Skip to main content

Andrew-Berry v. Weiss

D. Conn.September 19, 2025No. 3:23-cv-00978
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
791 Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationHarassment

Outcome

Pro se plaintiff's claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title II of the Civil Rights Act were dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court found plaintiff sought unavailable monetary damages rather than injunctive relief, and that Premier Security lacked standing as it did not own, lease, or operate the public accommodation.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Andrew-Berry sued Premier Security Agency and Pilot Travel Center, claiming disability discrimination and harassment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Civil Rights Act. Andrew-Berry represented himself in court without a lawyer. **What the Court Decided** The court dismissed all of Andrew-Berry's claims. The judge ruled that Andrew-Berry made several critical errors in the lawsuit. First, Andrew-Berry asked for money damages under a section of the ADA that only allows courts to order businesses to change their practices, not pay money to workers. Second, the court found that Premier Security couldn't be held responsible under this law because the company didn't own or directly operate the public location where the alleged discrimination occurred. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case highlights important challenges workers face when filing discrimination lawsuits without legal help. Workers need to understand which laws apply to their situation and what remedies each law provides. Some anti-discrimination laws only allow courts to order policy changes, while others permit money damages. Additionally, workers must carefully identify which companies can be held legally responsible for discrimination. These technical requirements can make or break a case, showing why legal guidance is often crucial when pursuing discrimination claims.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.