Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

BMD Obtains Dismissal of ADA Title III Suit Against National Outlet Mall Chain

Client Alert
February 6, 2018

On January 12, 2018, Brennan, Manna & Diamond obtained the dismissal of an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) lawsuit filed against Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

The suit, which was brought under Title III of the ADA, alleged that Tanger’s Byron Center, Michigan outlet mall contained barriers to access in violation of the ADA’s accessibility requirements. The plaintiff demanded prospective injunctive relief, including a retrofit of the entire mall, as well as expert witness and attorneys’ fees.

BMD moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing. Unlike a conventional suit, where a plaintiff seeking monetary damages must show a past injury to possess legal standing, an ADA Title III plaintiff must show a threat of prospective future harm in order to recover. Typically, this means that the plaintiff must plead (and prove) that he or she has reason to continue to visit the public accommodation in question and will continue to be injured by the facility’s alleged non-compliance with the ADA.

In its opinion granting Tanger’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, United States Magistrate Judge Ellen S. Carmody held that the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint failed to adequately plead prospective future injury. In particular, the Court noted that “[v]ague and conclusory allegations that a plaintiff intends to return to a location […] are insufficient to maintain an ADA claim.” Applying this standard to the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, the Court held that his “vague and conclusory statements regarding his alleged intent to return” to Tanger’s Byron Center property “are insufficient.” On this record, the Court found that the plaintiff “failed to sufficiently allege that he will suffer a future injury in the absence of injunctive relief.”

Recognizing the cost that ADA Title III actions pose to owners and operators of public accommodations, BMD’s experienced team of ADA litigators uses a proactive approach to seek the early and cost-effective resolution of cases before proceeding with expensive expert discovery. BMD was proud to obtain this result for Tanger Factory Outlets, one of the largest and most iconic outlet mall chains in the country.

BMD Partners Christopher Congeni and Daniel Rudary represented Tanger Factory Outlet Centers in this case. The citation for Court’s opinion is Saar v. Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc., W.D. Mich. No. 1:17-cv-41, 2018 WL 387962 (Jan. 12, 2018).

Litigation
Client Alert

Ohio Recovery Housing (ORH) Repairs Fund Application Open for Eligible Applicants

April 14, 2023The Ohio Recovery Housing (ORH) Repairs Fund Application is open for eligible organizations and/or operators of recovery housing facilities throughout the state of Ohio!Multimedia, Client Alert

Pregnant Employee Protections - New Requirements for Employers

April 11, 2023New protections are coming to the workplace for pregnant employees in 2023! In the most sweeping changes since the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, two new federal laws were recently passed: (1) the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (otherwise known as the Pump Act), and (2) the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The requirements of these statutes will require employers with more than 15 employees to implement new policies for their handbooks.Client Alert

Five Common Pitfalls for Employers to Watch Out for Under the Fair Labor Standards Act

March 29, 2023The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) sets forth requirements for employers including, but not limited to, minimum wage, overtime pay, and recordkeeping for covered employees. These requirements are not as simple as they may appear on their face, which leads many employers to fall into compliance issues that they did not realize even existed.Client Alert

The NLRB Limits the Reach of Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions in Severance Agreements Overruling Trump-Era Policies

March 14, 2023Employers should exercise caution and closely examine the content of severance agreements to ensure compliance with a recent National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) decision.  On February 21, 2023, the NLRB restricted the breadth of permissible language of confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses when it issued its decision in McLaren Macomb and overruled its Trump-era decisions in Baylor University Medical Center and IGT d/b/a International Game Technology.Client Alert

Ohio Medical Board Releases New Telehealth Rules

February 23, 2023On Tuesday, February 21, 2023, the State Medical Board of Ohio released its final telehealth rules to implement Ohio’s telehealth statute (O.R.C. 4743.09) for physicians, physician assistants, dieticians, respiratory care professionals and genetic counselors. Ohio’s advanced practice registered nurses (“APRNs”) should also take note of these rules. While the Medical Board does not govern APRNs directly, those APRNs who are required to have a collaborating physician and standard care arrangement (namely nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and clinical nurse specialists) are still affected by the rules. Generally, if an APRN’s collaborating physician is limited in their practice, then the APRN will also be limited.
Older posts
Newer posts