I do like to toot my own horn from time to time. I was among several ADA experts quoted in an article by Zachery Zagger on stadium line-of-sight problems under the ADA that was published by Law 360 on July 3, 2019. These cases figure prominently in the Auer deference issues for Title III of the ADA that I hope to blog on soon. See, MLB Parks Face Costly Fixes As ADA Suits Target Sightlines.
Just last week the Supreme Court took a long hard look at something called “Auer deference” and decided that it would remain the law, but with some strings attached. Kisor v Wilke, No. 18-15 (June 26, 2019). I’ve never once had the occasion to mention Auer deference in this blog or in any brief I’ve filed in disability lawsuits, but the decision could have an impact on future disability rights litigation. In this blog I’ll consider the possible impact on litigation under the Fair Housing Act. In the next I’ll look at what turns out to be the more complex possible effects on litigation under Titles II and III of the ADA. Before I explain why, I should refer anyone interested in a detailed analysis of the decision to William Goren’s blog on the subject here.* More
This is a bad pun. Sorry.
All but two of today’s cases are from serial filers, and 7 of 17 are from a single serial filer, Scott Johnson. The fact that serial filers dominate the world of ADA litigation is hardly news; in fact, it would news if an ordinary disabled individual who suffered a real ADA injury filed suit. It is also news that federal judges in the mid-west are showing an increased reluctance to keep cases alive based on dubious standing claims. As Bradley Cooper sings in the latest version of A Star if Born, “Maybe it’s time to let the old ways die.” More
In My Fair Lady Henry Higgins famously described his ideal room as having an atmosphere as quiet as an undiscovered tomb. Some anti-noise advocates would like to have the ADA impose this kind of requirement on every public accommodation. A recent news story* about this illustrates how little the press and public understand about what the ADA requires.
The complaint that prompted the story is simple. If you have a hearing impairment then it is hard to understand conversation in a noisy public place like a restaurant.‡ In discussing this complaint the Washington Post article and the underlying paper by Daniel Fink ignore or misunderstand two things about the ADA – what it means to be disabled, what the ADA requires in the name of equality. More
Domino’s Pizza has filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in favor of Guillermo Robles.* The Court’s decision on whether to grant certiorari will have a profound impact on the possible “tsunami”** of website accessibility lawsuits, but we don’t have to wait for that decision to find the Petition itself interesting.
What I find most intriguing is Domino’s argument that the Ninth Circuit has adopted a new, third standard for application of the ADA to the internet. Along with other commentators I have always seen a two way split in the Circuits. Some (the First, Second and Seventh) simply hold that all websites are public accommodations subject to the ADA. It is a simple approach that leaves no room for doubt about a website’s accessibility obligation. Others (the Third, Sixth, Eleventh and Ninth Circuits) find that a website is covered by the ADA only if it has some nexus to a physical place of business. The exact nature of that nexus is a question being slowly answered as different situations are presented to the courts, but details aside, the nexus requirement seemed a common thread in decisions from these Circuits. More
