The National Law Review
On March 20, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge S. James Otero for the Central District of California in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, granted defendant Domino’s Pizza LLC’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and ruled that the plaintiff’s class action complaint alleging that the pizza maker’s website, www.dominos.com, and mobile website were not accessible using a screen reader designed for the blind and visually-impaired and therefore in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“UCRA”). The dismissal of the complaint without prejudice was based upon the District Court’s finding that the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has not yet promulgated concrete guidance regarding the accessibility standards an e-commerce webpage must meet under the ADA and that this violated Dominos’ due process rights.[1]
This is the first opinion that reconciles the Ninth Circuit’s previous statement that websites are not subject to the ADA “accessibility” requirement unless there is a connection between the good or service on the website and an actual physical location, and the DOJ’s position that websites must be made accessible. Assuming websites are to be made accessible, the question faced by businesses is what specific guidelines they must meet and how they demonstrate compliance.
Food Service Company to Pay $35000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
JD Supra
An Illinois food service company will pay $35,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Nashville, Tenn.-based American Blue Ribbons Holding, LLC dba Legendary Baking, violated federal law by denying light duty work to Patricia Hall, an employee at its Oak Forest, Ill., baking facility. Hall has CSP myelopathy, a condition affecting her spinal cord. The company then fired Hall and refused to rehire her because of her disability, the EEOC charged.
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The EEOC filed its lawsuit on Aug. 23, 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago (Civil Action No. 16 C 8266) after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.
Under the consent decree settling the suit, entered by Judge John Robert Blakey, Legendary Baking will pay Hall $35,000. In addition, the decree enjoins Legendary Baking from engaging in disability discrimination or retaliation. Further, the decree requires the company to train its managers at the Oak Forest location with respect to the requirements of the ADA and to report complaints of disability discrimination to the EEOC.
"The EEOC is satisfied that this employer now clearly understands that disability discrimination is unacceptable and unlawful," said Julianne Bowman, the EEOC's district director in Chicago. "We also are gratified that vigorous enforcement on the Commission's part has led to appropriate corrective action and compensation for the victim."
EEOC Regional Attorney Gregory Gochanour noted that the settlement was negotiated before the parties engaged in extended litigation or pretrial discovery.
Gochanour said, "We appreciate Legendary Baking's determination to work with the EEOC to quickly resolve the case by providing compensation to Ms. Hall and undertaking measures to assure future compliance with the ADA."
Is Never Returning to Work a Reasonable Accommodation? Fifth Circuit Says No
The National Law Review
Although taking leave that is limited in duration may be a reasonable accommodation to enable an employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job upon return, taking leave without a specified date to return or, as in this case, with the intent of never returning is not a reasonable accommodation. This case serves as a reminder to employers that providing unprotected leave as a reasonable accommodation may be necessary and appropriate in some circumstances, but each accommodation request needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
Food Service Company to Pay $35,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
An Illinois food service company will pay $35,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced yesterday.
According to the EEOC's lawsuit, Nashville, Tenn.-based American Blue Ribbons Holding, LLC dba Legendary Baking, violated federal law by denying light duty work to Patricia Hall, an employee at its Oak Forest, Ill., baking facility. Hall has CSP myelopathy, a condition affecting her spinal cord. The company then fired Hall and refused to rehire her because of her disability, the EEOC charged.
Are ADA lawsuit plaintiffs hucksters or heroes?
The News-Press
Though ADA compliance is important, it is often difficult to achieve for small business owners because the instructions are very detailed and specific. The document detailing all of the specifications is hundreds of pages long. Amanda Inscore/news-press.com and Melanie Payne/news-press.com
Man files dozens of ADA lawsuits in 3 months against businesses in one town
WLS-TV
A Tulare County man named Jose Trujillo is listed as the plaintiff in 31 federal lawsuits that have been filed since the start of 2017, including ten since the beginning of March.
Among those being sued--two Visalia grocery stores, and a Flyers gas station. Wadoua Xiong, owner of Pho N' Seafood, was served with his last week.
Disability support firm settles ADA lawsuit
Business Insurance
A Phoenix disability support services company has agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission lawsuit that charged it with discriminating against disabled employees by refusing to provide them with reasonable accommodations, the agency said Tuesday.
5 Steps to Making your Website Accessible to the Disabled
Customer Think
In the first installment of this two-part series, we discussed the importance of website accessibility and the formulation of regulation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as it relates to ecommerce.
That led to some broad observations — in particular, that regulation is somewhat open for interpretation under the provisions of Title III of the ADA. As a result, over the past two years alone, more than 300 lawsuits have been filed in or removed to federal court.
Tips for handling addiction in the workplace
Baltimore Business Journal
If you think a colleague is struggling with substance use, raise the concern to an appropriate human resources representative. If you’re a manager or business owner, begin gathering evidence of attendance or performance issues for the employee in question.
Keep in mind that addiction is a disease, and the substance use is a symptom. There’s very little choice in the matter. Because of this, there are some protections for the employee:
The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) helps to protect an employee from losing their job while receiving treatment.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects those who develop addiction from losing employment because of their disease or past mistakes they’ve made while addicted. It does not protect those who are still actively abusing drugs.
If you’re involved in approaching this individual, offer non-judgmental support. Let this person know you’re genuinely concerned about their well-being. Offer information on treatment centers in your area and assure them that their job security is not in question should they choose to seek help.
Man alleges difficulty accessing Birdie's Food & Fuel because of barriers to disabled patrons
The Louisiana Record
A St. John the Baptist Parish man alleges a LaPlace gas station contains barriers that restrict access to the disabled.
Wayne Gilmore filed a complaint on March 21 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Robert R. Crais, doing business as Birdie's Food & Fuel, alleging that the gas station operator violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that during his visits at defendant's premises, he experienced serious difficulty accessing the goods and utilizing the services therein. He alleges he was denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of his disability. The plaintiff holds Crais responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary.
The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order directing defendant to alter the facility to make it accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities and to evaluate and neutralize its policies, practices and procedures towards persons with disabilities, award for attorney's fees, costs and such other and further relief. He is represented by Georgianne Sims of Ku & Mussman PA in Pembroke Pines, Florida.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case number 2:17-cv-02325
Albuquerque Journal
There are now 99 federal lawsuits filed by a Santa Fe attorney against mostly Albuquerque businesses alleging disability violations.
The lawsuits were filed by Sharon Pomeranz on behalf of Alyssa Carton, described as a Bernalillo County resident who uses a wheelchair because of a disability.
The suits are nearly identical, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act covering such issues as properly marked parking spaces and bathroom accommodations.
An explosion of ADA-related lawsuits has hit cities nationwide over the past year.
“I don’t think the goal is, frankly, to bring attention to those problems,” said Jim Jackson, CEO of the non-profit Disability Rights New Mexico. “I’d hesitate to speculate on the motivations of the folks involved, but I’d be surprised if what they’re hoping to accomplish is to call attention to … people who are not in compliance with ADA.”
'A long way to go': Symposium on disability studies explores perspectives on past, future
Norman Transcript