*In just the last 10 days two different courts have taken completely different approaches to Point of Sale (POS) terminals commonly used for self checkout lines. In the more recent decision, National Federation of the Blind, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 2021 WL 4750521 (D. Md. Oct. 12, 2021) a carefully reasoned opinion rejects the notion that because these devices require assistance in selecting a cash back amount they violate Title III of the ADA. A much briefer opinion issued a week earlier reached the opposite conclusion. Dalton v. Kwik Trip, Inc. 2021 WL 4554362 (D. Minn. Oct. 5, 2021). The cases are the latest in a line of cases concerning touch-screen POS terminals that goes back at least as far as 2014’s New v. Lucky Brand Dungarees Stores, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 3d 1284 (S.D. Fla. 2014).¹ These cases raise, but do not resolve important issues concerning the ADA, technology, and regulation. More
ADA defense
FHA and ADA Odds and Ends
“Odd and Ends” is the title of a Bob Dylan concert compilation film that was recently released in digital format.³ My odds and ends are probably not as interesting, but I’ve been busy for the last month litigating claims under the FHA and ADA, so this blog is part one of a two part effort to catch up. I’m hoping to release a “greatest hits” blog in the near future.
Pursuit of Respect keeps sending demands
I’ve gotten a dozen calls in the last few weeks from businesses in Pennsylvania, California and Florida who got demand letters from one attorney or another claiming to represent Pursuit of Respect. When I last checked none of those lawyers had filed a lawsuit, which I believe is because their client is fictitious and they’d rather not expose themselves to any kind of judicial inquiry. They will, however, keep harassing businesses that don’t respond with calls and additional letters. If anyone reading this knows of a lawsuit filed on behalf of POR I would be very interested in hearing about.¹ More
ADA and FHA Quick Hits – dog days of summer edition
The constellation Canis Major rises and falls with the sun during the hottest part July and August; hence the “dog days of summer.” Although only mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun* the courts have been busy working in air conditioned chambers on ADA and FHA matters:
Just what is an accessible website?
Wright v. Thread Experiment, LLC, 2021 WL 243604, at *4 (S.D. Ind., Jan. 22, 2021) is a default judgment case, but it remains interesting because the Court expressly declined to order compliance with any version of WCAG, choosing instead to enter a much less specific permanent injunction ordering that the Defendant be enjoined:
from operating, utilizing, or maintaining www.threadexperiment.com unless and until it fully complies with the requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 28 CFR § 36.302 et seq. Defendant is ORDERED to modify the existing features of www.threadexperiment.com and to remove barriers that prevent this website’s compatibility with screen reading technology so that it is accessible to blind or low-vision individuals utilizing screen reading technology.
The first sentence of this injunction seems to violate the general rule against injunctions that simply order compliance with the law. See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. AutoZone, Inc., 707 F.3d 824, 842 (7th Cir. 2013). As the Court observes, there are no regulatory requirements for websites, so the first sentence is just an order to follow the ADA. More
Need to get rid of some blood? Plasma donation centers and the ADA.
Lady McBeth notoriously had a problem with some blood she needed to get rid of. It wasn’t a lot, but suppose she wanted to unload a pint of plasma at her local donation center. Would she be going to a service establishment subject to the ADA, or would this be some other kind of commercial transaction? That question is the subject of a recent DOJ Statement of interest that I’ll discuss in a minute. First though let’s take a look at buying and selling things in general. More
DOJ announces that there is no safe harbor for physical accessibility.
Early last month the Department of Justice filed a “Statement of Interest” in Migyanko v. Aimbridge Hospitality LLC¹ that should give pause to every business subject to Title III of the ADA; that is, every business. Two sentences from the Statement of Interest are of particular concern:
“The ADA Standards do not address every aspect of physical accessibility.”
and
“Of course, in the absence of specific requirements for bed height, hotels have some degree of flexibility in making reasonable modifications to provide usable beds for a person with a disability. This flexible standard is inherently fact-specific.”
To understand why these innocuous statements are of such concern requires a look at this case and the problems created when DOJ declares that something is discriminatory without defining what discrimination means. More