Supreme Court Declines to Resolve Class Certification Issue in Labcorp ADA Case

According to the Seyfarth firm, a Supreme Court ruling on an ADA case leaves uncertainty over class actions with uninjured members and potential exposure for employers.

Seyfarth reports that on June 5, 2025, the US Supreme Court unexpectedly dismissed the writ of certiorari in Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis, reversing its prior decision to hear the case.

This move left unresolved a pivotal legal question: can a federal court certify a Rule 23 damages class that includes both injured and uninjured members?

The case held substantial implications for class action practice, particularly in Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other employment-related litigation. The Court’s dismissal does not resolve the split among lower courts, leaving businesses without clear guidance and potentially vulnerable to expansive class certifications.

The case arose after Labcorp was sued under the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by two legally blind individuals. They challenged Labcorp’s use of touchscreen kiosks, alleging inaccessibility and unequal access.

Although the kiosks were optional and Labcorp provided staff-assisted alternatives, the district court certified a class comprising more than 100,000 individuals seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages annually.

While the Ninth Circuit affirmed the certification, Labcorp appealed to the Supreme Court, which initially agreed to review the case but later dismissed the petition without explanation.

In a sole dissent, Justice Kavanaugh criticized the dismissal and warned of its practical consequences.

Kavanaugh wrote that certifying classes with uninjured members undermines Rule 23’s commonality requirement and inflates liability risks, pressuring companies into large settlements. He agreed with the government’s position that class members lacking injury lack standing to claim damages.

This case illustrates the importance of contesting class definitions early. Although the Supreme Court sidestepped the issue, defense counsel should continue challenging classes that include uninjured members by focusing on individualized injury analysis.

The unresolved legal standard remains fertile ground for future litigation and the development of strategic defenses.