The Supreme Court Punts Uninjured Class Question: Analyzing 'Laboratory Corp. Of America Holdings v. Davis'

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court punts the question of whether uninjured class members can be part of a certified damages class, allowing the existing federal circuit split to stand.
• Class certification remains a complex and often challenging procedural stage for any class action.
• Businesses should anticipate continued efforts in the 9th Circuit to certify overbroad class definitions.

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Davis on procedural grounds as having been "improvidently granted"¹ and declined to address the underlying merits question that is at the core of many class certification debates. The Court previously had granted the petition to answer "[w]hether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury."² Departing from the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh opined that he would have reached the merits and ruled that "[f]ederal courts may not certify a damages class under Rule 23 when, as here, the proposed class includes both injured and uninjured class members."³

Background

Laboratory Corp. (LabCorp) is a clinical diagnostic laboratory with patient service centers that test patient samples. In 2017, as part of an update to its patient service centers, LabCorp introduced self-service kiosks for patient check-ins. Blind and visually impaired patients often required assistance to use these in-center kiosks. In response, LabCorp increased its front desk personnel to assist patients with the kiosks upon request. Despite these front-desk services, legally blind plaintiffs sued LabCorp, claiming the kiosks violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act because they could not use them.⁴

At class certification, the plaintiff sought to certify a class of all legally blind individuals in California who were unable to use the kiosks due to their disability.⁵ In May 2022, the district court certified a damages class that consisted of "[a]ll legally blind individuals in California who visited a LabCorp patient service center in California during the applicable limitations period and were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations due to LabCorp's failure to make its e-check-in kiosks accessible to legally blind individuals."⁶ In August 2022, the district court amended...