Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc. - 907 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2018)

Rule:

A "service establishment" is an establishment that performs some act or work for an individual who benefits from the act or work. This definition is materially similar to the one developed by the Tenth Circuit, the only other federal court of appeals to address the ADA's applicability to plasma collection centers. It defined a "service establishment" to mean a place of business or a public or private institution that, by its conduct or performance, assists or benefits someone or something or provides useful labor without producing a tangible good for a customer or client. Though its definition has additional verbs, each of the verbs connote aid or benefit performed by the establishment for the customer. 

Facts:

CSL Plasma, Inc. is a plasma collection center that will pay anyone who passes its screening test to donate plasma. Mark Silguero and Amy Wolfe are both individuals with disabilities who attempted to donate plasma but whom CSL Plasma deferred for reasons they allege related to their disabilities. Silguero used a cane and had a limp; Wolfe had anxiety and required the use of a service animal. Silguero and Wolfe sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Chapter 121 of the Texas Human Resources Code ("THRC"). The district court granted summary judgment in CSL Plasma's favor. It concluded that those laws did not apply because CSL Plasma was neither a "public accommodation" under the ADA nor a "public facility" under the THRC.

Issue:

Is CSL Plasma a "service establishment" within the definition of "public accommodation"?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The appellate court rejected the donors' argument that the direction of payment for services was irrelevant in determining whether an establishment provided a "service" to a customer and was therefore a "service establishment". The plasma center paid donors who received no detectable benefit from the act of donation, and thus did not offer plasma collection as a "service" to the public and was therefore not a "service establishment". The appellate court certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Texas because it had no state law guidance and the federal analogue was not analogous.