The U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling in a case that could have had a major impact on how people with disabilities fight discrimination through class action lawsuits. The case, LabCorp v. Davis, involves blind patients who sued LabCorp over self-check-in kiosks that were inaccessible to them. While the Supreme Court ultimately didn’t weigh in on the central legal issue, the case still carries important implications. And the fight for accessible health care and public accommodations and a justice system that works for everyone is far from over.
What is the LabCorp v. Davis Case About?
This case is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of blind people who cannot access LabCorp’s self-check-in kiosks at their medical offices. While the question before the U.S. Supreme Court was procedural, it went to the heart of how people with disabilities come together to challenge systemic discrimination, and whether class actions will remain a viable tool for enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA requires that health care facilities and any place open to the public must be accessible to people with disabilities.
What Are the Facts of the Case?
LabCorp is a company that provides laboratory services like blood work. Most of their locations now use self-service kiosks for check-in. However, these kiosks are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired patients. A group (or “class”) of blind patients sued LabCorp in a U.S. District Court in California, arguing that the company failed to provide an accessible check-in option for them and therefore violated the ADA. The ADA requires LabCorp’s services to be usable by people with disabilities. LabCorp argued that it did not discriminate because blind plaintiffs could check-in at the front desk instead.
The plaintiffs asked the court to let them bring the case as a class action, representing not just themselves, but all blind people who tried to use a LabCorp location with a kiosk and faced the same barrier. The District Court allowed the class action to proceed. LabCorp appealed, arguing that the class was too broad and included people who weren’t harmed by the inaccessibility of the kiosks, such as blind people who preferred speaking to a front desk attendant. The plaintiffs responded that the harm wasn‘t about personal preference but not having equal access to the same service offered to others.
Before the Court of Appeals could issue a decision, the District Court changed the class definition twice to include only blind people who couldn’t use the kiosks due to their disability. LabCorp didn’t appeal those changes, just the original definition. The Ninth Circuit then sided with the plaintiffs, affirming the original class definition and that the lawsuit could proceed as a class action. LabCorp then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What Did the U.S. Supreme Court Decide?
In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the case without ruling on the core issue. That means that the Justices declined to say whether the class action was valid. Why? Because the lower court had already changed the class definition twice and the version LabCorp was challenging was no longer in play. The Supreme Court said it couldn’t make a ruling based on facts that had shifted.
The Arc’s Position
The Arc’s position statement on Human and Civil Rights stresses that the rights of people with disabilities under laws such as the ADA must be protected and enforced. Health care facilities and any place open to the public must be accessible to people with disabilities, including newer technology like the kiosks provided by LabCorp. Class action lawsuits are one of the most powerful ways people with disabilities can challenge discrimination on a systemic basis. If people are denied accessible services, they should be able to seek justice—not just for themselves, but for others facing the same barriers.
How Does This Case Impact People With Disabilities?
Although the Supreme Court did not rule on the key question, the outcome leaves the door open for future disability-related class actions in lower courts. This case highlights the urgent need for accessibility in health care, and how technology can create new barriers if inclusion isn’t built in from the start. Whether it’s checking in for an appointment, applying for a job, or accessing public services, people with disabilities deserve equal access. And when that access is denied, the legal system must be a place where systemic change is still possible.