For the past few years, retailers have been confronted with a tidal wave of litigation alleging that their websites are inaccessible in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Indeed, in 2018 alone, one analysis determined that there were at least 2,258 web accessibility cases filed in federal court, a 177 percent increase from the previous year.
Continue Reading The Next Wave of Accessibility Litigation in the Retail Industry: Braille Gift Cards
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case on October 8 that likely would have clarified the scope of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act related to the operation of virtual platforms like websites and applications by private businesses.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Passes On a Case That Likely Would Have Clarified the Scope of the ADA Regarding Access to Private Businesses’ Virtual Platforms
The Americans with Disabilities Act has been the source of a tremendous amount of litigation since President George H.W. Bush signed it into law in 1990. Over the past few years, Plaintiffs’ counsel have developed a cottage industry of sorts by filing thousands of lawsuits alleging that company websites are not accessible to the blind or visually impaired, in violation of Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in “places of public accommodation.”
Continue Reading The Muddy Waters of ADA Website Compliance May Become Less Murky in 2019
On February 15, 2018, by a vote of 225 to 192, the House of Representatives passed the ADA Education and Reform Act (HR 620). Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted to ensure access for persons with disabilities to public accommodations. Too often however, serial litigants have abused Title III to shake down businesses for quick settlements over minor, technical violations without actually seeking to improve access. By amending the ADA to include a notice and cure provision, proponents of HR 620 say this bill will curb predatory public accommodations lawsuits brought by serial plaintiffs and their lawyers against businesses.
Continue Reading Houses Passes Bill Aimed At Curbing Abuse of ADA Public Accommodations Lawsuits
The Department of Justice’s (“DOJ’s”) often criticized rulemaking delays have resulted in no new website accessibility rules for places of public accommodation to receive notice of and implement. Notwithstanding the obvious due process concerns raised by these delays, more and more website accessibility cases are being threatened and filed every day. Most, not unexpectedly, settle. Winn-Dixie did not, and what happened next is worth a closer look.
Continue Reading Federal Court Rules Inaccessible Website Violates Title III of the ADA
n a previous post, we discussed the Second Circuit’s opinion finding that Rite-Aid lawfully fired a long-tenured pharmacist after he refused to comply with the company’s new mandate that pharmacists administer immunizations. The plaintiff requested that the Second Circuit rehear the case, arguing that it should consider additional evidence.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Denies Needlephobic Pharmacist’s Rehearing Request
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently denied a motion to dismiss filed by Bravo! Facility Services, Inc. against a former employee who brought claims under the ADA, District of Columbia Human Rights Act, and the FMLA. Bravo! asserted that the plaintiff should be barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel from asserting her claims because she initially failed to disclose her employment discrimination claims in her chapter 7 bankruptcy case filed after her employment terminated.
Continue Reading D.C. Court Rejects Judicial Estoppel Defense for Alleged Failure of Plaintiff to Schedule Employment Discrimination Claims in Bankruptcy Case
The Second Circuit recently held that Rite-Aid lawfully fired a long-tenured pharmacist after he refused to comply with the company’s new mandate that pharmacists administer immunizations. The Court’s decision overturned a jury verdict of $2.6 million in the pharmacist’s favor and reminds employers what it takes to show that a given function is “essential” and what accommodations are reasonable.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Says Firing Disabled Worker Was Lawful
The Eleventh Circuit confirmed that indefinite light duty is not a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and employers are not required to create a permanent light-duty position for an employee.
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit – Indefinite Light Duty Is Not A Reasonable Accommodation
Employers increasingly feel that they are forced to bend, or sometimes even break, company rules to reasonably accommodate disabled workers under federal and state law. In a victory for employers, the Eleventh Circuit bucked this trend, holding that when mandatory overtime is established as an “essential function” of the job, a disabled employee who cannot work overtime is not a “qualified individual” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and, thus, need not be accommodated.
Continue Reading Eleventh Circuit Nixes Disability Discrimination Claim Due to Employee’s Inability to Work Overtime