Darren Gilbert, who had lost part of his left leg and some toes on his right foot, relied on a prosthetic leg and wheelchair to get around. In August 2021, he pulled his wheelchair-accessible van into a 7-Eleven in Rio Linda, California.

The van-accessible parking spot was taken, so he parked in a regular space, climbed out on his prosthetic, and made his way across the lot. The curb ramp to the sidewalk was steep and uneven; he struggled to keep his balance and felt exhausted by the effort just to reach the door. Inside, he bought a few items and left.

Two months later, Gilbert sued 7-Eleven under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He claimed the store’s parking lot and entryway violated federal accessibility standards and denied him equal access because of his disability. He wanted the barriers fixed and statutory damages under state law.

While the case was pending, 7-Eleven quietly remodeled the parking lot and entrance. By the time the case went to trial, the store had a fully compliant van-accessible stall, access aisle, curb ramp, and walkway.

The district judge ruled that the ADA claim for an injunction was now moot – there was nothing left to fix. But the violations had existed when Gilbert visited, and because any ADA violation automatically triggers liability under the Unruh Act, the judge awarded Gilbert $4,000 in statutory damages.

7-Eleven appealed, making three main arguments.First, it said Gilbert hadn’t proven that removing the barriers was “readily achievable” under the ADA – after all, he hadn’t submitted cost estimates or design plans. The Ninth Circuit disagreed. Yes, plaintiffs typically have to propose a plausible fix whose benefits seem to outweigh the costs. But 7-Eleven had already fixed everything voluntarily, without claiming it was burdensome. That alone proved removal was feasible. The company could not meet its own burden to show otherwise.

Secondly, 7-Eleven argued that Gilbert needed to prove his experience was worse than an able-bodied person’s – that the barriers affected him specifically because of his disability. The court rejected that argument also. If a physical barrier violates the ADA’s technical standards and relates to the plaintiff’s type of disability (here, mobility impairment), and the plaintiff personally encounters it, that’s discrimination. No side-by-side comparison is required.

Finally, 7-Eleven attacked Gilbert’s standing under the Unruh Act. The district judge had found that Gilbert’s real reason for visiting was to build a lawsuit – he’d filed about 70 similar cases – and that his purchase was just a pretext. 7-Eleven insisted that without a “bona fide” intent to be a genuine customer, he could not recover.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s award of statutory damages for Gilbert’s claim that 7-Eleven violated § 51(f) of the Unruh Act in the published case of Gilbert v. 7-Eleven, Inc. 23-4045 (October 2025).

California law is clear: if you walk (or roll) into a store, encounter discrimination, and transact business, you have been injured under the Unruh Act. Motivation to sue is irrelevant. The California Supreme Court had already said so in earlier cases: even “professional plaintiffs” who pay a discriminatory fee or face a real barrier have standing. And for construction-related accessibility claims like this one, state law spells out exactly what’s needed: personal encounter plus some difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment. Intent to return or shop again is not on the list.

The court distinguished a recent California Supreme Court case involving online terms of service in White v. Square, Inc., 7 Cal.5th 1019 (2019) 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 770 446 P.3d 276, where intent did matter – because the plaintiff never transacted at all. Here, Gilbert bought something from the store at the time of his visit. That was enough.

Darren Gilbert passed away in July 2024, before the appeal was decided. His successors stepped in. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the $4,000 award in full and sent the case back only to sort out the substitution formalities.

In the end, a voluntary fix helped prove the violation, a completed purchase established standing, and a litigation motive changed nothing. The barriers were real, the injury was personal, and California law demanded accountability.