The major news outlets seem to have overlooked the most interesting aspect (to me) of Amazon’s acquisition of Whole Foods; that is, Amazon’s leap into the world of serial ADA filers and controversy over internet accessibility. Amazon has experimented with physical stores, but soon it will have hundreds of them in the U.S., and every one of them has some kind of ADA accessibility issue. That isn’t an accusation, but an assumption based on the highly technical requirements in the 2010 ADA Standards and the proven inability of even the most sophisticated organizations to control the hundreds or thousands of people whose jobs are not primarily related to accessibility to do what is required. Somebody’s going to stack boxes in a hallway, block a checkout counter, take too long to repair a vandalized accessible parking sign, or fail to notice a 10% slope where 8.3% is the maximum. Whole Foods has already been sued many times based on accessibility failures in its stores. More
ADA Web Access
On April 21, 2017 Judge Schwab of the Western District of Pennsylvania surprised no one by finding that the ADA applies to web sites. Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898 (W.D. Pa. April 21, 2017). Judge Schwab has presided over dozens of ADA cases, and his orders in those cases make it plain that he has an expansive view of the purposes and reach of the ADA.
What is surprising about the decision is Judge Schwab’s reasoning, which does not follow many earlier cases holding that websites may be covered by the ADA because they are a service of a brick and mortar store, act as a “gateway” to the brick and mortar store or otherwise have some relationship to a physical place of public accommodation. Instead Judge Schwab observes that the defendants’ physical locations are undoubtedly places of public accommodation and then finds that “the alleged discrimination has taken place on property that AmeriServ owns, operates and controls – the AmeriServ website.” Missing is the connection between the website and the physical premises present in other cases. It appears that Judge Schwab would hold that if any business owns a place of public accommodation then any website it also owns is subject to the ADA, regardless of the relationship of that website to a physical premises.
The case was decided on a Motion to Dismiss, and although district court decisions pro and con continue to drift in, there no definitive case. There is, however, a clear imperative to make websites accessible to avoid the expense of litigation.
Thanks to Michele Landis of Accessible 360, for sending me information about this decision.
*Please note that our work with different web accessibility consultants does not represent an endorsement of any of them. Decisions on how to best approach accessibility should be made by any business after consulting with both counsel and a variety of consulting firms.
I’m writing this brief blog just to let you know that we have some additional decisions on the ADA / Internet issue. Unfortunately they don’t tell us much. In Gil v Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., Case No. 16-23020 (SD Fla. March 15, 2017) Judge Scola adopted the reasoning in Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F.Supp.2d 946, 949 (N.D. Cal. 2006), the earliest and most influential of the ADA / Internet decisions. In Gomez v. J. Lindbergh USA, LLC, Case No. 16-22966 (SD Fla. Oct. 18, 2016) Judge Williams adopted the same standard in finding that a complaint was sufficient to support a default judgment.
Those involved in ADA / internet lawsuits will also be interested in Hindel v. Husted, 2017 WL 432839, at *7 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 1, 2017). This is a Title II case, and for Title II entities there is no doubt that an accessible website is required. What stands out is the time the court gave the defendant to make its website accessible; just seven months. DOJ and other settlements in this area typically require compliance in 18 to 24 months. The explanation for the short time line probably lies in the procedural history of the case, but it is a reminder that courts unfamiliar with the complexity of WCAG 2.0 compliance may not understand why accessibility can take a good deal of time.
Finally, a non-internet case from Utah ties into the ongoing discussion of internet issues because it concerns a program that was not conducted from a physical space. J.H. by and through Holman v. Just for Kids, Inc., 2017 WL 1194213 (D. Utah Mar. 30, 2017) concerns a program for disabled adults that is conducted primarily from vans that take the participants to various activities. The plaintiff claimed her exclusion from the program violated the ADA. The Court, after a careful analysis of cases concerning whether a “public accommodation” must be a physical space sided with those courts so holding. Because the vans were not public accommodations the program itself was not a public accommodation subject to Title III.
The case is interesting with respect to issues concerning internet access because of the Court’s discussion of the physical places the program was related to. Notably, the Court was not impressed by the fact that the program had a physical headquarters, finding there was no relevant nexus between the physical headquarters and the program itself.
For those who are counting, the trend is toward adopting the rule in Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., which found that web sites could be considered services of a brick and mortar store and would therefore be required to be accessible in the same way other services of such stores had to be accessible. With most of the decisions made at the pleading stage what we lack is a clear description of how closely a web site must be related to a physical store in order to be considered a service. One can imagine, for example, a retailer maintaining two websites, one of which provides information about store locations, hours, sales and the like, while another serves strictly as an online retailer like Amazon in order to avoid any requirement of accessibility. Would this change if the online offerings were in the same website as the store information? After all, the online sales are not a service of any store. The answers to questions like these remain unclear.
In the meantime, despite some favorable recent rulings, the safest course for any business is to begin work on website accessibility now in the hope that money can be devoted to better serving disabled customers instead of paying off the lawyers in the ADA litigation industry.
“Regardless, Plaintiff may not claim a violation of Title III based on an internet website’s accessibility. Neither Busch Gardens’ nor SeaWorld’s online website is a physical or public accommodation under the ADA. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines, Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1321 (S.D. Fla. 2002). “[T]he internet is a unique medium—known to its users as ‘cyberspace’—located in no particular geographical location but available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the internet.” See id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Hence, Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that either Busch Gardens’ or SeaWorld’s online website prevents his access to “a specific, physical, concrete space such as a particular airline ticket counter or travel agency.” See id. As a result, Plaintiff may not plead a claim based on accessibility of an online website under Title III of the ADA. See id.” More
The ADA played a typically minor role in the recent election. Democrats made it clear they were for the disabled but did not propose specific new programs. Republicans barely mentioned the disabled except for a brief controversy involving Trump mocking a disabled reporter. With disability rights playing such a minor role in Republican politics one might think that Trump’s election means no change, but in fact a Trump presidency may lead to a significant narrowing of the ADA’s application and reduced federal enforcement action. More