High court vacating disability bias case involving ‘tester’

Over plaintiff’s objections, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously agreed to vacate as moot a disability discrimination case involving a “tester” plaintiff who sued a hotel she did not intend to visit, but suggested it would eventually revisit the issue.

The high court had already heard arguments in the case, Acheson Hotels LLC v. Deborah Laufer, an appeal of a ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, which held that Ms. Laufer could sue the hotel. Ms. Laufer has filed numerous lawsuits charging disability discrimination against hotels she has acknowledged she had no intention of visiting.

Ms. Laufer asked the court to consider the case as moot after her lawyer was suspended for practicing law by defrauding hotels by lying in fee petitions and during settlement negotiations.

“She urges us to refrain from resolving a difficult question in a case that is otherwise over,” said the ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, noting Ms. Laufer has voluntarily dismissed her pending ADA cases, including her complaint against Acheson, and has said she will not file others. The ruling vacates the 1st Circuit decision.

“We emphasize, however, that we might exercise our discretion differently in a future case,” Justice Barrett said.

Acheson Hotels objected to not proceeding with the case, arguing “the standing issue might not come back any time soon,” said the opinion. Its attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.

There were two concurring opinions. Justice Clarence Thomas said although he concurs in the judgment, the court should have ruled that Ms. Laufer had no standing to file her discrimination lawsuits.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she questioned the court’s practice of vacating the lower court’s ruling when mootness ends an appeal.

Justice Barrett observed in her ruling that Ms. Laufer “has singlehandedly generated a circuit split,” with the 2nd, 5th and 10th Circuits in New York, New Orleans and Denver, respectively, holding she does not have standing to sue, and the 4th in Richmond, Virginia, and 11th in Atlanta in addition to the 1st arguing she does.