Search

In the article, the author discusses website accessibility law issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and how to address them. ADA aims to eliminate discrimination based on disabilities. Also cited are the rapid rise of federal lawsuits due to violations of ADA's Title III and the efforts by foreign governments and standard-setting organizations like the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to ensure internet accessibilityfor all users.

The article focuses on the accessibility challenges faced by visually impaired individuals, particularly at street intersections, and the role of Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) in addressing these challenges. It discusses the legal framework provided by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related statutes, examines relevant court cases, and advocates for the implementation of APS as a solution to enhance the independent navigation of blind and low-vision pedestrians.

Some commentators have criticized the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins and especially the Court's 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez for limiting Congress' authority to confer standing by statute. For example, in his article, Injury in Fact Transformed, Professor Cass Sunstein argues that TransUnion is a "radical ruling" that uses the injury in fact standing requirement to limit the authority of Congress to enact only statutes that address harms that have a close relationship to traditional or common law harms. By contrast, Professor Ernst Young argues that the Supreme Court's injury in fact doctrine is justified in light of the history of equitable practice requiring a "grievance" rather than just a cause of action. The question of how much the TransUnion decision has narrowed Article III standing has resulted in a circuit split regarding when civil rights testers filing suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act have standing. The Tenth Circuit's 2022 decision in Laufer v. Looper and similar decisions in the Second and Fifth Circuits have read the TransUnion decision to limit but not eliminate the broad tester standing in the Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman. By contrast, the First Circuit, in its 2022 decision in Laufer v. Acheson Hotels, LLC, explicitly rejected these decisions in the Tenth, Second and Fifth Circuits to conclude that the TransUnion decision had not overruled the expansive tester standing in Havens Realty. The Eleventh Circuit had previously taken a similar position as the First Circuit but did not explicitly disagree with other circuits. On March 27, 2023, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the First Circuit decision for the 2023-24 term. This is an important issue because a broad reading of the TransUnion decision could limit tester standing and affect many other federal statutes that go beyond traditional common law damages. This article will argue that one's view of standing issues depends heavily upon whether one favors expansive government regulation as a social good or is a libertarian skeptical of government regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the electronic age has taken hold of the global community, and digital devices have become the mainstay of human interaction, new accessibility barriers have emerged for people with disabilities. Although most courts now conclude virtual inaccessibility is an injury cognizable under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, great ambiguity surrounds the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III standing in online accessibility cases. Despite pleading for elucidation and clarifying principles, federal district courts have been left to navigate the uncharted territory of the digital injury-in-fact inquiry with exiguous guidance from higher courts. The resultant confusion in the federal courts has manifested itself as diametrically contradictory injury-in-fact holdings in factually identical cases, both inter- and intra-circuit. This Comment clarifies the digital injury-in-fact inquiry by identifying and dissecting four crucial issues dividing federal courts in ADA Title III online accessibility cases: (1) the location a plaintiff must intend to return; (2) the application of the geographic intent-to-return test factors in cyberspace; (3) the role of future injury; and (4) the scope of virtual standing. First, this Comment argues the destination of a plaintiff's intent to return is preordained by the type of injury alleged by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff alleges a purely virtual website injury, federal courts must assess the plaintiff's intent to return to the inaccessible website. If a plaintiff alleges a hybrid website injury, federal courts must assess the plaintiff's intent to return to the inaccessible website and intent to avail themselves to the goods or services of the public accommodation's brick-and-mortar location. Second, this Comment contends the geographic intent-to-return factors are not probative of a plaintiff's intent to return to a website. However, federal courts cannot merely remove the geographic factors from the intent-to-return test because the resulting analysis infringes on Supreme Court precedent. Rather, federal courts must substitute the intent-to-return test's geographic factors with factors appropriate in cyberspace. Third, this Comment asserts the injury-in-fact inquiry cannot be satisfied by past injury alone. Instead, federal courts must assess the plaintiff's likelihood of future injury. Finally, this Comment argues federal courts should not adopt a lenient approach to standing because a lenient approach is not necessitated by Supreme Court precedent, it is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and it exacerbates the extant issue of serial litigation in online accessibility cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The wave of remote work that has swept the nation since the COVID-19 pandemic has upended traditional notions about how and where work is performed. Advocates for disabled workers have lobbied for remote work for decades because the standard American workplace is designed around the nondisabled worker. The ability to work remotely is crucial to many workers with disabilities; it often determines whether they can maintain a job. And yet, most employers have refused to embrace remote work as a disability accommodation. This knee-jerk resistance to remote work has often been based on assumptions, past practice, and a lack of imagination rather than a careful, evidence-based examination of what is feasible and reasonable in a particular situation. In litigation, courts typically side with employers, basing their holdings on evidentiary practices that inevitably elevate employers' concerns over those of employees. This Article makes two unique contributions to the literature on remote work accommodations. First, it identifies and categorizes these sometimes subtle, but usually dispositive, evidentiary practices and analyzes how each is legally unsound. What the pandemic has taught us about remote work further erodes the bases for these practices, rendering them indefensible. Courts should abandon these evidentiary shenanigans. Second, this Article studies federal remote work accommodations decisions between April 2020 and December 2022. Results are mixed, but there are hopeful signs that some courts are changing practices in light of the mountain of data our pandemic-induced nationwide remote work experiment has generated. This change would be a welcome development for disabled plaintiffs that would help ensure they have a fair chance in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, the Americans with Disabilities Act has become a significant source of confusing and controversial litigation over website accessibility. This confusion and controversy stems from the fact that the Americans with Disabilities Act and its accompanying regulations offer zero explanation as to how the Act applies to websites. Faced with a circuit split, due process concerns, and a lack of any meaningful technical guidance from administrative agencies, defendant website operators are desperate for clear guidelines for how to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Adding to this desperation is a barrage of opportunistic lawsuits, dubbed “surf-by lawsuits,” being filed nationwide against thousands of businesses whose websites are not entirely accessible. Because courts are unwilling to declare a measurable level of accessibility that satisfies the Americans with Disabilities Act as a matter of law, these defendants are forced to either spend the tens of thousands of dollars required to litigate their cases all the way, or settle. On the surface, it may seem like a good thing that these lawsuits are making the internet more accessible. However, the practical result of the current legal landscape is that almost every defendant will settle, regardless of how accessible its website is and regardless of whether any individual with a disability has actually been denied equal access. Most of the settlement agreements contain only a vague promise by the defendant to make the website more accessible. Furthermore, the disabled individual is unable to recover damages; only attorney’s fees are recoverable under the Act. This has led many to believe that the involvement of the disabled plaintiff is often pretextual. Rather than accept this flawed system, this author believes there are legal solutions to the confusion surrounding the Americans with Disabilities Act, which could be fairer to both defendants and individuals with disabilities. Part I of this Note begins by providing some background on the Americans with Disabilities Act and the standards used for measuring website accessibility. Part II describes the current state of the law, including a discussion of the circuit split, due process concerns, and judicial articulations of what the ADA requires from a technical standpoint. Finally, Part III advocates how to move forward with resolving the circuit split and creating clear technical standards for website accessibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses legal issues on disabilities and employment discrimination in the U.S., particularly the implementation of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) to protect people with disabilities. Also cited are how courts are adjudicating the interpretation of disability that denied protections to people with disabilities, and some court cases like Shell v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. STME.

Qualified teachers with disabilities are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). To maintain legal compliance, principals must have an understanding of employment law, but often lack the training to prevent legal liability. This study reviewed litigation on discrimination claims under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Discrimination claims included failure to accommodate, adverse employment action, wrongful termination, and constructive discharge. Authors analyze results and discuss implications for future research and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") was enacted in 1990 to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Over time, as society has become more reliant on the internet, the issue of whether the ADA's scope extends beyond physical places to online technology has emerged. A circuit split developed on this issue, and courts have discussed three interpretations of the ADA's scope: (1) the ADA applies to physical places only; (2) the ADA applies to a website or mobile app that has a sufficient nexus to a physical place; or (3) the ADA broadly applies beyond physical places to online technology. In 2019, the Supreme Court turned down an opportunity to settle this circuit split through a case presenting the issue of whether the ADA applies to websites and mobile apps. This was before the COVID-19 pandemic forced our society to utilize online technology more than ever before. During the COVID-19 pandemic, schools switched to online learning, employees worked remotely, restaurants depended on takeout services through online ordering and consumers utilized online shopping to avoid crowded stores. These online activities and many others, however, may be inaccessible to millions of individuals with disabilities. If the ADA does not apply to online technology, businesses would not be required to design websites and mobile apps that are effectively accessible to individuals with disabilities. These individuals could therefore experience several disadvantages in an internet-dependent society. In 2021, do arguments for a narrow application of the ADA, which limits its scope to physical places only, seem persuasive? This Note discusses why ADA protections should apply beyond physical places, specifically to websites and mobile apps, and why this approach should be adopted nationwide. Without a uniform interpretation of the ADA's scope, uncertainty surrounding website accessibility litigation will continue as the utilization of online technology continues to increase. This Note also discusses other important aspects of ADA website accessibility litigation, such as establishing standing to sue and asserting statutory defenses against alleged discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the ADA) and the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Department of Justice can solve predatory litigation. It mentions increase in website accessibility lawsuits where plaintiffs allege violations of Title III of the ADA. It also mentions DOJ promulgate regulations in which the level of website compliance will depend upon the website's intended use and website accessibility standards.

Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to society. This revolutionary piece of legislation implemented standards for which places of public accommodation must conform their business practices to. As a result, places of public accommodation are required to provide auxiliary aids to individuals who request them. This Note will first examine the background that has led to plastic straws being banned or removed from places of public accommodation. This Note will then discuss the negative consequences that banning plastic straws has on individuals with disabilities. These consequences can lead to the de facto exclusion of individuals with disabilities from public life, which is what the Americans with Disabilities Act sought to prevent. To avoid exclusion, this Note argues that plastic straws are the only type of straw that can serve as an auxiliary aid. Therefore, in order to comply with the ADA places of public accommodation must provide plastic straws. This ensures that individuals with disabilities can fully and equally enjoy their beverages. Finally, this Note will examine the impact this classification has on current actions being taken and propose simple steps to ensure that companies and government actors do not subject themselves to litigation that they can easily avoid. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author presents a model of when and how coworkers judge the distributive fairness of workplace accommodations of employees with disabilities. Fairness judgments are made when accommodations are salient and relevant to coworkers. The author thus presents factors influencing the salience and relevance of accommodation. She also argues that fairness judgments are based on equity and need rules and therefore explores factors influencing equity comparisons and perceived warrantedness. Finally, the author suggests directions and ideas for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On September 20, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc. held that an employee requesting a multi-month leave of absence is not a "qualified individual" employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that such leave is therefore not a reasonable accommodation as defined by the ADA. In so doing, the court split from its sister circuits and made a bright-line rule that categorically excludes certain employees with disabilities from protection under the ADA. This Comment argues that the Seventh Circuit should have left more room for case by case inquiries into the specific circumstances of leave of absence requests to align with the underlying purposes of the ADA: providing individualized accommodations to employees with disabilities to ensure they have access to equal employment opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article argues employers should be required to engage in the same interactive process with employees seeking religious accommodations as they are with employees seeking disability accommodations. The interactive process generally obligates the employer and employee to work together in good faith to determine whether the employee can be reasonably accommodated. Neither the Americans with Disability Act nor Title VII of the Civil Rights Act explicitly mandates the interactive process, yet courts routinely read this requirement into the former statute but not the latter. The practical effect of this distinction is that religious accommodations generally are more difficult to obtain, and employees seeking such accommodations have less control over the process and outcome. Consequently, employees may be forced to choose between their jobs and their religious beliefs--the very conundrum Title VII seeks to avoid. The legal justification for mandating the interactive process for disability accommodations but not religious accommodations is uncompelling, prompting a handful of courts to require the interactive process for both types of accommodations. More courts should follow suit. There is considerable upside, and virtually no downside, to extending the interactive-process requirement to religious accommodations. It benefits employees and employers alike by increasing the odds of a mutually agreeable accommodation, which in turn reduces the risk of litigation. Moreover, good-faith participation in the interactive process better positions a party to prevail when litigation does ensue. The interactive process also benefits courts, not only by lightening dockets through reduced litigation but also by providing a straightforward, highly adaptable, and familiar framework through which to more effectively evaluate accommodation claims. As religiousaccommodation requests increase, both in number and type, the interactive process can help reduce conflict by ensuring employers and employees work together to determine whether a reasonable accommodation is possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article informs on efforts taken by Washington in providing representation to self-represented parties who are unable to participate in the adjudicative process due to a disability. It informs that judges need a process that allows them to comport with the mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act which respect a party's privacy rights, and avoid ex parte communication. It also informs on efforts of Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings in addressing same.

The article discusses a hypothetical court case pertaining to a school child named K.G. whose mother filed a lawsuit against the Rural School District on account of the district's failure to evaluate K.G. on various occasions. It outlines considerations with regard to the monetary liability of the school's personnel under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under which K.G. is supposed to fall.

A growing number of private lawsuits allege that businesses are violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act because their websites are inaccessible to disabled individuals. Courts remain divided, however, on the extent to which commercial websites are covered under Title III. Additionally, the Department of Justice has not promulgated commercial web accessibility regulations-- adding further uncertainty to the private enforcement regime. This Note argues that Title III broadly covers commercial websites, but that private enforcement is not positioned to spur lasting, broad-based Title III compliance. It proposes that large-scale litigation, state attorney general action, and state laws should be used to usher in commercial web accessibility according to globally accepted standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article claims in support of the idea that Title II applies to hosts providing public accommodations in the sharing economy. Topics discussed include the lawsuit against Airbnb alleging race discrimination, "Selden v. Airbnb, Inc.;" advancements in public accommodations that applies to the sharing economy; and regulation of landlords under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.

The article discusses the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's ruling in the 2017 case Crowell v. Massachusetts Parole Board which deals with prison conditions and the court's determination that the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to parole and incarcerated individuals with disabilities. The mistreatment of prisoners with mental impairments is examined, along with litigant Richard Crowell's memory, speech, and cognition problems and the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act.

The article reports on the impact of implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act on employment litigation in the U.S. Topics discussed include take of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on employment rights of people with disabilities; enactment of Americans with Disabilities Act for addressing the employment issues in the country; and Calvert v. AmeriCold Logistics court case addressing the same.

The article focuses on protecting people with mental disabilities from police brutality during arrests in the U.S. Topics dicussed include use of Americans with Disabilities Act for protecting the same; court case Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey on the same; and correlation between a police officer using deadly and victims of the same.

The article focuses on efforts taken in the U.S. Government in protecting individuals with both mental and physical impairments. Topics discussed include enactment of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 for the same; McAlindin v. County of San Diego court case on ability to interact; and Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc. court case addressing major life activity.

Captions make movies and television shows accessible to deaf or hard of hearing individuals. Through advocacy for deaf audiences and increased legal action, there have been great strides in getting more movies, shows, and other sources of entertainment captioned. Several pieces of federal legislation have contributed to the increased efforts to provide accessibility to disabled individuals, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). State legislation, like California’s Unruh Act, has also contributed, however, despite advocacy and progressive legislation, the deaf and hard of hearing still face many hurdles when it comes to captioning. This Comment focuses on the Anthony v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment Inc. case, a consumer class action lawsuit brought by nine deaf and hard of hearing plaintiffs against major movie and television show producers and distributors for not captioning music and song lyrics in their features. After examining the district court’s holding of each legal claim in Anthony, this Comment explains that although the Anthony court correctly applied and followed Ninth Circuit precedent, it should have incorporated public policy considerations into its opinion. To deny full captioning to the deaf and hard of hearing is to deny them equal and full enjoyment of movies and television shows, which violates the purpose of the ADA and other disability rights laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses police violence against people with mental disabilities in the U.S. in relation to a question about whether police have a duty under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to accommodate a person's mental illness during the course of an arrest. A wrongful arrest theory is addressed, along with modifications to police conduct and training. Lawsuits involving mentally disabled people and police procedures in the U.S. are assessed.

The article argues whether a plaintiff should be required to show but-for causation for claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or whether a plaintiff should be allowed to proceed under a motivating factor theory, as with claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It reports how U.S. Supreme Court examine the appropriate causation standard in claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc.

The associational discrimination provision of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) prohibits employment discrimination against applicants and employees, whether or not they have a disability, because of their known relationship or association with a person with a known disability. Over the last ten years, the number of charges alleging violation of the association provisions received by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), with the exception of FY 2012, has steadily increased. The purpose of this paper is to examine recent litigation associated with the associational discrimination provisions of the ADA and present suggestions to help employers minimize litigation risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has upheld a woman's right to choose previability abortion on several occasions. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey was one such case that grew out of the Court's abortion jurisprudence and changed the way states regulated abortion. However, Caseys decision is fraught with ambiguities that have facilitated legislative overreach, judicial abuse, and inconsistent interpretation and application of the constitutional standard. In some states, legislatures have regulated a woman's right to choose to such an extent that it is a practical impossibility. Recently, the Supreme Court struck down Texas's House Bill 2-a highly restrictive abortion statute that imposed oppressive standards on both abortion clinics and their physicians, leading to widespread clinic closures across the state of Texas. Although Texas's law did not survive the Supreme Court's scrutiny, the Court's failure to comprehensively address Casey's deeply rooted ambiguities has all but guaranteed that a woman's right to choose previability abortion will continue to be vulnerable to future attacks. If the Court truly intends to protect a woman's right to choose, the undue burden standard elicited in Casey must be modified in a manner that provides guidance and clarity to lower courts, while facilitating fair and just results across jurisdictions. Where a circumstance as commonplace as poverty can functionally deny a woman her constitutional right to choose a previability abortion, the protections that Roe guaranteed to all women are merely illusory for many. This Note argues that rather than focusing on the minutiae of Casey's test, the Supreme Court should have adopted a test similar to the undue hardship standard found in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Part I begins by describing the Supreme Court's approach to abortion jurisprudence since its decision in Roe. Part II evaluates the district court and appellate court decisions that led to the Supreme Court's decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Part III details the ADA's undue hardship standard and its applicability to Casey, and Part IV concludes with an explanation of why the ADA's economic cost-based framework would have been the more appropriate method to address Casey's underlying problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focuses on the application of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to Transportation Network Companies (TNC) in the U.S. Topics discussed include discrimination suits brought against these companies under Title III OF ADA; analysis of qualification of TNCs as private providers of public transportation or public accommodations under the ADA; and Ramos v. Uber Technologies. Inc. and.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for their employees' sincerely held religious practices and beliefs as long as the accommodation does not pose an "undue hardship" on the conduct of the employer's business. But "undue hardship" is a vague term that has led to unclear, inconsistent, unfair, and even discriminatory precedent. This Note proffers a new framework for religious discrimination law through the incorporation of the "essential functions" provision of a similar law, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, in order to strike a fairer balance between the competing rights and interests of employers and employees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several legal cases which challenge the accessibility of commercial and public websites and mobile applications (apps) under Title III of the U.S. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and it mentions how the websites and apps (web technologies) of various law firms and their private sector clients may violate Title III of the ADA. According to the article, many people with disabilities rely on assistive technology to navigate web technologies and services.

The Americans with Disabilities Act ( “ADA ”) is recognized as one of the most significant pieces of civil rights legislation in American history and is aimed at protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities. Unfortunately, as the ADA has developed, some attorneys have exposed methods of exploiting the provisions of the ADA for personal, pecuniary benefits—fee-driven lawsuits for violations of plaintiff-friendly provisions of Title III of the ADA. As a result of this exploitation, record numbers of Title III disability cases are being filed by a small group of plaintiffs and attorneys who have created a lucrative “cottage industry ” of vexatious and profitable lawsuits that do little to protect individuals with disabilities or promote the spirit and purpose of the ADA. Vexatious ADA litigation frequently occurs under the guise of a meritorious suit ostensibly brought on behalf of an individual with a disability who is seeking equal access to public accommodations. However, once the lawsuit is filed it quickly devolves into a hunt for vulnerable small businesses that are not in full compliance with the ADA. By exploiting small businesses that are likely to settle quickly instead of engaging in lengthy, costly litigation, lawyers bringing these cases are able to quickly recover attorney’s fees. The profitability and ease with which these lawsuits can be brought has prompted some attorneys to find and file as many ADA violation suits as possible. While the attorneys generate high profits from these lawsuits, money is diverted away from the real need—correcting the underlying violation that justified the lawsuit and providing the disabled plaintiff with equality and accessibility. This Article addresses the need to reform the ADA to prevent vexatious litigation and to promote the underlying goals of the Act. Part I of this Article introduces the topic of vexatious litigation and the importance of remedying the effects of exploitation of the ADA. Part II provides an overview of the ADA and its efforts to increase accessibility to individuals with disabilities, emphasizing the provisions of the Act that create incentives to engage in vexatious litigation. Part III examines and analyzes the judiciary’s response to vexatious litigation under the ADA, and sanctions that have been issued to limit exploitation. Finally, Part IV provides recommendations to reform the ADA and state disability law counterparts, suggests corrective actions to address vexatious litigation, and identifies methods to promote equality for individuals with disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]