CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Doe
What's at Stake
Whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act creates a private cause of action for disparate impact claims.
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
Summary
Conservatives have, for some time, argued that intentional discrimination – not disparate impact – should be the only basis for discrimination claims. But such a ruling would eviscerate most disability rights litigation. As Alexander v. Choate explained, discrimination against people with disabilities is “most often the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of thoughtlessness and indifference – of benign neglect.”
The ACLU joined others in the disability rights world to craft an amicus brief, and at the same time approach both plaintiffs and defendants to drop the case. We pursued private and public avenues, with a public campaign to shame CVS for pursuing this theory. On November 10th, less than a month away from oral argument, CVS agreed to drop the case.
