The United States of America alleges the following:

1. The United States brings this action to enforce Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, against Sairam Enterprises, Inc., LLC a/k/a Sairam Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Days Inn and Conference Center Tulsa (“Defendant”).

2. Defendant owns and operates the Days Inn and Conference Center Tulsa, a hotel business that discriminated against an individual with a disability and persons associated with him by denying them accommodations at the hotel because the individual with a disability was accompanied by his service animal.

3. The Attorney General has instituted this action based on reasonable cause to believe that Defendant discriminated against a person or group of persons, in violation of Title III, and that such discrimination raises issues of general public importance. 42 U.S.C. §12188(b)(1)(B).

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(B) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. This Court has authority to grant a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202 and authority to grant equitable relief, monetary damages, and civil penalties under 42 U.S.C. §12188(b)(2).

5. Venue lies in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant is located in this District, operates a hotel in this District, and the acts of discrimination occurred in this District.

Parties

6. Plaintiff is the United States of America.

7. Defendant Sairam Enterprises, Inc., LLC a/k/a Sairam Enterprises, Inc. (“Sairam Enterprises”) is a private business incorporated and in good standing in Oklahoma. Defendant owns and operates the Days Inn and Conference Center Tulsa, a hotel located at 8181 East Skelly Drive, Tulsa, Oklahoma (“Hotel”), where the acts of discrimination occurred.

8. Defendant’s Hotel is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of Title III because it is “an inn, hotel, motel, or other place of lodging . . . .” 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(A); 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.

9. As a private entity that owns and operates a place of public accommodation, Defendant is a public accommodation within the meaning of Title III. See 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(A); 28 C.F.R. §36.104.

Facts

10. [Redacted], a resident of Texas, is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102; 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. Mr. [redacted] has degenerative disc disease and a demyelinating disease, which substantially limit one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, performing manual tasks, walking, standing, lifting, and bending. These impairments also substantially limit the operation of major bodily functions, including, but not limited to, normal cell growth and neurological functions.

11. A veteran of the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Marine Corps, Mr. [redacted] also has service-related impairments of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, and panic disorder, which substantially limit one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, caring for one’s self, and the operation of major bodily functions including, but not limited to, the brain and neurological system.

12. Mr. [redacted] uses a dog that is trained to perform tasks directly related to his disabilities, including providing him with physical support, assisting him with balance and stability, picking up and retrieving items for him, and warning him of oncoming panic or anxiety attacks. Mr. [redacted]’s dog is a service animal within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. §36.104.

13. [Redacted] is Mr. [redacted]’s wife. At the time of the incident with Defendant, Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] had four young children aged 10, 7, 5, and 2. Mrs. [redacted]’s and Mr. [redacted]’s children are associated with Mr. [redacted] within the meaning of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(1)(E); 28 C.F.R. §36.205.

14. On or about July 31, 2010, Mr. [redacted] was traveling through Oklahoma with Mrs. [redacted] and their children.

15. Mr. [redacted] telephoned Defendant and requested a room. Mr. [redacted] told Defendant that he has a service animal. An employee for Defendant told Mr. [redacted] that Defendant had a “no pets” policy and that no exception would be made for his service animal. The employee then hung up on him.

16. Mr. [redacted] drove to Defendant’s Hotel. Mr. [redacted] entered the Hotel with his service animal, leaving his wife and children in the car. Mr. [redacted] asked to speak with the manager. An employee – that Mr. [redacted] recognized as being the same one with whom he had spoken by phone – said she was the one to speak with. The employee refused to give her name or the name of the manager. The employee then told Mr. [redacted] that Defendant would not change its mind about the “no pets” policy.

17. Mr. [redacted] explained to the employee that the dog was his service animal and was not a pet. Mr. [redacted] attempted to give the employee some material about service animals, but she would not accept it. The employee then told Mr. [redacted] to leave the property, and further told him that she would call the police if he did not leave.

18. The employee then called someone who Mr. [redacted] believed to be the owner of the Hotel. At the same time, Mr. [redacted] called the Tulsa Police Department (“TPD”) and explained the situation to the dispatcher.

19. After his phone conversation with TPD, Mr. [redacted] went outside to be with his family, who had been waiting in the car. By this time, Mr. [redacted] was experiencing a panic/anxiety attack, and Mr. [redacted]’s children were tired, hungry, and arguing with one another.

20. TPD officers arrived at the Hotel. One officer went in to talk with the employee, and another spoke with Mr. [redacted].

21. The police officer recommended that Mr. [redacted] and his family go to a Best Western in Tulsa instead. Approximately 30 to 45 minutes after the TPD officers had arrived at the hotel, Mr. [redacted] and his family left and drove to the Best Western hotel, and checked in without incident. Mr. [redacted], his wife, and their four young children were finally able to eat and rest two hours later than planned.

22. The next day, Mr. [redacted] had a difficult time driving to his Arlington, Texas home due to his panic and anxiety attack. The attack made him dizzy and lightheaded, and feel overwhelmed, depressed, and helpless. His attack lasted two days despite medication. He was unable to function at full capacity for a number of days following the incident at Defendant’s Hotel.

23. In its conduct toward Mr. [redacted] and his family, Defendant made no effort to modify its no pets policy and allow them to stay at the Hotel with his service animal despite notice by Mr. [redacted] that Mr. [redacted]’s dog was a service animal.

24. Mr. [redacted] and his family were harmed by Defendant’s discriminatory actions. Mr. [redacted] had to find alternate lodging for himself and his family and he suffered emotional distress, physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment as a result of the Defendant’s threats and actions. Mrs. [redacted] likewise suffered emotional distress and mental anguish, humiliation, and embarrassment.

25. The United States has determined that Defendant discriminated against a person or group of persons, in violation of Title III, and that such discrimination raises issues of general public importance. 42 U.S.C. §12188(b)(1)(B)(ii). The United States has also determined that Defendant has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination by maintaining a policy of prohibiting service animals in violation of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189, 12188(b)(1)(B)(i)

Causes of Action

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act

26. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

27. Defendant through its conduct alleged herein discriminated against Mr. [redacted], Mrs. [redacted], and their children on the basis of Mr. [redacted]’s disability in the full and equal enjoyment of Defendant’s services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12182, and its implementing regulations at 28 C.F.R. Part 36. Defendant’s violations of Title III include, but are not necessarily limited to:

28. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct in violation of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] sustained damages, were harmed, and are aggrieved persons.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff United States prays that this Court grant the following relief:

29. Grant judgment in favor of the United States and declare that the discriminatory actions, practices, and policies of Defendant as set forth above, violate Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 36;

30. Enjoin Defendant, its officers, agents, and employees, and all other persons in active concert or participation with Defendant, from discriminating on the basis of disability against Mr. [redacted] and his family, other individuals with disabilities, and other individuals related to or associated with an individual with a disability in violation of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 36;

31. Order Defendant, its officers, agents, and employees, and all other persons in active concert or participation with Defendant to adopt and implement a policy of nondiscrimination against persons with disabilities, including persons who use service animals, and to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures to ensure that goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations are afforded to individuals with disabilities, including those who use service animals, where such modifications do not result in a fundamental alteration;

32. Order Defendant to design and implement appropriate staff training programs to ensure that all personnel affiliated with Defendant who have contact with members of the public (whether employees or independent contractors) are knowledgeable about the policies related to the provision of goods and services to persons with disabilities;

33. Order Defendant to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to restore, as nearly as practicable, each identifiable victim of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct to the position that he or she would have been in but for Defendant’s conduct;

34. Award monetary damages to Mr. and Mrs. [redacted] and any other aggrieved persons, in an appropriate amount for injuries suffered as the result of Defendant’s failure to comply with the requirements of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189, and 28 C.F.R. pt. 36;

35. Assess a civil penalty against Defendant as authorized by 42 U.S.C. §12188(b)(2)(c) in an amount sufficient to vindicate the public interest; and

36. Order such other appropriate relief as the interests of justice may require.