Settlement Agreement: Arlington-Mansfield Area YMCA
Lack Of Website Accessibility Regulations Is No Bar To Suit, Another Judge affirms
Lexology
There is more bad news for businesses that thought that they could wait for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue specific regulations before making their websites accessible to individuals with disabilities. Federal Magistrate Judge Robertson in the District of Massachusetts recently denied motions by Harvard and MIT to dismiss or stay website accessibility class action lawsuits, and recommended that the lawsuits move forward to discovery. The judge found that the existing law and regulations provide a basis for the deaf advocates’ claim that the universities violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide closed captioning for thousands of videos on their websites. The judge rejected the universities’ arguments that the court dismiss or stay the case while DOJ works on its proposed rules for website accessibility, finding that the court did not need the agency’s expertise to adjudicate the cases. The judge did, however, give weight to the DOJ’s interpretation of the ADA expressed in its Statement of Interest filed in the lawsuits.
Woman sues Panera Bread after being denied service due to service dog
Citizens Voice
A Clarks Summit woman who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder alleges she was kicked out of Panera Bread because she had a service dog.
Jessica Traver filed a federal lawsuit this week alleging the St. Louis-based restaurant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Know the Law: Company concerned over Zika virus
The Union Leader
Q: My company has a group of employees ready to embark on a project in South America, and we are concerned about their being exposed to the Zika virus. As a company, what should we do?
Lawyers see boom in cash-seeking web-ADA suits
Overlawyered
I’ve predicted that with wider acceptance of the legal theory that the ADA requires websites to reflect the needs of blind, deaf, paralyzed, and other disabled users in their design, there will eventually emerge filing mills generating form complaints alleging lack of online accessibility, just as we see with ADA complaints in some states against brick-and-mortar stores on Main Street. Now, after years of effort from disabled advocacy groups and the Obama administration to overcome unfavorable court precedent, we may be several steps closer to that day [Amanda Robert, Legal NewsLine]:
Defense attorneys say there has been an “explosion of activity” from payment-seeking plaintiffs lawyers and their blind clients who are alleging violations of federal disabilities law in lawsuits over companies’ websites – particularly in three jurisdictions [California, New York, and Pennsylvania].
One Pittsburgh attorney representing two blind plaintiffs has brought cases against Hard Rock Café International, Toys “R” Us, and Pep Boys over their online operations, as well as a case now consolidated against 16 different defendants including Ace Hardware, Brooks Brothers, the National Basketball Association and Red Roof Inns. As for smaller businesses, they are for the most part not exempt under the law, so their time will come too.
Scalia often hostile to disability rights
Scranton Times-Tribune
Antonin Scalia’s hostility toward civil rights claims was evident in many of the Americans with Disabilities Act cases that came before him on the U.S Supreme Court.
In two cases, Sutton v. United Airlines and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky Inc. v. Williams, the court diluted the ADA definition of disability to the point where many people with legitimate disabilities could no longer bring claims. In both cases, Scalia voted with the majority.
Disabled man sues Fox Park over alleged ADA violations
The Pennsylvania Record-Feb 27, 2016
A disabled Florida man is suing Fox Park Corp., claiming the property does not accommodate individuals with physical impairments, as defined by the ADA.
Owen Harty filed a lawsuit on Feb. 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Fox Park Corp., citing violation for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
According to the complaint, Harty is paralyzed from the waist down and is bound to ambulate in a wheelchair, qualifying him as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. The plaintiff claims to assert his civil rights in monitoring, ensuring and determining whether public accommodations are in compliance with the ADA.
Dogs and Horses Can Be Service Animals, But Not Kangaroos
Care2.com
A woman with a kangaroo walks into a restaurant.
Sounds like the beginning of a joke. But it actually happened.
Last year a woman attempted to pass off a baby kangaroo as a service animal in a Wisconsin McDonald’s. The city council ended up voting (14-0) to define a service animal as a dog or miniature horse. But newsflash—that’s already the law, according to the federal government.
Here is the U.S. law concerning service animals as it is written:
“The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 2010 Regulations define a service animal as any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. If they meet this definition, dogs are considered service animals under the ADA regardless of whether they have been licensed or certified by a state or local government.”
The ADA also has a provision about miniature horses that have been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities, but that’s it. Dogs and horses only. And definitely not kangaroos.
Understanding Disability: Vision-impaired woman on mission to improve Alta Vista Street crossings
Santa Fe New Mexican