injury which he does not share. Standing cannot be acquired through the back door of a class action. Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 828-29 (1974) (Burger, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). See also Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 62-22 (1997) (holding that Rule 23's class action requirements apply to negotiated class action settlement agreements, and stating that [t]he safeguards provided by Rule 23(a) and (b) class-qualifying criteria . . . are not practical impediments - checks shorn of utility - in the settlement context.) In this case, the Associations standing is predicated on a single individual who has a mobility impairment. Even if this person were properly named as a class representative, this individuals injury is clearly not representative of the nationwide class of persons with disabilities who will be bound by this Consent Decree. As discussed, the class includes groups of persons with disabilities who may have experienced different types of discrimination at Defendants stores due to the different types of disability (e.g. deafness or blindness). Thus, because the American Disability Association has not alleged injuries to its members representative of the wide range of claims resolved by the Proposed Consent Decree, it has no standing to represent the expansive class set forth in the Proposed Consent Decree. Accordingly, the Proposed Consent Decree must be rejected. The Proposed Decrees Release Provision Is Overly Expansive, Precluding Claims Not At Issue In This Litigation As Well As Claims Based On State and Local Law The release provision of the Consent Decree is extremely broad, and covers not only all claims asserted . . . in the lawsuit, but also all other claims whether based upon Title III of the ADA or based upon any state or local law, rule, or regulation, order, or ordinance relating to or concerning access for persons with Mobility Disabilities, dexterity, vision, or hearing disabilities. Consent Decree, 23.2.
injury which he does not share. Standing cannot be acquired through the back door of a class action. Allee v. Medrano, 416 U.S. 802, 828-29 (1974) (Burger, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). See also Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 62-22 (1997) (holding that Rule 23's class action requirements apply to negotiated class action settlement agreements, and stating that [t]he safeguards provided by Rule 23(a) and (b) class-qualifying criteria . . . are not practical impediments - checks shorn of utility - in the settlement context.) In this case, the Associations standing is predicated on a single individual who has a mobility impairment. Even if this person were properly named as a class representative, this individuals injury is clearly not representative of the nationwide class of persons with disabilities who will be bound by this Consent Decree. As discussed, the class includes groups of persons with disabilities who may have experienced different types of discrimination at Defendants stores due to the different types of disability (e.g. deafness or blindness). Thus, because the American Disability Association has not alleged injuries to its members representative of the wide range of claims resolved by the Proposed Consent Decree, it has no standing to represent the expansive class set forth in the Proposed Consent Decree. Accordingly, the Proposed Consent Decree must be rejected. The Proposed Decrees Release Provision Is Overly Expansive, Precluding Claims Not At Issue In This Litigation As Well As Claims Based On State and Local Law The release provision of the Consent Decree is extremely broad, and covers not only all claims asserted . . . in the lawsuit, but also all other claims whether based upon Title III of the ADA or based upon any state or local law, rule, or regulation, order, or ordinance relating to or concerning access for persons with Mobility Disabilities, dexterity, vision, or hearing disabilities. Consent Decree, 23.2.
adabfsbr.docx