Or at least businesses that use apps to broker goods and services. In a decision dated February 20, 2015 the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas denied a second Motion to Dismiss filed by the ride sharing services Lyft and Uber. Ramos v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 2015 WL 758087 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2015). The Court does not reach a conclusion as to whether these services are subject to the ADA, but it’s approach indicates that the battles over smartphone apps and the ADA are going to be lengthy and expensive.
About Richard Hunt
Posts by Richard Hunt:
By Richard Hunt in ADA, ADA FHA Litigation General, ADA Policies, ADA regulations, Retail, Uncategorized Tags: ada litigation, ADA pleading, ADA standing, FHA ADA litigation "statute of limitations" strategy DOJ "attorney general" enforcement, private lawsuits, private litigants
This inspiring picture of a para-athlete should remind us all of what those with “disabilities” as defined by the law can achieve. It should also make the courts consider whether they have mis-construed the law concerning injury under the ADA. I’ve written many times before about the troubling tendency of some courts to ignore the actual injury requirement for lawsuits under the ADA. (See my posts on December 23, 2013, October 3, 2013, May, 2013 and especially Nov. 6, 2013). A recent decision from North Carolina shows how one court, at least, has adopted the common sense view that a plaintiff who has not been injured cannot maintain an action under the ADA. Blue v. Boddie-Noell Enterprises, Inc., 2015 WL 509831 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 6, 2015). More
Curtis v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 WL 351437 (E.D. Cal. 2015) is not an unusual case, but that makes it a good reminder that an ADA policy doesn’t do any good if it isn’t implemented. The fact that there are so many cases like Curtis proves that many businesses don’t understand that just because it’s written doesn’t make it true.
In Curtis one of the plaintiff’s many complaints about his local Home Depot was that the accessible route from the accessible parking to the store’s front door was frequently blocked by merchandise displays. Before filing suit he complained to the store manager, but without effect. Home Depot’s defense was that the issue was moot because it had a policy against blocking the access aisle and, after the lawsuit was filed, the manager testified that the access aisles were not being blocked. More
There was a flurry of comment recently among the community of disability lawyers when a legal blogger posted a story about a pig allowed on an airplane with disastrous results. The story was interesting, but what caught the attention of those who practice in the field of disability law was his error in the law that applied. He said it was a story about ADA service animals, when in fact, as experts know, the issue was one under the Air Carrier Access Act.
I can’t blame him, or anyone else, for being confused. Even putting aside the dozens of state disability rights laws and the hundreds or thousands of municipal ordinances there are still a confusing array of federal laws and standards that might apply to any given business, and the rules about animals are particularly likely to cause confusion. Here is the briefest of explanations about where you and your business stand. More
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Litigation General, Policies and Procedures FHA ADA, Restaurants, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: ada litigation, private lawsuits, real-estate, restaurants, retail
Two realities dominate the world of ADA compliance and defense. First, the ADA is a no-fault statute: good intentions don’t matter and innocence is no defense. Second, even when barrier removal is impossible, a business still has an obligation to try to become accessible. Two recent cases show how the failure to remember this can lead to failure in the defense of a lawsuit.
Snyder v. Lady Slings the Booze, LLC, 2014 WL 7366665 (W.D. Ky 2014) presented a fairly common problem. The step up to the defendant bar (whose name along makes the case worth citing) was higher than permitted by the ADA, but could not be ramped because a ramp would protrude into a city sidewalk. The defendant did the right thing at the beginning and tried to apply for a permit, but when the permit was denied apparently decided the case was over. Barrier removal was not readily achievable, and so, the defendant thought, it was off the hook for ADA compliance. More