Total Articles: 12
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 28, 2019
The much-anticipated decision from the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Domino’s Pizza’s Petition for Certiorari is in. On October 7, 2019, the SCOTUS denied review of a decision from the Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza.
Ogletree Deakins • October 28, 2018
The Department of Justice has finally broken its long silence on website accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the news is both good and bad. The bad: the Department rejected calls from the business community by reaffirming its position under the Obama administration that websites of businesses open to the public must be accessible to persons with disabilities. The good: public accommodations need not conform to any particular standard to meet obligations under the ADA.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 15, 2018
With the rise in lawsuits under Title III of the ADA regarding accessibility of websites, Courts have been framing how such claims fit into the law’s requirements for accessibility at places of public accommodation. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida recently provided additional clarification in Gomez v. Knife Management, LLC (S.D. Fla. Sep. 14, 2018).
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 09, 2018
A recent Middle District of Florida decision granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for relief under Title III of the ADA based on Plaintiff’s lack of standing to bring such claims. In Kennedy v. Cape Siesta Motel (MD FL Oct 4, 2018) the Plaintiff claims she encountered architectural barriers upon her visit to a motel in Brevard County, Florida. The Plaintiff lives about 175 miles from the motel but has a second home about 79 miles from the motel which she visits two to three times a month.
FordHarrison LLP • August 14, 2018
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires businesses that provide goods and services to the public to remove architectural barriers and ensure their facilities are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Generally, businesses must provide goods and services to individuals with disabilities in an integrated setting the same as is provided to the general public.
FordHarrison LLP • August 08, 2018
“Drive-by” lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) are more prevalent than ever and continue to rise. Title III of the ADA requires businesses to provide goods and services to persons with disabilities on an equal basis as the rest of the general public. The regulations require that businesses remove architectural and communication barriers and provide equal access to persons with disabilities.
Fisher Phillips • June 24, 2018
A federal appeals court just breathed new life into a disability access lawsuit filed against restaurant chain Hooters, permitting a blind plaintiff who claims he could not access the company’s business website to proceed with his ADA claim—despite the fact that the company was in the midst of fixing its website at the time the lawsuit was filed. The decision from earlier this week should be a wake-up call to all businesses with websites accessible to the public, serving as a reminder to ensure their sites are ADA-compliant (Haynes v. Hooters of America).
Ogletree Deakins • June 20, 2018
On June 19, 2018, in Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC, 2018 WL 3030840 (11th Cir. 2018), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals eliminated a useful defense strategy in the website accessibility arena when it held that a business’s agreement to remediate its website in a prior, private settlement did not render moot subsequent actions seeking the same relief.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 10, 2018
Public accommodation lawsuits under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have been around for years, but traditionally involve physical barriers such as narrow parking spots or access aisles, lack of elevators, and inaccessible restrooms. Increasingly, these lawsuits are not just confined to brick-and-mortar accommodations, but involve cyberspace. For example, individuals who are visually impaired typically access organization’s websites by using certain software that reads a website’s content. If this software cannot read an organization’s website, however, a visually impaired individual may be unable to fully access its content.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • April 10, 2018
ADA Title III claims have become a trap for many unsuspecting businesses. The claims often lead to protracted litigation driven by attorney fees rather than the underlying issue.
FordHarrison LLP • March 07, 2018
Executive Summary: Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits disability discrimination in places of public accommodation, which includes businesses that are open to the public – like shopping malls, restaurants, movie theaters, medical offices, recreational facilities, etc. As such, these entities are required to modify practices, procedures, and policies that infringe upon disabled individuals’ rights in certain circumstances. Service animal and emotional support animal accommodation has become an issue for businesses – and the media – as an increasing number of individuals have begun using emotional support animals. With that in mind, below is an analysis of the ADA public accommodation requirements for service animals, including general guidance for properly evaluating an individual’s use of service animals on or in the business premises as well as issues of accommodation for emotional support animals.
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • April 12, 2016
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires employers in a wide range of industries to ensure public accommodations, i.e. make their sites, goods and services accessible to individuals with disabilities.