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*.
On March 5, 2015 the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in one of the longest running ADA lawsuits around. Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 2015 WL 925586 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2015). Like the Home Depot case I wrote about a few weeks ago the issue in Chapman v. Pier 1 concerned obstructions that blocked access and a policy that was supposed to prevent such obstructions. Unlike Home Depot, Chapman v. Pier 1 includes some clear guidelines for businesses that want to make sure they are “walking the walk.”
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA FHA Litigation General, ADA Internet Web, ADA regulations, Reasonable accommodation Tags: accessible software, ada litigation, ada violation, internet, Lyft, Smartphone App, uber, World Wide Web
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.