A New York federal court has granted motions to dismiss in four separate cases alleging that the failure to offer gift cards in Braille violates the ADA. The rulings by U.S. District Court Judge Gregory H. Woods (Southern District of New York) all hold that the plaintiffs in those cases failed to state a claim for violation of the ADA, and also lack standing.  The rulings allow plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 15 days.

As we previously reported, the lawsuits were among more than 100 such complaints alleging that failure to offer gift cards in Braille violates Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

ADA Does Not Require Offering Braille Gift Cards

Judge Woods issued the first opinion last Thursday, and the following day issued rulings in the other three cases referencing that opinion. Judge Woods concluded that the complaints failed to state a claim because the ADA does not require retailers to create specialty goods for the visually impaired.  In doing so, Judge Woods rejected the three theories advanced by plaintiff: (1) that gift cards are goods that need to be accessible; (2) that gift cards are places of public accommodation that must be independently accessible; and (3) that plaintiff was denied access to the defendant’s services when it denied plaintiff a Braille gift card.

With respect to the first theory, Judge Woods concluded that Title III prohibits a public accommodation from discriminating based on disability when providing “access to” whatever goods and services the

In addition to concerns surrounding the accessibility of a business’ website, retailers now have a new concern – the accessibility of their gift cards. Plaintiffs have recently filed a number of lawsuits alleging that the failure to sell gift cards containing writing in Braille is a denial of full and equal access to blind and visually impaired individuals, and thus is a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

On October 24, 2019, twelve lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against well-known retailers, restaurants, and other businesses. The complaints allege, in part, that because store gifts cards are generally the same size and texture as credit cards, they are indistinguishable by a blind person from credit cards and other gift cards.

To support this new theory of ADA liability, the complaints provide some background into the gift card market. They cite industry surveys stating that sales of store gift cards amount to $400 billion in 2019 and that such sales grow annually at 10 percent.  They also allege that store gift cards increase revenue for merchants because they foster communication and brand loyalty, increase sales, and because consumers often spend more money than the amount of the gift card.

The complaints allege claims for violation of the ADA, violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, and violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. For relief, the plaintiffs seek both declaratory and injunctive

Businesses should expect that lawsuits and demand letters alleging that their websites violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) will continue to increase in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s October 7, 2019 decision denying Domino’s Pizza’s (“Domino’s”) petition for a writ of certiorari in the Robles v. Domino’s Pizza case. The Supreme Court’s decision to deny certiorari to Domino’s petition will send the lawsuit back to the United States District Court for the Central District of California to be tried on its merits.

Guillermo Robles (“Robles”) filed this lawsuit in September 2016 alleging, in part, that Domino’s website contained barriers to accessibility in violation of the ADA. Robles alleged that he unsuccessfully tried to order custom pizza online from a nearby Domino’s location. Robles sought, in part, a permanent injunction requiring Domino’s website to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0.

In March 2017, the District Court dismissed the case, without prejudice, based upon the primary jurisdiction doctrine, which allows courts to stay or dismiss lawsuits pending the resolution of an issue by a government agency, because absent “regulations and technical assistance” from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Domino’s due process rights would be violated. The District Court, however, also held that Title III of the ADA applied to Domino’s website.

As we previously reported, on January 15, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court’s order. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court that the ADA applies to Domino’s website and mobile application,

In the first decision by a California appellate court addressing the application of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) to websites, the court in Thurston v. Midvale Corp. (Sept. 3, 2019) 2019 WL 4166620, affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff and held that the ADA, as incorporated by California’s Unruh Act, applies to websites connected to a brick and mortar business.

California’s Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District declined to adopt the position of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that the ADA applies only to physical locations. Instead, the court followed the position of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that “including websites connected to a physical place of public accommodation is not only consistent with the plain language of Title III, but it is also consistent with Congress’s mandate that the ADA keep pace with changing technology to effectuate the intent of the statute.” Id. at *6.  Declining to go a step further, the court refrained from holding that a website unconnected to a physical location is similarly subject to the ADA because that issue was not squarely presented.

The court also affirmed the trial court’s order requiring compliance with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, though it made clear that the defendant’s failure to comply with WCAG did not itself violate the ADA. It was merely evidence of the ultimate question – i.e., whether the website was accessible.

Finally, the court rejected the defendant’s

Members of Congress are once again asking the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to take action addressing website accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in light of the increasing number of lawsuits and claim letters asserting violation of the ADA.

Based on the first six months, 2019 is likely to exceed the records set in 2018 for the number of website accessibility cases filed, according to digital accessibility solutions provider AudioEye, which tracks such case filings. More than half of the cases filed, or 55 percent, were against retailers, followed by complaints against defendants in the hotel, restaurant, banking, and real estate industries. Many of those defendants have been hit with more than one lawsuit.

Despite the increasing number of lawsuits and claim letters, the DOJ has not issued regulations concerning website accessibility under the ADA. As we previously reported, the DOJ issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking concerning website accessibility standards in 2010, but withdrew the proposal in 2017, stating that it was “evaluating whether promulgating regulations about the accessibility of Web information and services is necessary and appropriate.” 

In a September 2018 letter to then Attorney General Jeff Sessions, seven Senators urged DOJ “to promptly take all necessary and appropriate actions within its authority – including filing statements of interest in currently pending litigation – to resolve the current uncertainty.” The letter is similar to a June 2018 letter by a bi-partisan assembly of 102 members of the House of Representatives, which we

Domino’s Pizza LLC has submitted a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed a website accessibility case to proceed against Domino’s. The question presented to the Supreme Court by Domino’s is“[w]hether Title III of the ADA requires a website or mobile application that offers goods or services to the public to satisfy discrete accessibility requirements with respect to individuals with disabilities.” Domino’s Pizza LLC v. Guillermo Robles, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, at 2.

As we previously reported, in June 2019, the Ninth Circuit held in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, that the ADA applies to the Domino’s website and mobile application, rejecting the due process and primary jurisdiction arguments that had led the district court to stay the action.

Title III of the ADA applies to “physical places of public accommodation.”   42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).  Circuit Courts are split over whether the ADA thus applies to websites, with some courts holding that it applies to all websites that offer goods and services to the public, and other courts holding that it only applies to websites with a nexus to a physical location open to the public.

In its Domino’s decision, the Ninth Circuit  continued to follow the rule it had established in prior cases – that a public accommodation under Title III must be or have a connection to a physical location – “reinforcing the existing circuit split.”  (Petition at 16.)  Domino’s urges the

As businesses continue to face lawsuits and demand letters alleging that their websites are inaccessible to blind and deaf patrons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), courts across the country continue to weigh in on the issue.  On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision in Diaz v. The Kroger Co. – holding that the Court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the case because the complaint had been rendered moot by modifications defendant made to the website and because the defendant did not sell goods or services in New York.  Diaz v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 18-cv-07953, Opinion and Order [Dkt. No. 35]. 

In Diaz, the plaintiff, a visually-impaired and legally blind individual who resides in the Bronx, New York, alleged that the website of defendant Kroger, a supermarket chain with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, denied equal access to blind customers.  Kroger moved to dismiss the complaint on two grounds:  (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it remedied the barriers to access to its website, and (2) for lack of personal jurisdiction because it does not conduct business in New York.  The Court granted Kroger’s motion to dismiss on both grounds.

In granting Kroger’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court noted that the facts of the case were different from other cases where courts found, “on the facts of those

As businesses continue to face lawsuits and demand letters alleging that their websites are inaccessible to blind and deaf patrons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), courts across the country continue to weigh in on the issue. On Tuesday, January 15, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its much-awaited decision in the Robles v. Domino’s Pizza case – holding that the ADA applies to the Domino’s Pizza (“Domino’s”) website and mobile application (“app”), and rejecting due process and primary jurisdiction challenges raised by Domino’s successfully in the court below.

As we previously reported, in March 2017, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Domino’s motion to dismiss under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, which allows courts to stay or dismiss lawsuits pending the resolution of an issue by a government agency. The District Court held that because the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has not promulgated regulations defining website accessibility or providing guidance on how to make websites accessible, Domino’s due process rights would be violated if the Court were to hold that its website was not compliant with the ADA.  (For more information regarding the DOJ’s position, visit this blog post.)

The appeal presented three questions: 1) whether the ADA applies to Domino’s website and app; 2) whether a holding that the ADA applies raises due process concerns; and 3) whether the primary jurisdiction doctrine should be invoked because the DOJ has failed to

Courts across the country continue to weigh in on the issue of website accessibility. Last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied a motion to dismiss filed by online food delivery servicer Blue Apron.  In denying the motion, the court found that Blue Apron’s website is a place of public accommodation – despite the fact that Blue Apron operates only online and has no traditional brick and mortar locations. Access Now, Inc. v. Blue Apron, LLC, Case No. 17-cv-00116, Dkt. No. 46 (D. N.H. Nov. 8, 2017).

In so finding, the court relied on binding precedent in the First Circuit, and noted that other Courts of Appeals, namely the Third, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits, have held that in order to be considered a “public accommodation,” an online business must have a nexus to an actual, physical space. Id. at pp. 9-10.  This decision highlights that the issue of website accessibility, especially as it applies to online only businesses, remains a contested issue.

The New Hampshire federal court also found that despite the lack of regulations from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), “Blue Apron must still comply with Title III’s more general prohibition on disability-based discrimination….” Id. at pp. 14-15.  The court noted that there might have been a due process violation if plaintiffs had “attempt[ed] to hold Blue Apron liable for failure to comply with independent accessibility standards not promulgated by the DOJ, such as the WCAG 2.0 AA standards….” Id. at p. 20. 

Beginning October 31, retailers and other employers in New York City will be prohibited from asking job applicants about their previous salary. The legislation is aimed at breaking the cycle of wage inequality affecting women and people of color by requiring employers to base compensation on the applicant’s qualifications, not previous salary.

Which businesses are covered by the law?

Any employer which employs at least one employee in New York City is covered.

What type of job applicants are protected by the law?

All new hires, regardless of whether they are applying for full-time, part-time, or internship positions are covered.  The law does not apply to an employer’s current employees applying for an internal transfer or promotion in the same company.

What is the employer banned from doing?

No Inquiry: Employers may not ask candidates about their salary history (previous salary, benefits, and other types of compensation) at any time in the hiring process.  Employers also may not search for this information on publicly available records nor obtain it from former employers.

No Reliance: Employers cannot rely on the salary history of the applicant at any stage in the employment process, including negotiating the contract.

What is the employer permitted to discuss?

Employers are still permitted to:

• Ask about objective measures of the applicant’s productivity (e.g. revenue, sales, profits generated, etc.);
• Ask what the applicant’s compensation expectations are for the position;
• Discuss any unvested or deferred compensation that the applicant would forfeit by resigning from his or her
  

Retailers and other businesses that have been waiting for the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to promulgate regulations concerning website accessibility under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) will now have to wait a lot longer. Eight years after the DOJ began the rulemaking process on this issue, it has now listed the rulemaking as “inactive.”

Federal agencies typically provide public notice of the regulations that are under development twice a year in the Unified Regulatory Agenda. The first Agenda was issued by the Trump Administration on July 20, 2017, and contains noteworthy changes from the last Agenda issued by the Obama Administration.

For the first time, the Agenda breaks down all agency regulatory actions into three categories: active, long-term, or inactive. While the Agenda does not define these terms, only the active and long-term matters receive a description and projected deadlines. The inactive matters appear in a document called “2017 Inactive Actions.”

Recently, courts have filled the void left by the absence of government regulations with a patchwork of conflicting decisions. As we have previously reported, the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss a website accessibility case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine. In Robles v. Dominos Pizza LLC, the court found that holding Dominos liable when the DOJ still has not promulgated website accessibility regulations would violate Dominos’ due process rights.

As we also reported, however, the Southern District of Florida ruled, following a bench trial in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores,

Another website accessibility decision against a retailer, this time involving Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. in the Central District of California, highlights the uncertainty of the law and of litigating such cases while courts continue to reach different conclusions.

In Gorecki v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01131-JFW-SK (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2017), the district court denied Hobby Lobby’s motion to dismiss and held that the retailer’s website constitutes a “public accommodation” under Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  In so holding, the court noted that the website allows consumers to purchase products, search for store locations, view special pricing offers, obtain coupons, and purchase gift cards.

The court also relied on Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regulations requiring public accommodations to use auxiliary aids and services to “communicate effectively” with disabled customers.

This decision was issued only two days after a federal judge in the Southern District of Florida handed down a trial verdict against retailer Winn-Dixie. As we recently reported in a blog post and alert, Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-23020, Dkt. No. 63 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2017) was the first website accessibility case to go to trial. In that case, the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 were adopted as part of the injunctive terms of the decision.

The Hobby Lobby court’s decision is in stark contrast with another recent website accessibility decision from the Northern District of California, which dismissed a website accessibility action under the “primary jurisdiction”

Retailers with both physical locations and a website should take note that a United States District Court has held that Winn-Dixie violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) because its website was inaccessible to the visually impaired plaintiff.

The Court’s decision in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 16-cv-23020, Dkt. No. 63 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2017) is significant for a number of reasons.  First, Gil appears to be the first website accessibility lawsuit to go to trial.

Second, despite the fact that Winn-Dixie does not conduct sales through its website, the Court found that the website was “heavily integrated” with the physical store locations because customers can use the website to access digital coupons, find store locations, and refill prescriptions through the website.

Third, the Court considered the cost of making Winn-Dixie’s website accessible in light of the total cost to launch and upgrade a website. While the Court noted that Winn-Dixie’s estimate of $250,000 “seems high,” the Court ultimately found that it “pales in comparison to the $2 million Winn-Dixie spent in 2015 to open the website and the $7 million it spent in 2016 to remake the website.” Gil, Dkt. No. 63 at 7.

Finally, the Court’s decision includes the specific terms of an injunction. Included among those terms are that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 were set forth as the accessibility standard and that Winn Dixie shall require third party vendors who participate on its website to be fully accessible.

Retailers should take