Salvation Army to Pay $55,000 To Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Aid Organization Refused to Hire Qualified Applicant at Wasilla Store Due to His Intellectual Disability, Federal Agency Charged
EEOC Sues Merritt Hospitality, HEI Hotels And Resorts LLC For Disability Discrimination
Company Failed to Provide Ventilated Space for Employee With Asthma, Federal Agency Charges
Lexology
In Wolf v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., No. 4:16-CV-01560 (March 13, 2018), United States District Judge Alfred H. Bennett of the Southern District of Texas granted Lowe’s motion for summary judgment on a former sales employee’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, as well as her claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for retaliation. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima face case under the ADA because her excessive absenteeism and tardiness prevented her from being qualified to perform her job. Additionally, temporal proximity between the plaintiff’s use of FMLA leave and her discharge was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
Lawmakers Band Together To Defend ADA
Disability Scoop
U.S. Senate Democrats are vowing to block legislation that would dramatically alter the Americans with Disabilities Act.
A letter signed by 43 Democratic senators urges Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., not to bring forward a bill known as the ADA Education and Reform Act, or H.R. 620.
The measure, which was approved by the House of Representatives in February, would require individuals who experience accessibility barriers at public businesses to submit written notice of the issues. Then, businesses would have up to 60 days to respond and another 60 days to start improvements.
Judge denies motion to dismiss ADA class action against convenience store chain Casey's
Madison County Record
A federal judge has rejected a bid by a convenience-store chain to dismiss a claim that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
In a Feb. 21 decision, District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel denied Casey’s Retail Company’s partial motion to dismiss claims the company, which owns a chain of Casey’s General Stores, wasn’t easily accessible for people with disabilities.
EEOC Sues California Hospitality Company for Asthma Disability Discrimination
Insurance Journal
A large Southern California hospitality company is being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly violating federal law by denying a reasonable accommodation to an employee with asthma.
The EEOC filed the charges in the lawsuit against Merritt Hospitality, LLC and HEI Hotels and Resorts LLC, which together operate the Embassy Suites San Diego Bay, a San Diego hotel that has over 300 guest rooms.
Website ADA Lawsuits and Personal Jurisdiction
Lexology
Last week, a federal district court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts denied a motion to dismiss based on personal jurisdiction in a website accessibility lawsuit brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). This website ADA lawsuit was filed by Massachusetts resident, Stephen Théberge (“Théberge”), who is legally blind, along with Access Now and R. David New (collectively “Plaintiffs”), against defendant Sportswear, Inc. (“Sportswear”) in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (1:17-cv-11211-NMG).
Eleventh Circuit to Consider Whether Prior Settlement Moots Website Accessibility Case
Lexology
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on April 4 concerning whether a website accessibility plan pursuant to a prior settlement agreement moots injunctive relief claims under Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
In Haynes v. Hooters of America, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted Hooters’ motion to dismiss on grounds that the company has already agreed to make its website accessible pursuant to a prior settlement agreement. Judge Robert Scola held that the prior agreement rendered moot the plaintiff’s ADA action, since the ADA does not provide for recovery of damages, only injunctive relief. Judge Scola is the judge that previously ruled after trial that Winn Dixie’s website was not accessible in violation of the ADA.
Other retailers, including Outback Steakhouse and Panda Express, have also been successful in using the same argument against the same plaintiff to get Florida district courts to dismiss website accessibility cases against them. Panda Express initially lost its motion to dismiss, but convinced the court to reconsider and dismiss the case after the Hooters case was decided. Both the Haynes and Hooters cases are on appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision could have important implications for the success of this mootness argument for other retailers, and in other jurisdictions.
Mondaq News Alerts
In recent years, businesses have been inundated with a wave of serial litigation wherein private plaintiffs have argued that websites that are insufficiently compatible with screen reading software are in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The typical allegation in such cases is that the plaintiff could not read the website and, as a result, could not access the goods and services offered by the company. These private plaintiffs have taken advantage of the current ambiguity in the law to bring multiple lawsuits. At least two ADA website accessibility claims are on appeal before the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits to hopefully provide clarity to covered entities on what current obligations, if any, they have to make their websites accessible to persons with disabilities.
The newest wave of these lawsuits appear to target any business that contains an online job portal for individuals to browse, review, and/or apply for open positions. The U.S. Department of Justice has issued informal guidance that appears to suggest companies who do not program their job postings to be readable with screen reading software may violate Title I of the ADA which prohibits discrimination in hiring decisions. Potential plaintiffs that are blind and/or visually impaired may use this guidance to argue that this is discriminatory because they are denied the opportunity to browse or apply for open positions.
Title I of the ADA prohibits covered entities from discriminating against an individual with a disability with respect to job application procedures. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Similarly, California's Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibits employers from discriminating against potential applicants on the grounds of a physical or mental disability. See California Govt. Code § 12940. Violation of these statutes exposes potential employers to claims of injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees.
At this time, it is unknown how courts will come out on these claims. Until there is clarity on the law, businesses should consider how a blind and/or visually impaired person can independently browse and review job postings. Good practice would be to ensure that any online job boards are programmed to be compatible with most commercially available screen reading software to ensure that blind and/or visually impaired persons are not inadvertently denied the opportunity to review and apply for those jobs.
Louisiana correctional facility allegedly violated ADA by segregating detainee with HIV
Legal News Line
The U.S. Department of Justice announced March 22 that Union Parish Detention Center (UPDC), a Farmerville, Louisiana, correctional facility, will pay $27,500 in in damages and adopt new policies after allegations of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
According to allegations, UPDC held a detainee with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in isolated, segregating housing because of his HIV positive status. Alleged conduct of this nature violates the ADA.
Access for disabled Americans shouldn't depend on written notices
TribTalk
As a disabled person, I believe the congressional passage of HR620 signals my community is on the verge of losing its place in society.
This legislation would weaken the Americans with Disabilities Act by putting the onus on disabled people file written notices of obstructing barriers to business owners. The law would be unfair because it restricts disabled people from enjoying the same rights as everyone else to go to a public place, by removing the business voluntary compliance incentive.
Disability rights' groups such as AARP and ADAPT have condemned this bill pointing to the fact it dismisses ADA protections. What worries me is that it suggests my livelihood does not matter to some of our government representatives.
ADA: IMPLICATION FOR FIRE PROTECTION
FireEngineering.com
Almost all of the articles written about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that have appeared in fire protection publications have dealt solely with the act’s effect on employment practices. While the ADA will have an impact on the employment practices of the fire service, an in-depth analysis of the act and the guidelines issued subsequent to the act reveals a substantial impact on the fire protection features of buildings and facilities, with subsequent impact on prefire planning and incident tactics.
The ADA was signed into law by President Bush on July 26, 1990. The act has been described by the White House as the “broadest expansion of the nation’s civil rights law since the Civil Rights Act of 1964" and expands the federal civil rights laws to include an estimated 43 million disabled Americans. The law will allow these individuals an unprecedented opportunity to become active participants in the mainstream of American life.