Maine lags in providing state park access to people with disabilities
Press Herald
Funding and philosophy play key roles, but several other states offer greater wheelchair access to public lands.
People with physical disabilities frustrated by lack of wheelchair access at state parks
Lewiston Sun Journal
Maine is not among the leaders, despite promoting itself as a scenic outdoor playground and generating $500 million annually in recreational tourism. Until last year, the state’s budget had never included funds toward improving access at state parks for those with physical disabilities.
Ava's faces lawsuit over ADA access
Mountain View Voice
A linchpin of Castro Street, Ava's Downtown Market & Deli has weathered fierce competition, rising costs and parking troubles. Now the grocery store's latest threat has to do with the dimensions of its displays and chairs.
A new civil lawsuit is demanding payment from Ava's owners and their partners for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint mirrors other ADA suits filed against small shops and cafes across California that have gained a reputation among business owners for being tantamount to a shakedown.
The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of Ronny-Marie Wilson, a frequent ADA plaintiff, against the owners of Ava's grocery store, the Omelette House that occupies space inside it and the owner of its building at 340 Castro St. The lawsuit complaint cites inadequate "knee and toe clearances" at tables near the Omelette House dining area and aisles in the grocery store that were wheelchair-inaccessible due to the store's inventory displays. Each violation can result in up to $4,000 in damages in court; however, the lawsuit leaves the possibility open for more violations to be identified.
Disabled man accuses Vajello restaurant owners of disability discrimination
Northern California Record
disabled man is suing Vajello restaurant business owners, alleging disability discrimination and failure to uphold Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations.
Byron Chapman, who requires a wheelchair, filed a complaint Nov. 8, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California against Simple Thai, Gregg Schoepp and Hava Investment LLC, alleging they failed to provide full and safe equal access to the restaurant's facilities.
Chicago Tribune Reports: McDonald's, Kmart and Gruhub Settle Mobile App and Website Accessibility Discrimination Lawsuits
Lexology
The Chicago Tribune reported this week that McDonalds, Kmart, Grubhub and others have all settled lawsuits brought by blind plaintiffs alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other laws resulting from “inaccessible” websites and mobile apps.
Defense of "Mootness"
Although federal courts have been, in general, ruling in favor of blind plaintiffs in these ADA website accessibility cases, for companies that take substantial steps to improve accessibility including hiring an expert third party consultant, the defense of "mootness" (because the defendant is already taking the action desired by the plaintiff) is having some success.
For example, in the case of Gomez v. Empower "U" Inc., (Case # #: 1:17-cv-22633-DPG) a federal court judge in Florida recently issued an Order to stay and administratively close a case, in recognition of correction actions allegedly taken by the defendant to address the accessibility of its website to disabled users.
McDonald's, K-Mart, Grubhub, & Empire Today Settle Federal ADA Violation Complaints
USA Herald
Recently, McDonald’s, K-Mart, Grubhub, and Empire Today faced a federal lawsuit that alleged the websites and apps of the respective companies violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because they were inaccessible to individuals who are blind.
The cases of the plaintiffs were dismissed in October and November because of an undisclosed settlement agreement.
“One-Size-Fits-All” Return-To-Work Policies Cause An Extra Large Problem For Major US Airline
Lexology
On November 3, 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit against a major United States airline, alleging the company maintained policies that violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and inked a $9.8 million settlement deal with the company the same day. The EEOC alleged that the company maintained a “100% return to work” policy, meaning that the airline required individuals returning from medical leave to be able to perform their essential job duties without any disability-related restrictions (i.e., accommodations, such as reduced hours or sitting while working). The complaint named several individual plaintiffs who claimed to have been personally affected by this policy, and thus, discriminated against on the basis of their disabilities in violation of the ADA. Employees reported practices like the airline refusing to transfer injured or disabled employees, and refusing to offer intermittent, paid leave or seating behind a ticket counter, with the airline instead requiring disabled employees to reapply for other positions or find other work. The EEOC alleged that the company’s return-to-work policy itself, and the specific occasions on which the company employed it, were violations of the ADA’s mandate that employers provide reasonable accommodations to employees to allow them to perform the essential functions of their jobs.
Seventh Circuit ruling on additional leave offers important employer guidance
Lexology
A recent Seventh Circuit case held that additional leave beyond what is otherwise required by leave entitlement laws is not a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This holding provides important guidance for employers. Continue reading for the details of this case and our recommended best practices in light of its holding.
On Sept. 20, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that additional leave beyond what was provided by the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was not a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Severson v Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., 872 F.3d 476 (7th Cir. 2017). In this case, Severson took 12 weeks of FMLA leave for serious back pain and problems. On the last day of his FMLA leave, Severson had back surgery. He informed Heartland Woodcraft that he would need to remain off work for another two to three months after the surgery before he could return to work. Heartland Woodcraft denied his request for additional leave and terminated Severson’s employment, inviting him to reapply when he was cleared to return to work.
New York's Con Ed settles EEOC suit on letting disabled work
Business Insurance
New York City and Westchester County’s electricity and gas utility, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc., will pay $800,000 to resolve a disability discrimination suit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency said Wednesday.
The EEOC said New York-based Con Ed’s doctors violated the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 by refusing to medically approve qualified applicants to begin employment because of their disabilities, even though they could perform the jobs for which the applied, and by performing medical exams of applicants without first giving them a conditional job offer.
The EEOC said also the utility’s doctors imposed improper medical restrictions on some existing employees with disabilities that reduced their earnings and, in one case, led to termination.
Under terms of the consent decree settling the suit, Con Ed will pay the job applicants and employees who were discriminated against $800,000 in lost wages and damages, the agency said.
The decree also requires Con Ed to make a written job offer before it conducts any prehire medical exam. Under the decree, Con Ed must make an individualized assessment of each applicant’s ability to perform the job and raise the threshold for its doctors to place disability-related restrictions on applicants and employees.
9.8 Million Reasons to Consider Transferring a Disabled Employee to a Vacant Position
Workforce Management
Earlier this month, American Airlines agreed to pay $9.8 million to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the EEOC.
The agency claimed that the employer’s return-to-work policy — which allegedly refused to consider transfers to open positions for disabled employees, but instead required the employees to apply for and compete for vacant position upon their return to work — violated the ADA.
'Drive-by' lawsuits under disabilities statute costing economy
The Hill
Congress has recently taken up the issue of frivolous litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under this landmark legislation, owners of public accommodations are required to ensure that hotels, restaurants shopping malls and other places of business are accessible to the disabled.
As a result of this law, disabled Americans are better able to use and enjoy public spaces to the betterment of America. While it seems like a win-win for everyone, there is a significant negative trend that has caught the attention of Congress.