9th Cir.;
16-16269

The court of appeals affirmed a district court order. The court held that a plaintiff may rely on the “deterrent effect doctrine” to establish constitutional standing under Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) based on knowledge of an alleged barrier to access, even without having personally encountered that barrier.

Three physically disabled women who used wheelchairs for mobility contacted hotels owned by Hospitality Properties Trust (HRT) in their states of residence. Each was informed that the hotel at issue provided free shuttle service, but did not provide equivalent shuttle service for mobility-impaired people. The three women, along with the along with the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, filed a putative class action against HRT, alleging violation of Title III of the ADA. Each of the women alleged that she would have stayed at the hotel she contacted but for its failure to provide equivalent shuttle service. Each further alleged that she still intended to stay at the hotel, but that its failure to provide equivalent shuttle service deterred her from doing so at present.