I reported in September on the decision in Phillips v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro finding that a plaintiff with celiac disease had not stated a claim for discrimination under the ADA based on P.F. Chang’s policy of charging $1.00 extra for gluten free meals. On November 23, 2015 the same court found that the plaintiff had stated a claim based on an enhanced set of allegations in her Amended Complaint. Phillips v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 2015 WL 7429497, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2015). This is a very common pattern in ADA litigation: Once the plaintiff knows what to say, he or she is almost always willing to say it in order to get past a Motion to Dismiss. For restaurants and their owners this latest decision requires some thought and possibly the adoption of new policies concerning menu items. More
The Department of Justice has once again delayed regulations that would purport to set standards for web accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is not the first time DOJ has kicked the can a little further down the road with respect to web access regulations. The proposed regulations have been floating around since 2010 with no sign of when they might be finalized. Some lawyers fret about how the delay will affect businesses (see, Justice Department Delays Web Accessibility Regulations For At Least Three More Years, Leaving Businesses in Turmoil) while disability rights advocates continue to assert that, despite the language of the ADA, it does require accessible web sites (See, Fall 2015 Update: More Delay for DOJ Web Regulations). What’s a business to do? The answer is simple – find a web developer. More
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA Internet Web, ADA regulations, DOJ, Internet Tags: ada litigation, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, internet, private lawsuits, World Wide Web
On June 26 the Department of Justice announced that it had filed Statements of Interest in two lawsuits concerning access to online content. The suits were filed against Harvard (National Ass’n of the Deaf v. Harvard University et al, Case No. 3:15-cv-30023 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) and M.I.T. (National Ass’n of the Deaf v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Case No. 3:15-cv-300024 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts). Both Statements of Interest make the same claim; that is, that all online content must be accessible to those with disabilities if offered by a “public accommodation.” The phrase “public accommodation” as defined in the statute includes any “place of education.” More
I’ve written twice recently about temporary barriers to access (“You’ve got to walk the walk” and “You’ve got to walk the walk part II). It is an issue that will probably never go away because standard point of sale marketing techniques are very likely to conflict with the ADA. The latest decision is one in the apparently endless of series of battles between Starbucks and Robert Kalani. Kalani v. Starbucks Corp., 2015 WL 846651, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015). More
Three recent cases from District Courts in California show just how hard it can be to predict what will happen in an ADA case, at least in the early stages. The facts are essentially identical, but the results are diametrically opposed. Is it because the judges have different views of the law? Is it because the lawyers in one case were not as good as the lawyers in the other? The cases leave plenty of room for speculation. What every business should know, however, is that there are no sure things in ADA litigation, and the regulations are more complicated than you might think*.