Julian Vargas, an individual and on behalf of themselves and all others similar situated, and American Council for the Blind v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories Inc., Quest Diagnostics Holdings Inc., and Quest Diagnostics Inc.
Published: May 10, 2024 | Result Date: Sep. 29, 2023 | Filing Date: Sep. 18, 2019 |Case number: 2:19-cv-08108-DMG-MRW Bench Decision – Plaintiff
Judge
Court
CD CA
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Jonathan D. Miller
(Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet LLP)
Alison M. Bernal
(Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet LLP)
Margaret A. Parker
(Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet LLP)
Jordan T. Porter
(Nye, Stirling, Hale, Miller & Sweet LLP)
Defendant
David H. Raizman
(Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC)
Mark Sidoti
(Gibbons PC)
Jan Nicholas Marfori
(Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC)
Amber L. Roller
(Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC)
Betsy Johnson
(Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC)
Michael R. McDonald
(Gibbons PC)
Daniel Weinberger
(Gibbons PC)
Facts
Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories provides diagnostic testing services, including collecting blood and urine specimens from patients that it then tests according to doctors' orders. The specimens are collected not only from hospitals but also through Patient Service Centers (PSCs).
Some time in 2016, Quest began installing electronic, touchscreen tablets to allow patients to check in at the PSCs. These "kiosks" were meant to replace existing paper sign-in sheets, and as originally configured, could not be used by blind individuals without assistance. All patients visiting Quest, including those with visual impairments, could receive assistance with checking in from PSC personnel.
Julian Vargas and the American Council of the Blind filed an Americans with Disabilities Act class action suit against Quest and its affiliates, seeking to represent all legally-blind individuals who visited a Quest Center during the time when the electronic kiosks were the primary method for checking-in and who, due to their disability, could not use all the kiosks' functions. Soon after the litigation commenced, Quest rolled out a change to its kiosks that would allow patients to check in by swiping any three fingers, in any direction, across the face of the kiosk. Quest contended that the "three-finger swipe" enhancement mooted plaintiffs' claims by permitting all patients, including those with visual impairments, to check in without needing to navigate or operate the kiosk's touchscreen.
Plaintiffs nonetheless sought an injunction ordering Quest to replace the existing kiosks with ones that could be independently operated by persons with visual impairments. Plaintiffs also sought to certify a damages subclass of California patients who had a claim for $4,000 each under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act.
Result
Before the trial, the court rejected plaintiffs' damages subclass, leaving only Vargas' claims for damages and the plaintiffs' collective prayer for injunctive relief. After the bench trial, judgment was entered in plaintiffs' favor, which included $4,000 in statutory damages to Vargas, and injunctive relief, including limited changes to the three-finger swipe enhancement that Quest had already rolled out years earlier. The court denied plaintiffs' prayer for kiosks that blind individuals could independently operate without assistance.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390