UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

LELAND FOSTER, Individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

PALACE HOSPITALITY, INC., a 

Michigan Corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________________

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No. 2:15-cv-11678

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

Plaintiff, LELAND FOSTER, Individually, (sometimes referred to as “Plaintiff”), hereby 

sues the Defendant, PALACE HOSPITALITY, INC., a Michigan Corporation, (sometimes 

referred to as “Defendant”), for Injunctive Relief, and attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and 

costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (“ADA”).

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, LELAND FOSTER, is an individual residing in Swanton, OH, in the County of 

Fulton.

2. Defendant’s property, RED ROOF INN is located at 2755 S. Lapeer Road, Orion, MI 

48361 in OAKLAND County.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Count I is brought pursuant to the laws of the United States, therefore the Court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. Count II utilizes the same core of operative 

fact, and is therefore subject to supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

4. Venue is properly located in the Eastern District of Michigan because venue lies in the 

Case 5:15-cv-11678-JCO-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/11/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 8
judicial district of the property situs. The Defendant’s property is located in and does 

business within this judicial district.

5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, this Court has been given original 

jurisdiction over actions which arise from the Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2201 

and § 2202.

6. Plaintiff, LELAND FOSTER is an Ohio resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as an 

individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Leland Foster is an individual 

diagnosed with cerebral palsy and permanently uses a wheelchair for mobility. 

Additionally Leland Foster has difficulty grasping with his hands also as a result of his 

disability. Leland Foster was a hotel guest at the property that forms the basis of the 

complaint on January 25, 2015. He has plans to return as a hotel guest. The Plaintiff has 

encountered architectural barriers at the subject property. The barriers to access at the 

property have endangered his safety. 

7. LELAND FOSTER is an avid adaptive sports enthusiast and participates regularly with 

the active southeast and mid-Michigan adaptive sports community, including in local 

marathons, half marathons, hand cycle events, adaptive skiing and adaptive water skiing

at the areas many lakes with the various local organizations and other enthusiasts in the 

community. Leland Foster frequents many establishments in and around Lake Orion. He

is a frequent overnight hotel guest in the area when he comes to ski at nearby Mt. 

Brighton as well as the Pine Knob Ski & Snow Resort.

8. Completely independent of the personal desire to have access to this place of public 

accommodation free of illegal barriers to access, Plaintiff also acts as a "tester" for the 

Case 5:15-cv-11678-JCO-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/11/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 8
purpose of discovering, encountering, and engaging discrimination against the disabled in 

public accommodations. When acting as a "tester," Plaintiff employs a routine practice. 

Plaintiff personally visits the public accommodation; engages all of the barriers to access, 

or at least all of those that Plaintiff is able to access; and tests all of those barriers to 

access to determine whether and the extent to which they are illegal barriers to access; 

proceeds with legal action to enjoin such discrimination; and subsequently returns to the 

premises to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA and to otherwise use 

the public accommodation as members of the able-bodied community are able to do. 

Independent of other subsequent visits, Plaintiff also intends to visit the premises 

annually to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, and its maintenance 

of the accessible features of the premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in Plaintiff’s 

individual capacity and as a “tester,” visited the Facility, encountered barriers to access at 

the Facility, and engaged and tested those barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury, 

and will continue to suffer such harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access 

and the ADA violations set forth herein.

9. Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation as 

defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 

36.104. Defendant is responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The 

place of public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, leases or leases to is 

known as Red Roof Inn is located at 2755 S. Lapeer Road, Orion, MI 48360.

10. LELAND FOSTER has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of 

discrimination from the Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this 

property as described but not necessarily limited to the allegations in paragraph 12 of this 

Case 5:15-cv-11678-JCO-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/11/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 8
complaint. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be 

subjected to discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. LELAND 

FOSTER desires to visit RED ROOF INN not only to avail himself of the goods and 

services available at the property but to assure himself that this property is in compliance 

with the ADA so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment 

of the property without fear of discrimination.

11. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access 

to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages 

and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.

12. The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to discriminate, against the Plaintiff 

in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities by January 26, 

1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of 

$500,000 or less). A preliminary inspection of Red Roof Inn has shown that violations 

exist. These violations include, but are not limited to:

Parking and Accessible Routes

A. Insufficient number of designated Accessible Parking Spaces in violation of the ADA 

whose remedy is readily achievable.

B. No van Accessible Parking in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily 

achievable.

C. Pillars located in designated accessible parking spaces, obstructing their use in 

violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

D. Excessive slope from designated accessible parking to the hotel entry in violation of 

the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

Guestrooms

Case 5:15-cv-11678-JCO-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/11/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 8
E. Closet rack mounted in excess of allowable range in violation of the ADA whose 

remedy is readily achievable.

F. Bathroom mirror mounted in excess of allowable range in violation of the ADA 

whose remedy is readily achievable.

G. Bathroom coat-hook mounted in excess of allowable range in violation of the ADA 

whose remedy is readily achievable.

H. Bathroom door locking mechanism requires tight clasping or twisting to operate in 

violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

I. Shower head does not have mechanism to interrupt flow in violation of the ADA 

whose remedy is readily achievable.

J. Accessible route to navigate guestroom has insufficient clear floor width in violation 

of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

K. Lamp on/off switch mounted in access of allowable range and requires tight clasping 

or twisting in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

L. Curtain rods mounted in excess of allowable range and requires tight clasping to 

operate in violation of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

M. Ironing board mounted below the designated accessible reach range in violation of the 

ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

Access to Goods and Services

N. Lobby transaction counter height in excess of 36” in violation of the ADA whose 

 remedy is readily achievable.

O. No accessible route to enter swimming pool due to lack of Adaptive Lift in violation 

 of the ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

P. Pool shower operable parts require tight clasping or twisting in violation of the ADA 

 whose remedy is readily achievable.

Q. Pool shower does not have detachable shower head with 59” hose in violation of the 

 ADA whose remedy is readily achievable.

R. Insufficient clear floor space around fitness equipment in violation of the ADA whose 

 remedy is readily achievable.

Lobby Restroom

Case 5:15-cv-11678-JCO-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/11/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 8
S. Exposed pipe at lavatory not insulated to protect from scalding in violation of the ADA 

 whose remedy is readily achievable.

Policies and Procedure

T. The operator lacks or has inadequate defined policies and procedures for the 

assistance of disabled patrons.

13. The discriminatory violations described in paragraph 12 are not an exclusive list of the 

Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requires the inspection of the Defendant’s place of 

public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts 

violating the ADA and all of the barriers to access. The Plaintiff, has been denied access 

to, and has been denied the benefits of services, programs and activities of the 

Defendant’s buildings and its facilities, and have otherwise been discriminated against 

and damaged by the Defendant because of the Defendant’s ADA violations, as set forth 

above. The individual Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated will continue to suffer 

such discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief provided by the 

ADA as requested herein. In order to remedy this discriminatory situation, the Plaintiff 

requires an inspection of the Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to 

determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITES ACT

14. Plaintiff restates the allegations of ¶¶1-13 as if fully rewritten here.

15. Red Roof Inn, and the businesses therein, are public accommodations and service 

establishments, and as such must be, but are not, in compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines 

("ADAAG").

16. Plaintiff was unlawfully denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,

Case 5:15-cv-11678-JCO-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/11/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 8
privileges, and advantages of the property and the businesses therein on the basis of his

disability, due to Defendant’s property failing to be in compliance with Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and its accompanying regulations, as prohibited by 42 

U.S.C. § 12182, et seq., and will continue to discriminate against Plaintiff and others 

with disabilities unless and until Defendant is compelled to remove all physical barriers 

that exist at the facility, including those specifically set forth herein, and make the facility 

accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, including Plaintiff.

17. The Plaintiff, and others similarly-situated, are without adequate remedy at law and are 

suffering irreparable harm, and reasonably anticipate that they will continue to suffer 

irreparable harm unless and until Defendant is required to remove the physical barriers, 

dangerous conditions and ADA violations that exist at the Facility, including those set 

forth herein.

18. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12187, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue an injunction 

requiring Defendant to make such readily achievable alterations as are legally required 

to provide full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, and 

advantages on its property to disabled persons. In connection with that relief, Plaintiff 

requests reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of maintaining this action.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

M.C.L. § 37.1301 et seq.

19. Plaintiff restates the allegations of ¶¶1-18 as if fully rewritten here.

20. Red Roof Inn, and the businesses therein, are "place[s] of public accommodation" pursuant 

to M.C.L §37.1301(a).

21. Defendant committed an unlawful act pursuant to M.C.L §37.1302(a) by denying Plaintiff 

Case 5:15-cv-11678-JCO-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/11/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 8
full enjoyment of its goods, services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges.

22. Pursuant to M.C.L §37.1606, Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and exemplary damages, 

and attorneys fees and costs, in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event not less 

than $25,000.00, as well as issuance of an injunction requiring Defendant to allow full and 

equal enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages to disabled persons.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands,

for Count I, an injunction requiring Defendant to make all readily achievable alterations 

to allow full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages

to disabled persons, and the reasonable attorneys fees and costs of maintaining this action; and, 

for Count II, compensatory and exemplary damages, and attorneys fees and costs, in an

amount to be determined at trial, but in any event not less than $25,000.00, as well as

issuance of an injunction requiring Defendant to allow full and equal enjoyment of the

goods, services, facilities, privileges, and advantages to disabled persons.

Respectfully Submitted,

Counsel for Plaintiff:

\s\ Owen B Dunn Jr -- dated: May 11, 2015

Owen B. Dunn, Jr., Esq. MI Bar Number P66315

Law Office of Owen B. Dunn, Jr.

The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center

4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222

Toledo, OH 43615

(419) 241-9661 – Phone

(419) 241-9737 - Facsimile

dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net

Case 5:15-cv-11678-JCO-APP ECF No. 1 filed 05/11/15 PageID.8 Page 8 of 8