Haller v. American Tower, Inc.

Background

Marcia Haller alleged that she lives with her husband and son in a single-family residence in Duluth, Minnesota, near a wireless facility owned by American Tower, Inc., doing business as SpectraSite Communications, LLC. AT&T and T-Mobile operated wireless transmitting facilities at the site. Haller alleged that an October 2019 upgrade was followed by severe symptoms, including strokes, vision loss, hearing loss, headaches, sleep disruption, chronic fatigue, and cognitive impairment. She alleged that the symptoms receded when she left her home and returned when she came back. She spent much of her time in a structure designed to block radiofrequency emissions.

Haller asserted a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation. She sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring relocation of the wireless transmitting facility or reduction of the radiofrequency emissions directed toward her home.

Motions and Legal Standard

AT&T and T-Mobile jointly moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. American Tower, referred to in the opinion as SpectraSite, filed a separate motion to dismiss under the same rule.

For a Title III public-accommodation claim, the court identified four required elements: the plaintiff must have a disability covered by the statute; the defendant must own, lease, or operate a place of public accommodation; the defendant must have discriminated or taken an adverse action because of the disability; and the defendant must have failed to make a reasonable modification that would accommodate the disability without fundamentally changing the nature of the public accommodation. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court treated factual allegations as true and considered whether they plausibly showed entitlement to relief.

AT&T and T-Mobile

The court held that Haller did not allege a discriminatory act by AT&T or T-Mobile. Even accepting her allegations about severe reactions to the radiofrequency emissions, the court found that the amended complaint alleged only that the defendants provided cellular services to Haller in the same manner as to other customers. The court characterized the defendants’ broadcasting of the cellular network as an indiscriminate act, not discrimination under Title III, and found no specific action toward Haller that differed from actions toward nondisabled people.

The court further explained that, to the extent Haller sought changes that would fundamentally alter the defendants’ services or businesses, Title III did not require those changes. It also stated that the ADA addresses discrimination rather than providing a remedy for personal injuries or worsening injuries allegedly caused by conduct covered by the statute.

The court noted additional concerns about whether a cellular network qualifies as a place of public accommodation and whether Haller had standing to sue T-Mobile because she did not allege that she was a current or former T-Mobile customer or had tried to use T-Mobile’s services. The court’s principal stated basis for dismissal of the claims against AT&T and T-Mobile was the absence of an alleged discriminatory act. It granted their joint motion and dismissed Haller’s claims against them with prejudice.

American Tower/SpectraSite

The court also found no plausible discriminatory conduct by SpectraSite. At most, Haller alleged that SpectraSite leased space on its tower to AT&T and T-Mobile. Because the court found no plausible discrimination by the lessees, it held that SpectraSite’s act of leasing space was not itself discriminatory. The court therefore granted SpectraSite’s motion to dismiss. The court also expressed concern that the tower might not be a place of public accommodation.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Haller informally requested permission to amend her complaint in her opposition papers. The court stated that those requests did not follow the required procedure and concluded that the proposed amendments would not cure the deficiencies, making amendment futile.

The court ordered that AT&T and T-Mobile’s joint motion to dismiss was granted; SpectraSite’s motion to dismiss was granted; Haller’s First Amended Complaint was dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice; and the defendants’ unopposed joint motion to strike was denied as moot. The court directed that judgment be entered accordingly.