Doe v. Boyertown Area School Dist. (amended) — civil — affirmance — McKee
Today the Third Circuit issued a revised, narrower panel opinion in Doe, the big transgender-bathrooms appeal in which the panel announced its ruling from the bench after oral argument. My post on the court’s original opinion is here.
Also today, the court issued an order denying without prejudice the appellants’ request for rehearing en banc, stating that they may re-file in light of the revised panel opinion.
And, most dramatically, Judge Jordan issued an opinion dissenting from the en banc denial, joined by Judges Chagares, Hardiman, and Bibas. The order and dissent are not posted on the court’s website, unfortunately, but they are on Pacer and also have been posted by one of the parties at this link.
Judge Jordan’s dissent explains that his purpose is not to take issue with the outcome of the panel opinion, conceding that the record can support the denial of the preliminary injunction. But he disagrees, strenuously, with the revised panel opinion’s discussion of whether requiring transgender students to use bathrooms according to their sex at birth would violate Title IX. He argues that this discussion is unnecessary, debatable, and dicta, concluding, “it is … axiomatic that we should confine ourselves to resolving the specific matters before us, not some bigger issue we might like to address.”
Remarkable. And still not the last word, I suspect.
Mielo v. Steak ‘n Shake — civil / class action — reversal — Smith
Here is the introduction from today’s opinion reversing class certification:
In this class action lawsuit, two disability rights advocates have sued Steak ’n Shake under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Alleging they have
personally experienced difficulty ambulating in their wheelchairs through two sloped parking facilities, these Plaintiffs seek to sue on behalf of all physically disabled individuals who may have experienced similar difficulties at Steak ’n Shake restaurants throughout the country. The District Court certified Plaintiffs’ proposed class, and Steak ’n Shake now appeals that certification decision. We are tasked with answering two questions: First, whether Plaintiffs have standing under Article III of the United States Constitution, and second, whether they have satisfied the requirements set out in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).
As to the first question, we conclude that Plaintiffs have standing to bring their claims in federal court. Although a mere procedural violation of the ADA does not qualify as an injury in fact under Article III, Plaintiffs allege to have personally experienced concrete injuries as a result of ADA violations on at least two occasions. Further, Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that these injuries were caused by unlawful corporate policies that can be redressed with injunctive relief. We withhold judgment as to whether those corporate policies are indeed unlawful, as our standing inquiry extends only so far as to permit us to ensure that Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled as much.
As to the second question before us, we conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy Rule 23(a). The extraordinarily broad class certified by the District Court
runs afoul of at least two of Rule 23(a)’s requirements [numerosity and redressability]. In light of this conclusion, the District Court’s judgment will be reversed, and this matter will be remanded to the District Court to reconsider if a class should be certified.