The Coming Tide of ADA Internet Access lawsuits

This item arrived in two different email streams and RantWoman is reprinting verbatim including numerous artifacts of processing by a screen reader. Rantwoman does not apologize and does not have time to look for cleaner version of the article.


The coming tide of website disability claims under ADA
List of 6 items
Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP
Steven R. Becker
USA
October 1 2014
Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP logo
list end
Steven R. Becker Author page »

Steven Becker, a partner in the Vorys Washington, D.C. office, authored a column titled “The Coming Tide Of Website Disability Claims Under ADA” for the
October 1, 2014 edition of Employment Law360.  In the article, Becker says that additional federal enforcement efforts and the expansion of website marketing
functions has allowed website Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) discrimination cases to be brought.  The full text of the article is included below.

THE COMING TIDE OF WEBSITE DISABILITY CLAIMS UNDER ADA

Ever since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, much of the focus of litigation and enforcement efforts has been with respect to physical
structures and barriers that discriminate against individuals with disabilities. Very few cases have been brought asserting that a company’s website discriminates
against disabled individuals. However, a confluence of burgeoning federal enforcement efforts, an evolution of ADA case law and the expansion of website
marketing functions is opening the door for more website discrimination cases to be brought.

The technology exists to make websites more easily navigable by disabled people. For example, “alternative text” coding allows screen readers to aurally
describe images on a webpage. Captioning permits deaf users to read verbal content. And, in some cases, speech recognition capabilities may aid those who
can’t manually type in data or information. The World Wide Web Consortium has developed cross-disability coding standards known as the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines 2.0, which permit greater access to website functions and features for the disabled.

Federal enforcement efforts for website ADA violations are slowly shifting into gear. The U.S. Department of Justice is preparing proposed regulations “to
expressly address the obligations of public accommodations to make the websites they use to provide their goods and services to the public accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities under the legal framework established by the ADA.” Notably, one of the DOJ's stated reasons for doing so is
that there have been inconsistent court decisions interpreting the applicability of the ADA to private sector websites. The proposed regulations have been
in the works for several years and are now delayed until March 2015. However, that does not mean that the DOJ has been lying dormant. The department and
certain state agencies have been increasingly active in prosecuting and enforcing website accessibility claims against private businesses and local governments.

Additionally, the case law under the ADA is developing in a way that will make more companies’ websites subject to public accommodation disability claims.
The cases adopt two different interpretations of the ADA and its applicability to websites. One line holds that a “place of public accommodation” under
the ADA must be an actual, physical place where goods or services are open to the public, or a place where the public gets those goods or services. Under
this line of cases, in order to establish discrimination in a public accommodation’s offerings, there must be “some connection between the good or service
complained of and an actual physical place.” Consequently, many cases alleging ADA website discrimination claims were dismissed, because websites are not
physical spaces and the websites’ offerings did not affect access to or the goods and services offered in a physical place of accommodation.

The other line of cases holds that “places of public accommodation” under the ADA are not limited to actual physical structures. Deriving from the First
Circuit’s Carparts opinion, these cases note that, although web-based services did not exist when the ADA was passed in 1990, the legislative history evinces
a congressional intent to have the statute applied to adapt to changes in technology. Thus, in order to establish that a website constitutes a place of
public accommodation under the Carparts theory, the plaintiff merely needed to show that the purpose of the website fell within the general categories
of public accommodations covered by the ADA, such as a “service establishment,” a “rental establishment,” or a “place of exhibition or entertainment.”
Many businesses’ websites satisfy these criteria.

Consequently, businesses with a super-regional or national presence are at risk for being subject to ADA lawsuits. If a plaintiff can establish venue over
a website owner in a jurisdiction that applies the Carparts theory, a nationwide injunction may be obtained requiring the offending website to be altered
or modified to be handicap accessible.

However, even businesses that operate only in jurisdictions where the physical-place test is applied need to be wary of being subject to an ADA website
discrimination claim. That is because the line between the physical-place test and the Carparts theory is becoming blurred as a result of the expansion
of website functions and offerings. For example, retailers’ websites now offer the means to order online for pick-up at the store. Restaurants offer reservations
online. Movie theaters’ websites offer ticket reservations or printing for use at the theater. In each of these instances, the case may be made that the
website constitutes a public accommodation under the ADA because there is a connection between the good or service complained of and an actual physical
space. The decision in National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. bears out this point.

Target Corp.'s website was accused of discriminating against the blind by denying them full and equal access to Target stores, as well as to the goods,
services and benefits offered through the website. The website lacked alternative text code that would permit blind users to more easily navigate through
the site. The case was filed in a jurisdiction that followed the physical-space test, so Target moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the alleged
deficiencies with the website did not deny blind customers access to Target’s physical stores.

The court concluded otherwise, finding that many of the benefits and privileges of the website constituted services of Target’s physical stores. In the
court’s opinion, Target’s website was “heavily integrated with the brick-and-mortar stores and operates in many ways as a gateway to the stores,” “an extension
of its stores, as part of its overall integrated merchandising efforts” and a “means to gain access to the store.” The court held that “the inaccessibility
of Target.com denies the blind the ability to enjoy the services of Target stores.”

However, the only facts alleged to establish a nexus between the website and Target’s physical stores were that Target.com customers could: (1) purchase
online many of the items available in the stores; (2) access information on stores’ locations and hours; (3) refill a prescription or order photo prints
for pick-up at a store; and (4) print coupons redeemable at a store. These are standard merchandising and marketing tools. There was nothing about the
website that adversely affected an individual’s ability to access Target’s stores, nor did it prevent the disabled from equal enjoyment of the services
offered in the stores once they were there. Thus, Target blurs the line between the physical-space and Carparts theories, because nearly every retailer’s,
hotel’s, rental agency’s and food establishment’s website is an extension of the company’s overall merchandising efforts.

Target and the DOJ's proposed rulemaking evince a movement toward requiring private sector websites to be ADA-compliant. If nothing else, the ongoing evolution
of website marketing to incorporate Internet-to-outlet merchandising may render the physical-place test obsolete as a practical matter. Private sector
retail website operators should be aware and beware of these developments and be prepared to develop accessible websites.

Tags
List of 4 items
USA,
Internet & Social Media,
IT & Data Protection,
Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP
list end

If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at
ateague@lexology.com.
Related USA articles
List of 5 items

Web-based accessibility under the ADA after recent Netflix decision *
"Cyber accessibility" is the new frontier for ADA lawsuits. Your next DOJ investigation or ADA class action could be just a mouse click away! *
Are websites operated by public accommodations subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? *
Recent decisions highlight additional ADA Title III risks faced by franchisors and franchisees *
Businesses: brace for an onslaught of ADA lawsuits alleging inaccessible websites *
list end
More articles »
Popular articles from this firm
"An excellent service!"

Sonja Sarantis
Legal Counsel
State Street Bank and Trust Company
© Copyright 2006-2014
Globe Business Publishing Ltd |