I’m not Maimonides, but I do think we need a Guide for the Perplexed concerning ADA website litigation because it seems that in many cases both courts and litigants have mistakenly treated websites as if they were buildings. Websites are not buildings, and recognition of that fact would do a great deal to eliminate or slow down abusive website lawsuits. If you are a defendant in such a suit or think you might be, this blog is for you and your lawyers. There is no silver bullet, but there are approaches to defense with real promise. More
Accessibility Litigation Trends
DOT enforcement policy for “service animals” still doesn’t get it.
On August 9 the Department of Transportation issued its “Final Statement of Enforcement Priorities Regarding Service Animals” based on the Air Carrier Access Act and existing regulations. New regulations are on the way, but probably not any time soon,* so this Final Statement, which replaces an Interim Statement issued in May of 2018, is the most authoritative pronouncement on how DOT interprets its existing regulations. The method is a little roundabout. Instead of just saying “this regulation means such and such” DOT basically says that it will or won’t “use available resources” to enforce the regulations in certain instances. This does let airlines know what they should and shouldn’t do, which is beneficial. Unfortunately, the “Final Statement” does almost nothing to address the fundamental problems with the existing ACAA regulations. More
Browsewrap could tame the ADA website litigation monster.
In the last two years the federal courts have had a number of opportunities to find that Title III claims under the ADA are not arbitrable and have declined the invitation. That doesn’t mean these cases are in fact going to arbitration. In every case I found the arbitration agreement was found to be unenforceable on state law grounds, leaving open the possibility of a public policy argument. Nonetheless, I think that a properly written and implemented arbitration clause can force a Title III case into arbitration and give defendants a chance to avoid much of the unnecessary cost of litigation. Here’s why.
The starting point in a discussion of arbitration for civil rights statutes has to be Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 111 S.Ct. 1647 (1991). In Gilmer the Supreme Court found that claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act could be made subject to a valid arbitration agreement, rejecting claims that it was somehow inconsistent with public policy. A few months later Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, in which, among other things, it affirmed that More
Quick Hits – Dog Days of Summer Edition
The official worst heat-wave ever is now over in both the U.S. and France, but Sirius is still rising just before dawn and nothing has cooled off in the courts. Here are the latest cases on ADA and FHA issues.
HOAs and the FHA
Lau et al v. Honolulu Park Place, AOAO, 2019 WL 3208644 (D. Haw. July 16, 2019) is a kind of short treatise on how the FHA applies to accommodation claims made by parents or others associated with a disabled person. What is surprising is the degree of ignorance or obtuseness shown by the HOA’s counsel in defending the case. Here’s what the Court says:
“Defendants appear to misunderstand the FHA as well as the injury-in-fact requirements of Article III. . . . Only the most obtuse reading of the Complaint could fail to construe the allegations as an injury to the person. . . . But Defendants’ conclusion is only possible when accepting their misrepresented version of what Plaintiffs seek. In other words, it is a straw man of their own creation.
HOAs should remember that the firm handling their assessment collections or dealing with personal injury suits may not have the specialized knowledge necessary for FHA defense. More
Bend the Knee – Auer deference in ADA Title II and III litigation.
Auer deference – the subject of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kisor v. Wilkie – has played a role in some important ADA cases, especially those concerning the line-of-sight issue for movie theaters and stadiums that Justice Kagan mentioned in her opinion. Despite this, Kisor is unlikely to have much effect on Title III jurisprudence both because of the limits on the decision, which confirmed Auer deference with a little explication, and because of the limits on Auer deference itself. Auer deference could be outcome determinative in ADA cases, but at the end of the day it is the court, not the legal principle, that matters. More