A disabled Florida woman who claims to be a “tester” to determine if public places are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has filed six separate lawsuits against local hotels.
Attorney Kimberly Corkill filed four similar lawsuits on Aug. 5 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on behalf of plaintiff Deborah Laufer.
The complaints were filed against JP Hotels Inc., doing business as Quality Inn Cairo, Mansi and Sanket Inc., doing business as Budget Inn Motel Du Quoin, Rick Cripe, doing business as Holiday Inn Express & Suites Vandalia, and Hiway House Inc., doing business as Ruebel Hotel.
Corkill previously filed similar lawsuits in federal court on behalf of Laufer on June 16 against the Red Carpet Inn in Greenville and the Rodeway Inn in Flora.
She filed a notice of settlement with the Red Carpet Inn on July 29.
According to the complaints, Laufer is an advocate for “similarly situated disabled persons” and is a “tester” who determines if public places and their websites are in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suits state that Laufer visits hotel websites to ensure that they meet ADA requirements, and then sues to enforce compliance.
Corkill wrote that Laufer intends to revisit the defendants’ online reservation system “in the near future” to retest the services.
“In this respect, plaintiff maintains a system to ensure that she revisits the online reservations system of every hotel she sues. By this system, plaintiff maintains a list of all hotels she has sued with several columns following each. She continually updates this list by, among other things, entering the dates she did visit and plans to again visit the hotel’s online reservations system.
“With respect to each hotel, she visits the online reservation system multiple times prior to the complaint being filed, then visits again shortly after the complaint is filed. Once a judgment is obtained or settlement agreement reached, she records the date by which the hotel’s online reservation system must be compliant and revisits when that date arrives,” Corkill wrote.
“Plaintiff is continuously aware that the subject websites remain non-compliant and that it would be a futile gesture to revisit the websites as long as those violations exist unless she is willing to suffer additional discrimination,” she added.
Laufer is allegedly bound to a wheelchair in public and a cane or other support in her home. She claims she is vision impaired and unable to tightly grasp, pinch and twist her wrist.
“She is hesitant to use sinks that have unwrapped pipes, as such pose a danger of scraping or burning her legs. Sinks must be at the proper height so that she can put her legs underneath to wash her hands.
“She requires grab bars both behind and beside a commode so that she can safely transfer and she has difficulty reaching the flush control if it is on the wrong side. She has difficulty getting through doorways if they lack the proper clearance,” the suits state.
Laufer also allegedly requires handicap parking spaces located closest to the entrance of the facility with wide enough aisles to use a ramp. Routes connecting the handicap spaces must be level, properly sloped, sufficiently wide, and without hazards that could result in tipping or falling.
Corkill wrote that the defendants are required to ensure that their businesses are in compliance with the standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The suits state that the defendants utilize websites for gathering information and making reservations. Laufer allegedly visited the defendants’ websites to review and assess the accessible features. However, she was allegedly unable to do so because the website did not meet ADA specifications.
More specifically, the websites “did not allow for booking of accessible rooms and provided insufficient information as to whether the rooms or features at the hotel are accessible; hotel amenities, room types and amenities are all listed in detail; no information was given about accessibility in the hotel,” the suits state.
The suits state that the defendants’ alleged violations infringe Laufer’s right to travel free of discrimination.
“Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration and humiliation as the result of the discriminatory conditions present at defendant’s website.
“By continuing to operate the websites with discriminatory conditions, defendant contributes to plaintiff’s sense of isolation and segregation and deprives plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges and/or accommodations available to the general public,” the suits state.
Laufer seeks declaratory judgment determining that the defendants are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, plus attorney’s fees, costs and all other relief the court deems just.