Plaintiff’s RF Exposure ADA Claims vs. T-Mobile Don’t 'Apply,' Says Its Answer
Marcia Haller’s claims against T-Mobile under Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act don’t "apply" because the plaintiff has failed to identify a "place of public accommodation" owned or operated by T-Mobile, said T-Mobile’s answer Friday in U.S. District…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Court for Minnesota in Duluth. In her March 11 complaint (docket 0:24-cv-00877), Haller alleges that American Tower, AT&T and T-Mobile “could easily and with minimal cost” take action to modify their facilities to end her “debilitating symptoms” while allowing her to still use their telecommunications services (see 2403120046). The plaintiff contends she could suffer “life-threatening embolic strokes” due to exposure to certain levels of RF radiation or to RF energy that’s manipulated using certain types of pulsation or modulation. Her complaint asserts she has been diagnosed with autoimmune cerebral arteritis, for which she receives immunosuppressive agents, and that her condition meets the definition of a disability under the ADA. American Tower and AT&T have yet to answer Haller’s complaint.