Mielo v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167706 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2014)

Plaintiff has standing to maintain claims for disability discrimination against grocery stores despite the fact that he never visited many of the stores.

The plaintiff asserted claims on behalf of a class of disabled patrons of a grocery store chain, alleging that architectural barriers existed in the parking lots of the stores, a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and which prohibited him from using the stores.  The store filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, arguing that the plaintiff admited that he never visited many of the stores at issue and there was nothing in the complaint other than a generalized statement that he intended to visit the stores in the future.  As a result, the stores argued that the plaintiff did not have standing to sue the stores that he failed to visit.  The court, however, rejected this argument and found that the plaintiff did not have to visit the stores to establish standing.  In so holding, the court reasoned that this argument was an issue for class certification and "goes to plaintiff's ability to serve as a class representative, which is not ripe for disposition at this time."  The court's opinion demonstrates the need for companies that offer public accommodations to audit their facilities to make sure that they are fully in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Indeed, the federal courts in Pennsylvania are seeing a large increase in the number of "public accommodation" claims by patrons—many of whom are professional "testers."

Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2015