Seifert v. Northern Tier Retail LLC

Background

Jeffrey Weisen and Craig Seifert brought claims under Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits retaliation against people who exercise or help others exercise rights under the Act. Weisen had filed three earlier ADA lawsuits against Speedway. Seifert served as an expert witness in those lawsuits, and the two men visited Speedway locations to patronize them and inspect them for possible ADA violations.

On November 27, 2019, Speedway sent a letter to Weisen’s attorneys. The letter warned that additional, unpermitted visits for discovery purposes would be considered trespassing. It addressed the attorneys and their investigators or agents, forbade them from entering the Speedway locations involved in the three lawsuits, and included a notice warning of possible criminal-trespass consequences under Minnesota law. The notice remained in place from November 27, 2019, through November 26, 2020.

The letter did not mention or directly address Weisen. Seifert brought a copy of it to Weisen and told him that it prevented them from visiting Speedway stores in retaliation for Weisen’s complaints. Despite the letter, both men continued to visit various Speedway locations. Seifert also continued investigating other locations, and Speedway allowed him to return to the locations involved in the lawsuits while accompanied by Speedway’s counsel and expert. Both men testified that the letter caused emotional distress, mental anguish, and harm to their dignity. Weisen said he feared he could go to jail. Seifert said he feared being harassed by police and being seen in a police car, including by children who had attended an event where he had spoken.

Legal standard

Speedway moved for summary judgment, arguing that both plaintiffs lacked standing. Standing requires each plaintiff to provide evidence of an injury in fact, a connection between the challenged conduct and that injury, and a likelihood that a favorable decision would remedy the injury. An injury in fact must be real, personal to the plaintiff, and actual or imminent rather than speculative.

Weisen’s standing

The court held that Weisen lacked a legally sufficient injury in fact. The trespass letter was sent to his attorneys and referred to the attorneys, investigators, and agents, but it did not mention Weisen or ban him from Speedway premises. The court concluded that any emotional harm he attributed to the letter was not personal to him and that his fear of arrest was speculative because the letter did not put him in danger of direct injury.

The court granted summary judgment as to Weisen’s claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice.

Seifert’s standing

The court rejected Speedway’s arguments that Seifert lacked standing because he continued serving as an expert in cases against Speedway and because his emotional-distress allegations were conclusory or speculative. The court stated that Seifert could have continued investigating Speedway locations while still experiencing emotional harm. It also found his testimony specific enough to support a real injury: he feared that people he knew would see him encounter police, was particularly concerned about children who knew him from the YMCA Youth and Law Day, and discussed those fears with others.

Unlike Weisen, Seifert was covered by the trespass letter. The court therefore denied summary judgment as to Seifert’s claim.

Disposition

The court ordered that Speedway’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. Summary judgment was granted as to Weisen’s claim and denied as to Seifert’s claim. The action was dismissed as to Weisen without prejudice. Because the motion was denied in part, the court also denied without prejudice Speedway’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs.