Search

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 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 U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges establishing marriage equality for same-sex couples marks a major shift in recognizing gay, lesbian, and bisexual people as a central part of the fabric of American society. Obergefell also marks the passing of the torch from "LGB" to "T"; the next civil rights frontier belongs to transgender people, for whom key barriers still remain. In January 2015, a transgender woman filed an equal protection challenge to a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), which explicitly excludes several medical conditions closely associated with transgender people. In support of this challenge, lawyers for the plaintiff (and co-authors of this Article) advance a novel argument: transgender people are a "suspect" or "quasi-suspect" class entitled to heightened scrutiny. The authors further argue that the ADA's transgender exclusions are unconstitutional no matter what level of scrutiny applies because moral animus against transgender people is not a legitimate basis for lawmaking. This equal protection challenge paves the way for the extension of disability rights protection to transgender people under the Rehabilitation Act, Fair Housing Act, and state anti-disability discrimination laws that mirror the ADA. It also marks a new break for equality law--reaching far beyond disability rights to all laws that single out transgender people for disparate treatment. This challenge also informs the broader theoretical debate over the relationship between identity and impairment, and diagnosis and discrimination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legal aspects of wheelchair ramps and cyberspace in relation to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act as of May 2013, focusing on various legal interpretations of the phrase "place of public accommodation," as well as efforts to prevent discrimination against people on the basis of disability. It states that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that streaming video company Netflix's website is not a place of public accommodation.

Two conflicting stories have consumed the academic debate regard-ing the impact of deinstitutionalization litigation. The first, which has risen almost to the level of conventional wisdom, is that deinstitutionali-zation was a disaster. The second story challenges the suggestion that deinstitutionalization has uniformly been unsuccessful, as well as the causal link critics seek to draw with the growth of the homeless popula-tion. This Article, which embraces the second story, assesses the current wave of deinstitutionalization litigation. It contends that things will be different this time. The particular outcomes of the first wave of deinstitu-tionalization litigation, this Article contends, resulted from the interaction between the political dynamics surrounding that litigation and the legal claims asserted by deinstitutionalization advocates. But both those dynamics and those legal claims have changed significantly. Precisely because the first wave of deinstitutionalization litigation was so successful in moving residents out of large state institutions, the efforts of deinstitutionalization advocates have turned to ensuring the availability of adequate services in the community. This has shifted the fiscal politics of the field in ways that destabilize old political alliances but create the potential for new ones. At the same time, deinstitutionalization advocates have moved from the due process theories on which they relied in the 1970s and 1980s to an anti-discrimination theory relying on the ADA. That theory imposes a powerful incentive on states to create and fund adequate community services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]