Touchscreen point-of-sale devices are ubiquitous, and the next wave of ADA lawsuits will undoubtedly be against businesses that use them. This is easy to predict because on April 10 the DOJ filed a “Statement of Interest” supporting the claims of the plaintiff in New v. Lucky Brand Dungarees Stores, Inc. (Case No. 14-CV-20574 in the Southern District of Florida). New has filed several lawsuits making essentially the same claim; that is, that a touch screen point of sale device violates the ADA because a blind user cannot input his or her PIN when using a debit card. Unlike a traditional keypad, the touchscreen has no tactile clues as to where to push for the PIN numbers, forcing a blind person to rely on the sales clerk or a third party to input the PIN. This, of course, compromises the security of the debit card. More
95% of the ADA lawsuits filed in Texas and elsewhere seem to start with barriers to access in the parking lot. It isn’t hard to understand why. Before the effective date and for many years afterwards business owners believed that a ramp up to the existing curb next to a marked parking spot was all the law required. The picture at left shows the typical ramp that resulted. I recently visited a client site and between the highway exit ramp and the his location I noticed more than a dozen strip shopping centers and small businesses with precisely this “solution” to the problem of accessible parking.
By richardhunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA, ADA FHA General, Restaurants, Retail Tags: ada litigation, ADA pleading, ada violation, FHA Litigation, private lawsuits, private litigants, real-estate, restaurants
A case decided just last week, Dodson v. Strategic Restaurants Acquisition Co., 2013 WL 3120322 (E.D. Cal. 2013) is worth study for any ADA or FHA defense attorney. There is plenty of technically useful information because the Court has provided an extensive survey of cases discussing whether Iqbal and Twombly apply to affirmative defenses. This is an unsettled question, and the Court lists many of the pro and con authorities. There is also an important moral lesson for defense attorneys. The Court isn’t likely to hold the defendant to a lower pleading standard than the standard for the plaintiff. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Starbucks has a long history of litigation about the height of its pickup counters. In 2003 Starbucks settled a claim by a California disabilities rights group concerning the height of its pickup counters. In 2011 Starbucks obtained the dismissal of another pickup counter height lawsuit, Chapman v. Starbucks, 2011 WL 66823 (E.D.Cal. 1022) based on mootness. The counter had been lowered to comply with the ADA requirements. In 2012 Starbucks settled a case that included counter height allegations in the Southern District of Florida. Access 4 All, Inc. v. Starbucks, Case No. 0:11-cv-61010 (S.D. Fla.). The settlement terms do not appear in the record, but most ADA settlements include remediation plus attorney’s fees, so it is a reasonable guess that Starbucks had to lower the counters in the 4 stores at issue. Just a few days ago, on June 5, 2013, a different District Court awarded Robert Cruz some $145,960.07 in attorney’s fees for his successful action against Starbucks concerning one Starbucks store. The Consent Decree in that case called for lowering the pickup counter. Cruz v. Starbucks Corporation, 2013 WL 2447862 (N.D. Cal. 2013) and see Docket 29-1 in the underlying case, 3:10-cv-01868. More