Articles Posted in Websites

Published on: | by

typing-1024x681Special districts are independent, governmental agencies or entities established to deliver specialized services to the community, including health, safety, and well-being. Think fire departments, sewer/water districts, and parks departments.

Often special districts use private, outside companies to manage parts of the special district’s operations, such as hosting and maintenance of websites. Under Title II of the ADA, public sector websites are required to be accessible for persons with disabilities. Most commonly, this requires that the website be coded properly to be compatible with screen reader software, which enables blind users who rely on that software to listen to, use and navigate the website.

Disabled plaintiffs can, and often do, file lawsuits against public sector entities for violation of the ADA when websites or other elements are not accessible. Penalties for noncompliance can be severe. Typically, an ADA plaintiff will seek injunctive relief (a court order requiring compliance), attorneys’ fees, and in some states (including California and New York) statutory damages. In California, for example, statutory damages of $4,000 per occurrence can add up quickly. Large class action lawsuits can reach into the millions. Continue ›

Published on: | by

A group known as the United African Asian Abilities Club (UAAAC), through its attorney David Wakefield, has been filing a large number of lawsuits against apartment complexes. The largely boilerplate lawsuits, filed mainly in Los Angeles and Southern California, allege violations of the Fair Housing Act due to accessibility conditions at the apartment property and/or website.

Below is a sample version of one of the group’s lawsuits, which is similar to others it has filed:

A copy of a lawsuit filed by David Wakefield

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Recently Thomas Dorobiala, through his law firm Apex Trial Law, has been sending a large number of complaint letters to various types of businesses alleging that the business’ website fails to comply with the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Specifically, the letter states that Mr. Dorobiala is hearing impaired and “unable to fully access your website because the website is not fully accessible to the hearing-impaired.” Generally, the letter will reference a video available on the website and the lack of closed captions available for that video. The letter is usually signed by Ryan M. Ferrell, Esq. or Thomas W. Kohler, Esq.

The Department of Justice has not yet clarified exactly what a website requires to be compliant with the law. The WCAG 2.1 AA standards were published by the nongovernmental W3C organization and are not legally binding. However, many businesses and some courts refer to them to help determine if features on a website are accessible. Generally, websites should be coded so that they are compatible for screen reading software, which blind users will use to listen to the website’s content. Hearing impaired users often seek closed captioning for video content. For more on website accessibility, see our blog here or the W3C introduction to WCAG standards here. Continue ›

by
Posted in: Websites
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

Recently, Pacific Trial Attorneys has been pursuing claims against craft breweries throughout California for alleged Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California Unruh Act website violations.

Pacific Trial Attorneys is a well-known plaintiff’s law firm that has filed hundreds of ADA lawsuits against various businesses, often using the same few disabled plaintiffs, such as Dominick Martin and Rusty Rendon. The lawsuits essentially state that the craft brewery’s website is not accessible for blind users, and thus, violates the ADA and/or California Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The letter generally looks like this:

Pacific-Trial-Attorneys-1024x996

Generally, individuals with vision limitations use screen reading software that scans a webpage and reads it aloud to them. Websites can be coded in such a way as to be more or less compatible with screen reading software. Continue ›

by
Posted in: Websites
Published on:
Updated:

Published on: | by

In a recent decision by Judge William H. Orrick, the court reviewed a website for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and found that minor imperfections on a website that do not meaningfully hinder access to the business are insufficient to constitute ADA violations. Gomez v. Trinitas Cellars LLC, Case No. Case No. 3:21-cv-09006-WHO, Doc # 37 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022.

The ADA was passed into law in 1990, well before the popularization of the internet. Since then, of course, the internet has become an inescapable part of everyday life in America. The ADA, however, contains no mention of the internet. The closest it gets are generalized principles requiring businesses to provide “auxiliary aids and services” and ensure “effective communication.”

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Recently on March 18, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a “Web Accessibility Guidance” statement for state and local governments and public accommodations (including businesses) under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

A copy of the Guidance document can be found here.

In the Guidance, the DOJ clarifies once again that the ADA applies to websites: “the Department’s longstanding interpretation of the general nondiscrimination and effective communication provisions applies to web accessibility.”

The Guidance also provides some examples of website accessibility barriers, including poor color contrast, lack of text alternatives for images, lack of labels for forms, and mouse-only navigation design. Continue ›

Published on: | by

After nearly two decades of peace in the vineyards, California wineries are once again the targets of ADA litigation. ADA lawsuits are being filed almost daily against wineries large and small by a single plaintiff, Andres Gomez. Mr. Gomez, a Miami resident, has sued more than 100 wineries in Northern California and the Central Coast, claiming their websites violate the ADA.

You may recall the late 1990s, when wineries in the Napa, Sonoma and Anderson valleys offering tasting rooms, vineyard tours and special events were the targets of ADA architectural barrier lawsuits. Those lawsuits involved physical barriers such as inaccessible parking, tasting rooms, and bathrooms.

Focus now is on cyber accessibility

Well, wineries are back in the crosshairs of serial ADA plaintiffs. These recent ADA lawsuits focus on website accessibility for people who are visually impaired. They allege these wineries discriminate against individuals who navigate websites using the assistance of screen-reader software. Screen reading software is an assistive technology that interacts with an application’s digital components – such as images, text, links and buttons – by converting these and other elements to audible synthesized speech outputs. Web developers need to code websites to be screen-reader compatible. Continue ›

Published on: | by

We previously warned the hotel industry of the inevitable explosion of ADA website lawsuit filed against hotels. Well, that time is here.

In 2020, we saw a surge of lawsuits filed against those in the hotel industry, alleging the failure to comply with 28 C.F.R. Section 36.302 (e) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires hotels to list their accessible features on their websites as well as on the websites of online travel agencies (OTAs) such as Travelocity, Orbitz, hotels.com, etc. We expect this surge of lawsuits to continue well into 2021.

Whether you are a national “flag” or the owner of a small portfolio of hotels, the 2010 ADA’s, C.F.R. Section 36.302 (e) applies to your hotel properties and websites. This section of the ADA has been effective since March 15, 2012 and requires hotels to describe accessible features in hotels and guest rooms offered through its reservations services in enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently whether a hotel or guest room meets their accessibility needs.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

In 2020, we saw an explosion of federal lawsuits against hotels alleging that they failed to comply with 28 C.F.R. 36.302(e) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by not identifying accessible features on their own and third party booking agents’ websites.

Twice this year, we reported that ADA website lawsuits filed against hotels by serial plaintiff Deborah Laufer were dismissed as she failed to show she had standing to sue. Is the third time a charm, or is it the prelude to an appeal?

On November 19, 2020, a federal district court judge dismissed yet another ADA website lawsuit because Ms. Laufer failed to show she had standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution because she did not show “individual” or “particularized” injury.

Continue ›

Published on: | by

Federal Judges Deal Further Blows to Deborah Laufer’s Nationwide ADA Lawsuits Against the Hospitality Industry: ADA Lawsuits Are Defensible

by Martin H. Orlick

On June 8, 2020, we reported on the opinions of a New York federal judge that 30 of Deborah Laufer’s Complaints had no place in federal court.  Since then, in other jurisdictions, federal judges have dealt further blows to Ms. Laufer’s campaign of lawsuits alleging that hotels and online travel agencies’ (OTA) websites violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) under 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1) by failing to identify the accessibility features of their hotels. On November 10, 2020 in Deborah Laufer v. Ft. Meade Hospitality, Civ. 8:20-cv-1974, a Maryland judge dismissed Ms. Laufer’s Complaint for lack of Article III standing.

Deborah Laufer has filed nearly 500 lawsuits against hotels in Florida, Georgia, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Texas and other states.  Until recently, hotel defendants found it easier and cheaper to settle, thereby encouraging more lawsuits.  But a recent federal court decision may signal the end of these serial ADA lawsuits filed by Ms. Laufer.

Ms. Laufer is a self-described “tester” who reviews hotel websites to determine whether these “places of public accommodation” and their websites are in compliance with the ADA.  The plaintiff, physically disabled, resides in Florida and requires assistive devices, often including a wheelchair if available.  When allegedly visiting hotels, she requires disability accommodations.  Online reservations can be made directly through the hotel’s website or at booking.com, priceline.com, expedia.com and other booking websites. Laufer alleges she visited these websites to test whether they meet the requirements by providing disability information about the hotel accommodations.  If the websites do not provide sufficient information, she files litigation through the same lawyers. Continue ›