Case Overview: A federal lawsuit filed against Hatem Brothers Inc. alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Consumers Affected: Individuals with disabilities who may have encountered accessibility barriers at Hatem Brothers Inc.

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida

Hatem Brothers Inc. Faces Federal ADA Lawsuit Filed in South Florida

A federal lawsuit filed in March 2026 accuses Hatem Brothers Inc. of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case was brought by plaintiff Carlos Saenz and is classified under civil rights law governing accessibility for people with disabilities.

What the Complaint Alleges

The lawsuit, filed on March 18, 2026, invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12182 — the statutory provision under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation. According to the court docket, the case falls under the civil rights category for ADA-related claims.

The complaint does not indicate a jury demand, and the specific factual allegations contained in the filing have not been made publicly available in the court record at this time. The nature of the accessibility barriers at issue — whether physical, digital, or related to services — has not been detailed in available court documents.

Hatem Brothers Inc. has not yet publicly responded to the allegations. As with all civil complaints, the claims represent one side of the dispute and have not been proven in court.

About ADA Title III Claims

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires that businesses operating as places of public accommodation provide equal access to individuals with disabilities. This can encompass a wide range of obligations, from physical facility requirements — such as accessible entrances, parking, and restrooms — to the accessibility of websites and mobile applications under evolving legal interpretations.

Lawsuits brought under this provision typically seek injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring the defendant to remediate the identified accessibility barriers, as well as attorney's fees. Monetary damages for individual plaintiffs are generally not available under Title III, though plaintiffs may seek other forms of relief depending on jurisdiction.

Why ADA Accessibility Cases Matter

ADA Title III litigation has grown substantially in recent years, with federal courts across the country — particularly in Florida — seeing a high volume of filings. Plaintiffs in these cases often argue that businesses have failed to make reasonable modifications to policies or physical or digital spaces, leaving individuals with disabilities unable to access goods and services on equal terms.

When businesses are found to be out of compliance, courts can require them to implement corrective measures, potentially benefiting a broader class of individuals with disabilities beyond the named plaintiff.

The Southern District of Florida, where this case was filed, is among the most active federal districts in the country for ADA-related civil rights litigation.

What Comes Next

The case is in its early stages. Hatem Brothers Inc. will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint, and the parties may proceed through discovery before any resolution — whether through settlement, dismissal, or a court ruling — is reached.

Lawsuit: Saenz v. Hatem Brothers Inc.

Case Number: 1:26-cv-21793

Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida

Filed: March 18, 2026

Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182

Plaintiff's Attorney: Anthony Joseph Perez, Anthony J. Perez Law Group, PLLC

Have you encountered accessibility barriers at a business in South Florida? Share your experience in the comments below.

InjuryClaims.com reports on litigation developments for informational purposes only. Nothing in this article constitutes legal advice. Eligibility for any settlement or lawsuit is determined by attorneys and courts, not by this publication.