On March 18 the Department of Justice published its Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA. Anything that helps businesses understand their ADA obligations is helpful, but the fact that this Guidance was posted on the beta site of ADA.gov tells you that even DOJ has low expectations. Those low expectations are justified because the Guidance doesn’t define website accessibility and therefore does nothing to help businesses have certainty about their compliance with the law. More
ADA Web Access
Laufer v Looper – chapter 2
In my last blog I explained why the 10th Circuit was mistaken when it distinguished Ms. Laufer, the tester plaintiff in Laufer v. Looper, from Ms. Coleman, the tester plaintiff in Havens Realty v. Coleman. If the Constitutional standard for injury is that there be “downstream consequences,” as indicated in Transunion, no tester will ever suffer the kind of concrete injury required, whether they are subjected to personal discrimination like Ms. Coleman or generic discrimination like Ms. Laufer.
Whether any Circuit, or even the Supreme Court, is willing to pursue Transunion to its logical conclusion and simply declare that Havens Realty has been overruled remains to be seen. In this blog I am going to assume that no court will be willing to declare tester standing dead, and instead consider the effect of Transunion and earlier cases requiring a “particularized” injury on the kinds of serial lawsuits that dominate litigation under Title III of the ADA, followed by an inquiry as to whether a tester can somehow particularize their injury by seeking to patronize the facility they sue.
The Great Accessibility Overlays Battle – now available on YouTube
The Digital Accessibility Legal Summit 2021 is over, but those interested in the panel discussion and following commentary from The Great Accessibility Overlays Battle can watch it YouTube below. Spoiler alert: widgets, plug-ins and overlays all have one thing in common – they cannot guarantee website accessibility and if you read the fine print, the companies that sell them don’t even claim they can.
Quick Hits – This week we are getting technical
The ADA and FHA decisions handed down in the last few weeks share a common theme: technicalities matter. Sometimes the lack of technical standards increases the time and money spent in litigation, as in the first entry below, but more often technical matters of procedure and expert testimony determine the outcome of a case. The ancient Greek dramatist Aeschylus famously said “wrong must not win by technicalities,” but it is easier to sort out right and wrong when you get to write the play and decide who says and does what. When people don’t agree they go to court, and a commitment to the rule of law is a commitment to deciding disputes based on technicalities instead of fluctuating political and individual notions of what is right and wrong. More
ADA website demands – same old wine in the same old bottle again. . .
I’m re-cycling a picture from April because there’s another lawyer recycling a money-making strategy that’s been in use for quite a while. I’ve been hired in the last few weeks by four clients who received demand letters from Aluko Collins Sr., a freshly minted one year lawyer in Alabama who claims to represent a vision impaired gentleman named Donald Wilson. Mr. Colllins claims Mr. Wilson is prepared to file suit in the Eastern District of New York against businesses with websites that are not accessible. We’ve seen this before.¹ Collins’ demand letters seem to be cut and paste copies of demands from various serial filers, as is the draft complaint that accompany his letters. Although Mr. Collins was only admitted to the bar in 2020 and he does not appear to be a member of the New York bar the draft complaints are captioned to be filed in the Eastern District of New York. In addition to my own clients I have fielded calls from lawyers and businesses all over the country who received Mr. Collins’ demand letters, so he seems to regard the entire U.S. as his territory. I could find no record of Mr. Collins having filed a lawsuit in federal court anywhere in the United States. The letters do not suggest any in-depth knowledge of what website accessibility means or of the law concerning website accessibility.
There is no doubt that under one theory or another most websites associated with a physical place of business are required by the ADA to be accessible. At the same time, recent decisions in the Supreme Court, Fifth Circuit and other courts make it clear that serial plaintiffs are unlikely to have standing to sue or seek injunctive relief.² This is especially true of a plaintiff like Mr. Wilson who presumably lives in Alabama and cannot plausibly claim he wanted t0 buy furniture from stores that sell only locally. Serving customers with disabilities is a good practical reason to make your website accessible. Doing the right thing is a good moral reason to make your website accessible. Responding to a demand from someone like Mr. Collins is not.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
¹ See my blogs Same old wine in a brand new bottle, Legal Justice Advocates – a New Kids on the Block Update and others that these link to.
² See my blogs Transunion v Ramirez – has the Supreme Court put an end to cheap standing in ADA litigation?, and the other blogs referred to in the footnotes.