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

Corporate Transparency Act Overhauled: U.S. Entities No Longer Required to Report

March 24, 2025The Department of Treasury has issued an interim final rule significantly altering the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). As of March 21, 2025, all U.S.-created entities and their beneficial owners are exempt from reporting requirements. Only non-U.S. entities registered to do business in the U.S. must still report, but they are not required to disclose U.S. citizen owners. Business owners should stay informed on these changes and consult legal counsel for compliance guidance.Client Alert

ODM to Implement Medicaid Work Requirements: What Providers and Medicaid Expansion Recipients Need to Know

March 21, 2025The Ohio Department of Medicaid (ODM) has submitted a waiver to impose work requirements for Medicaid expansion recipients. If approved, the new eligibility criteria will take effect on January 1, 2026. A federal public comment period is open until April 7, 2025.Client Alert

Ohio Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Gender-Affirming Care

March 19, 2025On March 18, 2025, the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County ruled that Ohio’s House Bill (HB) 68, which restricts puberty blockers and hormone therapy for minors seeking gender-affirming care, violates the Health Care Freedom Amendment and is therefore unenforceable. The court found that the law unlawfully interferes with parental rights and medical decision-making. The case, Moe v. Yost, has been remanded, and Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost intends to appeal.Client Alert

HHS Revokes Public Comment Requirement on Certain Policy Changes

March 5, 2025The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has revoked the Richardson Waiver, eliminating the requirement for public notice and comment on certain policy changes. This decision allows HHS to implement new policies more quickly, potentially affecting healthcare funding rules like Medicaid work requirements. While it speeds up policymaking, it also reduces opportunities for stakeholder input, raising concerns over transparency and unintended consequences for healthcare providers, states, and patients.Client Alert

Don't Get Caught Dazed and Confused: Another Florida Court Weighs in on Employer Obligations to Accommodate Medical Marijuana Use

March 3, 2025A Florida trial court ruled in Giambrone v. Hillsborough County that employers may need to accommodate off-duty medical marijuana use under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). This contrasts with prior rulings and raises new compliance challenges for employers. With the case on appeal, now is the time to review workplace drug policies.
Older posts
Newer posts