Settlement Agreement: HealthSource Saginaw
Voluntary Compliance Agreement: Seasons of Coeur d’Alene Restaurant
Lawyer's Request to Continue Telecommuting Wasn't Reasonable
Bloomberg BNA
A lawyer in the Louisiana state attorney general’s office wasn’t entitled to continue working from home as an accommodation for complications from kidney transplant surgery, a federal appeals court ruled ( Credeur v. Louisiana , 2017 BL 217392, 5th Cir., No. 16-30658, 6/23/17 ).
The decision reaffirms the view of many courts that “regular work-site attendance” is an essential requirement of most jobs, especially those that involve teamwork or in which the worker is required to interact with colleagues or clients. But that take is at odds with the language and purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately may be forced to weigh in, a plaintiffs’ attorney told Bloomberg BNA.
Interpreting federal disability rights law to require employers to provide unlimited telework as a job accommodation would have a “chilling effect” and could prompt companies to tighten their policies on telecommuting, Judge James E. Graves Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit said in his June 23 decision.
14th Amendment should be used to ensure equal protection for those with disabilities
ABA Journal
Any American, at any stage of life, could join the nearly one-in-five of our citizens who has a disability. If people with disabilities were a formally recognized minority group, they would constitute the largest minority population in the United States.
But they are not, and that presents some difficult legal issues. When it comes to employment opportunities, educational equality and access to fair benefits, people with disabilities can lack essential constitutional protections.
Did you know that it is legal to pay you less than minimum wage if you have a disability? And you can be denied a job opportunity if an employer has to make an accommodation that is deemed “unreasonable.”
ADA in the Digital Age - Federal Court Strikes Down Inaccessible Website
Lexology
For the first time, a federal district court has granted a verdict finding that a private-sector company violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because its website was inaccessible to a visually impaired individual. This verdict is likely to lead to a proliferation of the already- growing number of lawsuits filed against private companies, claiming that their websites are “public accommodations” and must be accessible to disabled users.
While this case did not necessarily involve one of the ADA’s provisions that management and human resources personnel frequently navigate (e.g., Title I’s requirement that employers provide reasonable accommodations to qualifying disabled employees), it has broad implications for any employer that maintains a website.
JD Supra
As numerous retailers know firsthand, website accessibility has become a hotbed for litigation in recent years. Despite plaintiffs filing scores of website accessibility claims against retailers each year, very few of these cases make it past pleadings, and there has been little to no guidance from the courts. This changed on June 13, 2017, in Juan Carlos Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Case No.: 16-23020-CIV-SCOLA (S.D. Fl.), when U.S. District Court Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. issued the very first post-trial web accessibility verdict, finding that grocer Winn-Dixie violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by having an inaccessible website to visually impaired consumers. Judge Scola ordered injunctive relief, providing the parties with a draft three-year injunction, and also awarded Gil his attorneys’ fees and costs.
Although this decision carries no precedential authority over other federal courts or judges, including those in the Southern District of Florida, the decision remains significant for businesses trying to defend themselves against web accessibility claims.
Groundbreaking Trial Ends with Ruling that Grocery Store Must Make its Website ADA Accessible
Lexology
In a first, a federal court in Florida ruled recently that a grocery store must make its website accessible to the disabled. The plaintiff in the case, a blind man who uses screen-reading technology to access and view websites, obtained injunctive relief, as well as his attorneys’ fees and costs.
Readers of the Nexsen Pruet ELL newsletter may recall our previous article discussing the possibility of company websites being subject to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In general terms, Title III prohibits discrimination by private companies, based on a disability, in places of public accommodation. Title III, passed in 1990, plainly bars discrimination in a traditional, brick-and-mortar space. For example, Title III requires that a hotel or a physician’s office be wheelchair accessible, and that a movie theater provide closed captioning devices for the hearing impaired.