⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit hears Karen Putz's appeal over an encounter at a Taco Bell drive-through in Henrietta, New York. Putz is deaf and says she drove past the speaker box in November 2021 to place an order at the window. She says the manager refused to serve her unless she went inside; police arrived, and she left without food. Putz sued the restaurant operator, Hospitality Syracuse, and a district judge entered judgment for the operator in 2025. The appellate argument distinguishes a request to stop future discrimination from separate claims for money over an alleged past injury. Under Title Three of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a private plaintiff can seek an injunction, but not compensatory damages. The judges ask whether later signs and training remove the risk of another refusal, and whether that answer should also end the damages claims. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act generally covers recipients of federal financial assistance; Putz says the restaurant's pandemic-era Paycheck Protection Program loan supplies that link. Andrew Rozynski of Eisenberg and Baum represents Putz and will argue that the manager's refusal was discriminatory and that her claims should proceed. Claire Bopp of Bond, Schoeneck and King represents Hospitality Syracuse and will argue that this was an isolated mistake the company has corrected.

Putz v. Hospitality Syracuse, Inc. (No. 25-1713) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued September 22, 2026.