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.
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
By richardhunt in ADA, ADA FHA General, ADA regulations, ADA rulemaking, DOJ Tags: Department of Justice, DOJ, FHA ADA litigation "statute of limitations" strategy DOJ "attorney general" enforcement, private litigants
This week two ADA writers I follow, Marc Dubin and William Goren, looked at the problem of telling just what the ADA requires. Both concluded that in some respect the only way to know was to look at the latest private settlements between the Department of Justice and various businesses it investigates. You can know the statute, you can know the regulations, you can read the various guidances, but if you don’t keep track of what the DOJ is doing when it settles its private investigations you really don’t know what to do in many cases. The National Association of the Deaf, an advocacy group, recently wrote on the requirement of closed captioning in audio and audiovisual presentations (nad.org). With a few exceptions governed by statutes other than the ADA the best the N.A.D. could say was that closed captioning “may” be required or that the situation is uncertain.
This uncertainty is great for lawyers and consultants. Like most folks in the ADA and FHA consulting business Marc, William and I follow the DOJ and HUD press releases that announce their settlements, and receive updates on their regulatory initiatives. For businesses, on the other hand, it stinks. Not only is a business required to constantly pay consultants to help it comply with the ADA, it will frequently be told by the consultant that the only answer comes from reading the tea leaves and guessing what the DOJ’s position will be when and if it finally publishes a definitive regulation. Even that guess comes with a warning: the DOJ’s position in a private settlement is not binding on private litigants or the courts, so doing what DOJ appears to want won’t help a business that is sued by a disabled individual.
This uncertainty comes in part because of a regulatory process that seems hopelessly bogged down. Web accessibility regulations have been in the making for years, but the issue is still being studied. The current 2010 Standards for accessibility were originally published in the 1990’s and parts were not in effect until 2013. Haste is never good when faced with complex problems of accessibility, but when the wheels of justice grind too slowly one has to ask whether there is a systemic problem.
More important, every time the Department of Justice delays the promulgation or implementation of a regulation it creates uncertainty and expense for business. Remember, the requirements of the ADA statute apply regardless of the existence of regulations, and when the DOJ does not act private litigants have free reign to argue that it means whatever appears in their interest. DOJ itself has the same freedom, for it can change its own policies for prosecution and settlement without any oversight by the courts.
Why the DOJ has decided to act through private settlements rather than regulation is an interesting subject for speculation, but there is little doubt that the only people who benefit are lawyers and consultants. The disabled suffer the delay in promulgation and implementation of regulations that may benefit them while businesses suffer the uncertainty and expense that come from never knowing quite how to spend their money on accessibility. Although it may be impossible given the bureaucratic love of delay found in most government agencies, reform should be on the agenda for both Congress and the Executive branches.
On July 23 the Depart of Justice published a notice of proposed rulemaking on accessibility in movie theaters for those with vision and hearing disabilities. (http://www.ada.gov/regs2014/movie_nprm.html). The public comment period begins today. The proposed rules will require most movie theaters to buy equipment so that customers with hearing disabilities and vision disabilities can participate in the movie watching experience. There are numerous limits and caveats, but what I find most interesting is the analysis of costs and benefits, in which the DOJ admits that it has little or no data to support a claim that the benefits are worth the costs. Consider some of the DOJ’s admissions about its own ignorance: More