*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
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA - serial litigation, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Legislation, DOJ, FHA, FHA design/build litigation, FHA Emotional Support Animals, Uncategorized Tags: ADA defense, Emotional Support Animals, ESA fraud, FHA Defense, Pursuit of Respect
“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
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA - Hotels, ADA - serial litigation, ADA - Standing, ADA Bars, ADA Internet, ADA Internet Web, ADA Mootness, ADA Website Accessibility Tags: accessible bar seating, ADA defense, ADA Mootness, FHA Defense, Robles v Dominos, Strojnik
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?
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
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
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA - Hotels, ADA Internet, ADA Internet Web, ADA regulations, ADA rulemaking, Hospitality, Hotels, Inventory requirements Tags: accessible beds., ADA defense, FHA Defense, Hotel beds, Migyanko v. Aimbridge
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.”
“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