Love v. Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc.

Background

Samuel Love alleged that he has physical disabilities and uses a wheelchair. He visited the Marriott Vacation Club Pulse’s website to try to book an accessible room for a planned trip. Love claimed that the website used general labels such as “accessible” without providing enough measurements and other details for him to decide independently whether the hotel and a particular room would meet his needs. He sought an injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and statutory damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The defendants were Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., which the opinion identifies as the hotel’s owner, and Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation, which the opinion identifies as the hotel’s operator. They moved to dismiss both claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Standing

The court held that Love had standing to seek injunctive relief. Although the defendants argued that he had not adequately alleged an intent to return, Love alleged plans to return to the San Francisco area and to revisit the hotel as an ADA tester after the website became accessible. The court concluded that these allegations showed a continuing injury and were more than a vague intention to return someday.

ADA Claim

The ADA regulations require hotel reservation systems to describe accessible features in enough detail to reasonably allow people with disabilities to assess independently whether a hotel or room meets their needs. The court concluded that the hotel website satisfied this requirement. The website described general accessible facilities and listed specific room features, including 32-inch-wide doorways, grab bars, accessible bathing facilities, roll-in showers, and communications features.

The court relied on guidance from the Department of Justice stating that the amount of required information depends on the facility and that a reservation system is not intended to be a complete accessibility survey. Because the court found that the hotel was recently constructed to comply with the 2010 ADA standards, it concluded that the website needed to provide general facility information and specific information about each room’s type, bed size and number, accessible bathing facility, and communications features. The court determined that the website provided information exceeding that guidance and that Love therefore failed to state an ADA claim.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA claim with prejudice.

Unruh Act Claim

The Unruh Act generally prohibits intentional discrimination in access to public accommodations. It also treats an ADA violation as a violation of the Unruh Act, whether or not the discrimination was intentional. Love did not allege intentional discrimination; his claim was based on the alleged failure to comply with the ADA. Because the court dismissed the ADA claim, it also concluded that Love had not adequately alleged an Unruh Act violation.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Unruh Act claim with prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in full and dismissed the ADA and Unruh Act claims with prejudice.