Case: Silguero v. CSL Plasma, Inc.

On August 24, 2016 an individual filed this lawsuit In the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against CSL Plasma alleging that CSL Plasma denied him the opportunity to donate blood solely because he had an orthopedic impairment and uses a cane in violation of Title III of the ADA and Texas Human Resources Code. Represented by Disability Rights Texas, the requested injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Hilda Tagle. On March 7, 2017, another individual plaintiff filed a motion to intervene, which Judge Tagle granted on March 28, 2017.

On August 27, 2017, CSL Plasma filed a motion for summary judgment and plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment.  On November 2, 2017, Judge Tagle granted the defendant's motion, finding that CSL Plasma’s collection center was not a “service establishment” under the ADA Title III or the Texas Human Resources Code and striking as moot plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment.  2017 WL 6761818.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on November 30, 2017. The appeal was briefed and argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division filed an amicus brief in support of the district court's view that plasma donation centers are not service establishments under the ADA.

On October 23, 2018, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that CSL Plasma’s collection center was not a “service establishment” under Title III of the ADA. 907 F.3d 323. However, on the Texas Human Resources Code claim, the appellate court noted that the state statute used different language from the ADA. In order to get an authoritative interpretation of Texas law, it certified the  questions of whether a plasma collection center was a “public facility” under Texas Human Resources Code§ 121.002(5) and whether Texas law allowed plasma collection centers to reject a “person with a disability” based on the center’s concerns for the individual’s health that stem from the disability to the Texas Supreme Court. 

On June 28, 2019, the Texas Supreme Court answered the certified questions. While it found that the a plasma collection center was a public facility, it also held that such facilities could reject potential donors with disabilities under certain circumstances. 579 S.W.3d 53.

On August 19, 2019, the Fifth Circuit, applying the Texas Supreme Court's analysis, reversed the district court’s judgment on the state law claims because it was based on the incorrect conclusion that a plasma collection center was not a public facility under Texas Human Resources Code and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. 774 F. App'x 886.

On November 7, 2019, plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 24, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. 140 S.Ct. 1107.

Back in the district court,  plaintiffs filed a brief regarding the district court’s jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s state law claims, on March 31, 2020. However, on December 8, 2021, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this case and dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice to allow refiling in state court. The case is now closed.