of the class experienced the same injury. LabCorp also argued that the class should not be certified because each class member’s experience varied and that it would be hard to find class members.

The court decided that the commonality requirement was met because all class members said that their injuries resulted from the inaccessibility of a LabCorp kiosk. Also, the court decided that each person’s experience did not have to be identical. Regarding locating class members, the court said that the district court is best suited to supervise the location of class members.

3. Did the district court abuse its discretion in certifying the nationwide class based on its determination that a nationwide injunction could provide relief to all members?

An injunction is a court order that requires a person or entity either to do something or to stop doing something. An injunction is normally granted when a reward of money is not enough to prevent harm.

LabCorp argues that an injunction could not provide relief to all members of the class as people who are blind do not all prefer the same accommodations. However, the court said that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit were not suing because LabCorp failed to meet their preferences, but all class members were injured because the kiosks themselves were not accessible.

The court decided that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class because, even though some members of the class may prefer not to use the kiosks, they should still be made accessible so that a person has a choice as to whether or not to use the kiosk.

4. Was the district court wrong in certifying two fail-safe classes?

The Ninth Circuit Court chose not to address LabCorp’s argument because of procedural errors on LabCorp’s behalf. LabCorp failed to follow to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure. The argument was thus not properly before the court.

Rulings

The court held that the district court is better equipped to supervise the location of class members for a class action lawsuit.

The court held that class members need not have the same preferences.

Conclusion

The court explained that every person in the class does not need to have the same exact experiences or preferences and affirmed the district court’s granting of certification of the two classes. This decision will make it easier for people with disabilities to form class actions and puts an end to arguments defendants may make in attempting to challenge a class certification.

Link

These materials do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon in any individual case. Please consult an attorney licensed in your state for legal advice and/or representation. These materials were prepared by the legal research staff of the Burton Blatt Institute (BBI) at Syracuse University in partnership with the Southeast ADA Center to highlight legal and policy developments relevant to civil rights protections and the impact of court decisions in the Southeast Region under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These materials are based on federal disability rights laws and court decisions in effect at the time of publication. Federal and state disability rights law can change at any time.  In addition, state and local laws and regulations may provide different or additional protections. Materials are intended solely as informal guidance, and are neither a determination of your legal rights nor responsibilities under the ADA or other federal, state, and local laws, nor binding on any agency with enforcement responsibility under the ADA. The accuracy of any information contained herein is not warranted. Any links to external websites are provided as a courtesy and are not intended to nor do they constitute an endorsement of the linked materials.

en_USEnglish
en_USEnglish