SCOTUS Case: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (Part 2)
»>Click here to read Part 1.«<
Two days ago, there was a celebration of the 33rd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the 50th anniversary of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, DC.
Interesting! There is no “Laufer” and “United States Supreme Court” in Biden’s speech.
“Laufer” is Deborah Laufer, Respondent in the Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer case, which will be heard before the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) today.
“[Respondent] Deborah Laufer is an unsung hero. She is advocating for people she will never meet, people who will never be able to thank her personally, and people who are not even disabled yet,” wrote Yvette Pegues in her Slate article.
Laufer has over 600 lawsuits, which is mentioned in Part 1. Albert Dytch has filed more than 180 ADA lawsuits in California.
There is a circuit split on whether ADA “testers” can meet Article III’s requirement. Read the National Law Review article.
The judges in some of my ADA cases always asked me if I could return to public accommodations after the court ruling. I replied yes. I still can’t believe Laufer used the website to spot possible ADA violations.
The possible reason that Biden did not mention is that disability rights enforcement could be weakened in this case.
Let me quote the below from the Petitioner’s Brief on July 28:
“The sanctions order reveals, among other things, that Laufer’s [now-former] lawyers defrauded scores of hotels by lying to them during settlement negotiations; defrauded scores of courts by lying in fee petitions; and funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to an ‘investigator’ who did virtually no work and who happens to be the father of Laufer’s granddaughter.”
“[now-former] lawyer, Tristan W. Gillespie, received from the U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland a six-month suspension for filing hundreds of lawsuits against hotels under the ADA.
The new lawyer filed a “suggestion of mootness,” indicating she had withdrawn her complaint in the district court. On August 10, the Court denied Laufer’s request.
This issue is relatively short, but I will write Part 3 after “reading” what Court Justices would talk about.
TO BE CONTINUED