Since 2010 the Department of Justice has been in the process of creating rules for web access under the ADA. No rules have been proposed, and this month the DOJ announced that it was splitting the proposed rule making into two parts and delaying the issuance of a notice of proposed rule making for both. The original proposed rules were to cover both Title II entities (cities other municipalities) and Title III entities (private businesses operating as places of public accommodation. The Title II rules will now proceed as a separate process with an earlier proposed date. More
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA FHA Litigation General, Public Facilities, Restaurants, Retail, Shopping Centers Tags: ada litigation, private lawsuits, real-estate, restaurants, retail, service animals
Imagine you are the operator of a paintball facility. A group of 15 blind individuals make a reservation without, however, mentioning they are blind. They arrive more than an hour late after a hike of several miles and are in a generally bad mood. One or two of them have trouble navigating the facility, with one running into a post and another almost falling off a deck. You conclude that they cannot, in the time available, learn to use the equipment and safely engage in the sport, so you decline to allow them to play. Naturally, you are sued under the ADA.
Another story of ADA absurdity? Not exactly. In Blind Industries & Services v. Route 40 Paintball Park, 2013 WL 1209649 (D.Md. 2013) the District Court concluded that under the circumstances it was reasonable for the owner to conclude that there was a direct threat to the More
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Litigation General, Professional services, Public Facilities, Residential Development, Restaurants Tags: ada litigation, ADA pleading, ADA standing, private lawsuits, private litigants
What does it mean when a plaintiff has standing to sue on a claim but cannot give fair notice in his complaint because he isn’t even sure it exists? It means, of course, that you are in the topsy turvey world of ADA standing in the 9th Circuit.
Let’s start with the basics. In Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports, 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. en banc 2011) the Court reaffirmed its earlier holding in Doran v. 7-Eleven. Doran held that if a plaintiff had knowledge of at least one architectural barrier and is deterred from visiting a place of public accommodation as a result then he may, in a single suit, challenge all barriers in that public accommodation that are related to his or her specific disability and that he is likely to encounter on future visits. He is not, however, required to have any knowledge of such barriers or even any reason to think such barriers exist beyond his suspicion that where there is one barrier there may be more. More
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Litigation General, ADA indemnity contribution, municipal government, Public Facilities, Title II Tags: cities, contribution, government contracts, indemnity, muncipalities
Concepts like “privatization” and “resource sharing” and “public/private partnerships” sound great in concept, but when it comes to ADA and FHA liability these may result in municipalities and government agencies taking on risks they cannot control. A handful of cases serve to sketch out the problem.
In Colorado a woman with a hearing impairment sued the community association for her senior living facility because it did not provide the kind of assistance she wanted at community board meetings and events. The community association was private, but used facilities from a housing district. The district court found that the municipal housing district could be held liable for the failure of the community association to provide assistance. More
In the heated debate over the new ADA pool lift requirements the hospitality industry, which is the industry most affected, has argued that tort liability for misuse of the lifts is an important objection to their installation. Safety is important, of course, but this may be one case where liability is not a problem because ADA requirements preempt state law tort claims. The existing regulations requiring fixed lifts may reduce the risk of liability rather than increasing it.
Federal preemption of state law claims has complexities enough to satisfy any law professor, but the Supreme Court has set out one very clear rule: “A holding of federal exclusion of state law is inescapable and requires no inquiry into congressional design where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility” Florida Lime and Avocado Growers v Paul. This rule seems to apply directly to tort claims arising out of misused pool lifts. The 2010 Accessibility Standards give hotels and other pool operators no choice about the installation of pool lifts for new construction and renovations. Older pools must have lifts installed only if this is “readily achievable,” but the price of pool lifts seems to fall well within the range of costs that courts routinely find reasonable. Pool lift manufacturers offer models they say can be installed almost anywhere, so location is also no objection. From a purely economic standpoint the cost of installing a lift is far below the cost of defending even one ADA lawsuit over what was “readily achievable.” More