Americans with Disabilities Act

Subscribe to Americans with Disabilities Act

Key Takeaways:

  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently vacated its April 2021 opinion holding that websites do not constitute places of public accommodations under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
  • Prior to this decision, the Eleventh Circuit was the only federal circuit court of appeal to explicitly hold that Title III of the ADA does not apply to websites, although federal courts are split as to whether Title III extends only to websites with a “nexus” to a physical location or to stand-alone e-commerce sites.
  • In 2021, as in other recent years, thousands of website accessibility cases were filed and an untold number of demand letters were received by businesses. Businesses should consider digital accessibility and ways to reduce risk of claims.

…
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Vacates Ruling That Websites Are Not Public Accommodations Under the ADA

On April 7, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision in a closely watched web accessibility case, holding that websites do not constitute places of public accommodations under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The decision—Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.—represents a departure from what has been a trend toward increasingly expansive interpretations of the ADA, and it is likely to prompt renewed conversations regarding whether and how Congress or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) should address the issue.…
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Rules that Websites Are Not Public Accommodations Under the ADA

Key Takeaways:

  • Shoppers continue to challenge mandatory mask policies under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
  • In one of the first decisions on the merits of these challenges, a court in the Western District of Pennsylvania held that the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence for his claim that he should not have to wear a mask, and that, regardless, his request to shop without a mask was not reasonable when he also did not show that he could not wear a face shield or use alternative methods of shopping. The court declined to evaluate the store’s defense that its face covering policy is a legitimate safety requirement during the COVID-19 pandemic and that the plaintiff posed a direct threat to the health and safety of others.
  • The court’s decision in this case may prove to be a boon for retailers, as it demonstrates that plaintiffs seeking to challenge mandatory mask policies on ADA grounds may face hurdles where they lack documentation to substantiate disability claims or where they are given reasonable alternatives to the in-store shopping experience.

…
Continue Reading Court Upholds Grocer’s Mandatory Mask Policy Against ADA Claim

Over the past few years, we have seen increasing legislative and regulatory activity around the globe on the issue of digital accessibility. Most recently, the French government issued a new law and corresponding technical order (known as the General Accessibility Reference for Administrations, or RGAA) last year that impose a broad range of accessibility obligations…

Companies providing web services to government agencies may want to note a recent decision in State of California ex rel. Bashin v. Conduent Inc., in which the California Superior Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss a false claims act suit stemming from its representations in an RFP with the state regarding website accessibility.…
Continue Reading Web Accessibility Suit Alleging False Claims Act Violations Survives in California Court

On Thursday, October 26, 2019, and Friday, October 27, 2019, nearly 40 complaints were filed in the Southern District of New York against various retailers and restaurants alleging that failure to provide gift cards in Braille violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you are a company that sells store gift cards either online or…

Earlier today, the Supreme Court denied a petition filed by Domino’s Pizza asking the Court to decide whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to websites and mobile apps. As we’ve previously discussed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in January of this year…

As of January 1, 2019, video game developers and publishers are now subject to certain accessibility requirements under the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) that apply to manufacturers and providers of advanced communications services (ACS). Games made available to the public prior to December 31, 2018 are not subject to the new requirements, even if they continue to be sold to the public after January 1, 2019. However, all games released on or after January 1, 2019, and all games released prior to that date that undergo future “substantial upgrades,” must comply with the ACS accessibility requirements.…
Continue Reading New Accessibility Requirements in Effect for Video Game Software

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision on January 15, 2019 in a closely followed web accessibility case, Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, reaffirming Ninth Circuit precedent holding that companies whose online activities share a nexus with physical places of public accommodation may be held liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failing to make their websites and apps accessible to persons with disabilities. Most notably, however, the decision expressly rejected the argument that the lack of regulatory clarity on the ADA’s application to web content violates due process rights.…
Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules That Lack of Web Accessibility Regulations Does Not Bar ADA Suits

A customer who is blind has sued Five Guys Enterprises in the Southern District of California, claiming that he could not access the Freestyle Coca-Cola soda machine in a Five Guys restaurant.  The parties each filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Five Guys violated the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), California’s Unruh Act and California’s Disabled Person Act (DPA) when its employees did not offer to help the customer use the soda machine.

Generally, the ADA, and California’s Unruh Act and the DPA require that public accommodations (like a restaurant) ensure that no individual is discriminated against on the basis of a disability.  Public accommodations are required to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.  Here, the plaintiff claimed that this meant Five Guys employees should have offered to help him operate the soda machine.  …
Continue Reading Court Rules Restaurant Should Have Affirmatively Offered Assistance to a Customer Who Is Visually-Impaired