By: John W. Egan and Ashley S. Jenkins

Occasionally we see a story in the news that we can’t resist blogging about, and this one is no exception:  Last week, an emotional support alligator named “Wally” was denied access to Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia to watch a professional baseball game.  We thought this would be a nice opportunity to remind our readers about the difference between an emotional support animal (ESA) such as Wally, and a service animal.

As the story goes, Wally (a six-foot long, 55-pound alligator, equipped with a red harness and leash that boasts an impressive following on social media) and his owner were invited to the stadium by the Philadelphia Phillies to meet the team. When they arrived at the stadium too late to meet the players, a friend of Wally’s owner bought tickets so could stay for the game. While waiting in line, stadium employees informed Wally’s owner that the stadium only allows service animals, but not emotional support animals (even if they are purported hug-giving, couch-laying alligators). The owner did not object and stressed in the article that he and Wally were only there because they had been invited by the Phillies in the first place and did not claim that Wally is a service animal.

The stadium was correct that it did not have to allow Wally the ESA into the stadium.  Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), public accommodations such as the stadium are only required to allow service animals entry, as the U.S. Department of Justice has explained in this useful FAQ.    

So, in case you have an emotional support alligator, llama, cockatoo, pig, marmot, peacock, or other domesticated (or wild) creature that shows up at the door of your business, here’s a quick primer on the difference between an ESA and a service animal:

ESAs are Not Service Animals

The ADA defines a service animal as a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities.  Public accommodations must allow service dogs to accompany customers with disabilities in all areas of a facility where the public is allowed to go.  In addition, while miniature horses are not technically service animals, the ADA regulations require that public accommodations allow miniature horses that perform work or tasks for individuals with disabilities into their facilities just like service dogs, except they are subject to certain weight and size limitations.  Businesses should also keep in mind that most states recognize service animals-in-training who are with their trainers as well. 

In contrast, ESAs provide comfort and support to their owners by being present, but they are not trained to perform any work or task.  We note, however, that dogs or miniature horses that are trained to perform work or tasks relating to a psychiatric disability (e.g. reminding someone to take their medications or taking affirmative action in the event of a panic attack) would be considered a service animal and must be allowed to accompany its owner into a public accommodation.

Unlike the ADA, the Fair Housing Act (FHA) recognizes ESAs as “assistance animals”—defined as any “animal that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or that provides emotional support that alleviates one or more identified effects of a person’s disability.” The FHA requires housing providers to allow ESAs as a reasonable accommodation (regardless of any pet restrictions) when a resident makes a request that is supported by reliable disability-related documentation or when the disability-related need for the animal is apparent.  

The bottom line is that public accommodations do not have any obligation to admit an ESA.  

There Are Only Two Questions You Are Allowed To Ask

When a customer with a purported service animal enters (or attempts to enter) a public accommodation, there are only two questions that can be asked if it is not obvious that the animal is a service animal: (1) Is the animal required because of a disability? and (2) What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?

One misunderstanding we hear often is the expectation that the animal must have documentation.  Under the ADA, public accommodations are not allowed to request any documentation at all.  Plus, the internet is awash with websites offering service animal registrations, licenses, and vests for a fee, which none of which are useful in any event.  Instead of asking for documentation, the public accommodation should be asking the two authorized questions discussed above if the animal’s status as a service animal is not obvious.  And remember, public accommodations also cannot ask for a demonstration of the tasks the animal performs or inquire about the nature or extent of the customer’s disability.  

A public accommodation also cannot charge any special fees related to the animal (including pet fees) but can charge for damage caused by the animal if it normally charges for such damages.  The business also has no obligation to care for or supervise a service animal.   

Limited Reasons Why You Can Exclude A Service Animal  

The ADA requires that service animals be under the control of their handler at all times. This means that the animal is harnessed, leashed, or tethered while in public places, unless these devices interfere with the service animal’s work or the person’s disability prevents their use. In those instances, the handler must use voice signals or other effective means to maintain control of the animal.

There are limited circumstances when a business can ask a person to remove a service animal from its premises.  They are: (1) if the animal is out of control and the handler does not take effective action to control it; or (2) if the animal is not housebroken.  In either instance, the business must invite the customer back without the animal or allow him or her to remain on the premises without the animal.

*                           *                           *

Finally, it is important to remember that real service animals do important work and the tasks they are trained to perform are absolutely essential for people with disabilities.  By one account, training a guide dog can take 3 years and can cost up to $50,000 annually.  These types of trained, working animals must be admitted under Title III of the ADA for good reason.    

Edited by:  Minh N. Vu

By Kristina M. Launey

Seyfarth Synopsis: AB 1757, which would set a standard for website accessibility for businesses in California, has been held in the Legislature to resume discussion in 2024.

While Southern California and Burning Man revelers were hit with unprecedented severe storms in August, the California Legislature has given businesses at least a temporary reprieve from legislation that would likely have caused a tsunami (of lawsuits) of its own. 

As we reported, AB 1757, was seemingly well-intentioned to provide clarity around how websites must be coded to be considered accessible to individuals with disabilities and thus in compliance with the Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Acts – California’s corollaries to the Americans with Disabilities Act.  However, as drafted, it had some serious shortcomings that may well have resulted in even greater litigation and liability for businesses than we’ve already seen, and newly-imposed liability on website and mobile app developers.

On August 21, 2023, the bill was held in Senate Appropriations committee at the request of the bill’s author. 

While the storm has passed for now, we expect to see this bill’s return in 2024 and hope revisions will be made to actually accomplish the bill’s stated goal of reducing lawsuits while increasing accessibility and providing useful guidance to businesses.

Edited by Minh N. Vu

By Minh Vu, Kristina Launey, and Susan Ryan

Seyfarth Synopsis: The decline in ADA Title III lawsuits that began in 2022 continues in 2023.  New York remains the filing hotspot.

Continuing the trend discussed in our 2022 blog posts here and here, the number of lawsuits filed in federal courts alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is decreasing from its 2021 high.  2022’s final numbers showed 24.1% fewer cases filed than in the previous year.  Thus far into 2023, the numbers are even fewer.  4,081 cases were filed between January and June of this year, representing a 17% drop from the 4,914 cases filed between January and June 2022.

The number of federal lawsuits filed in the first six months of this year is lower than the number of suits filed in 2017 for the same period.  That is quite a dramatic change. 

The drop in California federal lawsuit filings is just as stark:  California federal courts only saw 1,020 lawsuits for the first half of this year, as opposed to the first half of 2022 when there were 1,587.  That’s a 35.8% decline.

New York has continued to lead the nation in ADA Title III filings.  In 2022, the Empire State stood at 1,819 filings at the end of June and at 3,173 at year’s end.  2023’s mid-year tally is 1,477 cases.  This is fewer than last year, but still ahead of the other states by a significant margin.  Florida, coming in third, had 740 filings—about half of New York.

New York has been a hot venue for ADA Title III filings for years now:

Here are the top five states with the highest number of cases filed so far this year:

What is the reason behind the decrease in federal ADA Title III lawsuits?  There are likely a number of factors.  First, in ADA Title III cases filed in California plaintiffs routinely add state law claims for statutory damages under the Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Act.  Federal judges have often dismissed these claims for monetary damages right out of the gate on the theory that they are an end run around more stringent state court filing requirements.  This has made federal court a less attractive venue for plaintiffs.  Second, one California firm that used to file many hundreds of cases each year had some legal troubles of its own then lost quite a few attorneys in the past two years and filed fewer cases as a result.  Third, one prolific Florida law firm stopped filing cases after one of its attorneys became the subject of a disciplinary proceeding and was recently suspended from the practice of law for six months.  Some of the unsavory findings from this disciplinary proceeding may have dampened the enthusiasm of some other plaintiff’s attorneys to file ADA Title III lawsuits.  Finally, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about the standing of serial plaintiffs which could make it harder for them to continue filing hundreds of lawsuits a year.  Attorneys representing these plaintiffs may be holding off on filing new cases while SCOTUS decides this issue.

Our Methodology:  Our overall ADA Title III lawsuit numbers come from the federal court’s docketing system, PACER.  However, because the area of law code that covers ADA Title III cases also includes ADA Title II cases, our research department reviews the complaints to remove those from the count.

Synopsis:  SCOTUS denies serial plaintiff’s attempt to dismiss her case and avoid the court’s consideration of a critical legal issue in ADA Title III lawsuits – tester standing.

As we reported several weeks ago, serial plaintiff Deborah Laufer tried to evade the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) consideration of a very important legal issue —the standing of testers — by dismissing her case in the district court and then asking SCOTUS to dismiss her case as moot.  She claimed that she was dismissing all of her pending ADA Title III lawsuits because she did not want the allegations of misconduct against her prior counsel, Tristan Gillespie, to “distract from the merits of her ADA claims and everything she has sought to achieve for persons with disabilities like herself.”

Acheson Hotels, the Petitioner in the SCOTUS proceeding, vigorously opposed the dismissal request, arguing that Laufer was “abandoning her case to pave the way for Laufer and similar plaintiffs to resume their campaign of extortionate ADA suits against unwitting small businesses without the hindrance of an adverse ruling from this Court.”  Acheson’s brief further argued that the “Court should not reward Laufer’s effort to insulate lower-court rulings upholding ‘tester’ standing from Supreme Court review.” 

Just yesterday, SCOTUS issued the following Order:  “The respondent’s request that the Court dismiss the case as moot at this time is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument in addition to the question presented.” 

In short, it seems SCOTUS may well consider the very important question presented by this case:  Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.  Laufer had to move forward with filing her brief on the merits on August 2, 2023 and the matter is now fully briefed.

Oral argument is set for October 4, 2023.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Department of Justice (DOJ) issues proposed website accessibility regulations applicable to state and local governments under Title II of the ADA.

Almost precisely a year after the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced its intent to begin the rulemaking process to enact website accessibility regulations applicable to state and local governments under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the DOJ has published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to the Federal Register for publication today, August 4, 2023.

We will follow up with another post with more substantive analysis, but here are some key points from the NPRM:

• Entities Covered.  The proposed regulation would apply to public entities as defined by Title II of the ADA, which means state and local governments, as well as any department, agency, special purpose entity, or other instrumentality of a state, or state or local government.
• Digital Properties Covered.  The content of websites and mobile apps, and specifically the information and sensory experiences (such as text, images, sounds, controls, and animations) that websites and mobile apps convey, as well as conventional electronic documents posted there, such as PDFs, Word documents, and Excel files.  Such web content that a public entity makes available to the public, or uses to offer its services, programs, or activities to the public, would be covered. 
• Accessibility Requirements.  Covered websites and mobile apps will need to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), Version 2.1, Levels A and AA.
• Timeframe For Compliance.  Within two years of the publication of the final rule, public entities with a population of 50,000 or more (as per the U.S. Census) would need to comply.  Public entities with a population of less than 50,000, as well as special district governments (public entities that perform designated functions) would have up to three years to comply.
• Exceptions.  Critically, there are a number of exceptions, both with general application, and directed at specific types of public entities.  We summarize the key exceptions to the WCAG 2.1 AA conformance requirement as follows:
  1. Fundamental Alteration/Undue Burden.  The requirements do not apply to any actions that would result in a fundamental alteration of a service, program, or activity of a public entity, or impose an undue financial and administrative burden.  That determination would need to be made by the head of the public entity or his or her designee, and set forth in writing.   
  2. Archived Web Content.  Content maintained exclusively for reference, research or recordkeeping (among other factors), as well as pre-existing conventional electronic documents (Word documents, Excel files, etc.) would not be covered, except for electronic documents that are used by the public to gain access to government programs, services or activities;
  3. Third Party Content.  Content posted by a third party that is available on a covered website or mobile app;
  4. Linked Third Party Content.  Web content by third parties that is linked to a covered website or mobile app also would not be covered, unless used by the public entity to allow the public to access its services, programs or activities; 
  5. Certain Password-Protected Files.  Certain online documents protected by passwords that are unique to the individual, or documents or information related to the coursework of a public school, college or university, would be excluded as well, subject to further conditions and exceptions.

The proposed regulations also provide that a public entity can alternativity use a “conforming alternate version” of a covered website or mobile app as defined by WCAG 2.1, or provide “equivalent facilitation” to provide access, which means using alternative designs, methods or techniques that result in substantially equivalent or greater accessibility and usability of the website or mobile app for individuals with disabilities. Public comments are due no later than October 3, 2023.  Stay tuned for further updates and analysis.

By Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The Plaintiff in Acheson v. Laufer dismisses her lawsuit with prejudice and asks SCOTUS to dismiss its pending review based on mootness.

In an unexpected and bizarre turn of events, Deborah Laufer, the plaintiff in the much-watched Acheson v. Laufer case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), has decided to dismiss that case and all of her other pending ADA Title III lawsuits with prejudice.  What is more, she filed a brief in the matter before SCOTUS stating that her case is now moot and should be dismissed.  The hotel defendant, Acheson, intends to oppose the requested dismissal.

Ms. Laufer’s stated reason for abandoning all of her pending ADA Title III lawsuits is the bizarre aspect of this recent development.  In her brief, she informed SCOTUS that an attorney who had represented her in the past in unrelated ADA Title III cases, Tristan Gillespie, had recently been suspended from the practice of law by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for unethical behavior.  She told SCOTUS that she did not want “the allegations of misconduct against Mr. Gillespie” to “distract from the merits of her ADA claims and everything she has sought to achieve for persons with disabilities like herself.  She accordingly has decided to dismiss all of her pending cases with prejudice.” 

A review of the Order suspending Mr. Gillespie and Report and Recommendation (the “Report”) from the three-judge panel that presided over disciplinary proceeding reveal unsavory details of one law firm’s handling of its ADA Title III “tester” litigation.  The thirty-one page Report recounts that Mr. Gillespie worked for the Thomas Bacon P.A. firm when he filed hundreds of ADA Title III lawsuits on behalf of Laufer and another disabled individual while simultaneously working full-time as an Assistant District Attorney for Fulton County, Georgia.  The Bacon Firm had filed over 600 lawsuits on behalf of Laufer and nearly 200 for the other tester plaintiff.  In fact, Thomas Bacon of the Bacon Firm represented Laufer before SCOTUS until this most recent filing requesting dismissal of the matter.

Among other findings, the court in the Gillespie disciplinary proceeding found that Gillespie (1) inflated his hours in many fee petitions, (2) never discussed the terms of any settlement agreements with his clients (instead giving them to his investigator/“expert”, Daniel Pezza, to collect signatures), (3) dismissed over 100 pending ADA lawsuits before his disciplinary hearing without consulting with his clients who were the plaintiffs in the actions, and (4) made payments to his investigator and so called “expert” Pezza who also happened to be the father of Laufer’s grandchild, thereby raising the possibility that Gillespie was inappropriately sharing fees with Laufer, in violation of ethics rules.  The Report stated that the “arrangement smacks of purchasing an interest in the subject matter of the litigation in which the lawyer is involved” and was, therefore, “highly problematic.”  However, as Laufer’s relationship with Pezza did not come to light until the end of the investigation, the Court did not make any findings on whether Laufer received any money from Pezza.  Laufer submitted a Declaration in the SCOTUS matter denying that she ever received money from Pezza.

The Report is a must-read for lawyers representing ADA Title III serial plaintiffs as the Court examined in great detail the types of questionable practices that should be avoided, such as the making of demands for attorneys’ fees in settlement agreements that are much higher than the fees actually incurred.  Gillespie tried to argue that his inflated fee demands represented future fees to be incurred for monitoring compliance, but the court was not persuaded.

Returning to the pending lawsuit before SCOTUS, it is unclear whether the Court will dismiss this case – the first ADA Title III case to reach the high court in eighteen years — because it is moot.  While that is the most likely outcome under ordinary circumstances, the unsavory facts surrounding Laufer’s mass voluntary dismissal, along with the sharp conflict among the Courts of Appeals concerning the standing of ADA Title III “testers” to assert claims, present a strong case for SCOTUS to move forward with its review. 

Stay tuned for developments.

Edited by Kristina Launey and John Egan

By Minh Vu and Lotus Cannon

Seyfarth Synopsis:   New Eleventh Circuit decision says amusement park operators must base rider eligibility requirements on actual risks and cannot simply adopt manufacturer recommendations, even when required by state law.

How many natural limbs must a person possess to ride a roller coaster or other thrill-ride at an amusement park?  Until now, many parks simply adopted manufacturer recommendations, as required by state law.  A recent Eleventh Circuit decision upends this practice, demanding manufacturers and/or amusement parks conduct safety assessments that are tailored to specific rider eligibility requirements.

In Campbell v. Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. the plaintiff sued a waterpark under Title III of the ADA (“ADA”) after the park would not let him ride an aqua coaster because he did not meet the rider eligibility requirement of two natural, grasping hands.  (The plaintiff does not have a right hand and does not use a prosthetic.)  The plaintiff alleged that the park’s requirement violated the ADA which prohibits the imposition of discriminatory eligibility criteria unless those criteria are “necessary.”  The District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the park summary judgment, finding that the criteria were “necessary” under the ADA because they were created by the ride’s manufacturer and Florida law requires compliance with manufacturer requirements.   The district court reached this conclusion even though the manufacturer had not identified any specific risks for riders with missing limbs. 

The district court holding did not sit well with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff. The Eleventh Circuit also did not agree with the district court, vacating judgment for the park and remanding the case for further proceedings. 

In reaching its decision, the Eleventh Circuit first held that the park bore the burden of proof to show that the limb requirement was “necessary.”  Second, the Court held that following state law mandating compliance with manufacturer requirements did not make the requirement “necessary” because state law cannot trump federal law (in this case, the ADA) when the two conflict. Third, the Court rejected the argument that compliance with manufacturer requirements is “necessary” because manufacturers have a comparative advantage in identifying safety risks.  The Court noted that the manufacturer had not actually identified any “actual risk” for people who are missing limbs.  The only safety risk that the manufacturer had identified relating to riders with disabilities concerned the impact of prosthetic limbs falling from the ride and striking someone, and as well as risks for riders with sight disabilities.  The Court said: “[W]e hold that a manufacturer-imposed safety requirement is ‘necessary’ only to the extent it is related to actual risks to the health and safety of guests.”  Finally, the Court stated that the need for administrative efficiency did not make the criteria “necessary” because the criteria themselves were not based on actual risk.

While this decision requires amusement parks to do more than just rely on manufacturer eligibility requirements, it does not prevent them from imposing legitimate eligibility requirements on riders based on actual risks.  The problem in this case was that no relevant risk assessment had been conducted by the public accommodation or manufacturer to justify the limb requirement.  

The decision also contains some useful nuggets.  For example, the Court recognized that “necessary” eligibility criteria includes those that protect the health safety of the person with a disability, not just the health and safety of other riders.  This is a win for public accommodations because the current regulations only allow for the exclusion of individuals with disabilities when their participation poses a “direct threat” to the health and safety of others.   Further, the Court concluded that the term “necessary” includes more than what is required for safety and could include administrative feasibility.  On this issue, the park argued that it needed to rely on manufacturer requirements because it could not make individualized assessments for every rider.  The Court said it did not need to address this issue because the manufacturer requirement itself was lacking (i.e., not based on an assessment of “actual risk”) so the case did not present the question of whether a legitimate rider requirement could be applied to all similarly situated riders.

In sum, amusement parks should be reviewing rider eligibility requirements that impact people with disabilities to see if they are based on an assessment of actual risks.  If not, they should revise those rider requirements or conduct/commission additional risk assessments.

Edited by Kristina Launey

By Kristina M. Launey & Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: AB 1757 would adopt WCAG 2.1 Level AA as the de facto standard for websites and mobile apps that can be accessed from California and impose liability for statutory damages on business establishments and website developers.

In a classic gut and amend move mid-way through the Legislative Session, on June 12 the California Assembly’s Judiciary Committee replaced the entire content of an existing bill on courts, AB 1757, with language that would effectively make WCAG 2.1 Level AA the required standard for the websites and mobile apps of “business establishments” covered by the Unruh Civil Rights Act.  And, in an unprecedented step, the bill would allow individuals with disabilities as well as business establishments to sue third party developers that create noncompliant websites and mobile apps.

The digest summarizing the bill tries to make it look business-friendly by couching it as imposing a limit on the availability of statutory damages under the Unruh Act and Disabled Persons Act (DPA) to plaintiffs.  The bill would allow plaintiffs with disabilities to recover damages where the “website fails to provide equally effective communication or facilitate full and equal enjoyment of the entity’s goods and services to all members of the public,” and the plaintiff (1) personally encountered a barrier to equal access or (2) was deterred from accessing all or part of the website or the content of the website due to the website’s inaccessibility.  However, these principles are already in existing caselaw so business establishments are not getting any new benefits from these provisions.  Instead, this bill would significantly expand the legal liability of business establishments, as well as their third party web developers, for websites and mobile apps that do not conform to WCAG 2.1 AA.

First, the bill adopts WCAG 2.1 AA as de facto standard for websites and mobile apps.  Under existing law, a plaintiff seeking to establish a violation of the Unruh Act based upon a website or mobile app must show that the business has violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  This is the only avenue for establishing a violation because the California Court of Appeals has held that having an inaccessible website does not constitute “intentional discrimination,” and intent must be shown for a plaintiff to prevail on an Unruh Act claim that is not based upon a violation of the ADA.  

The ADA does not presently mandate compliance with WCAG 2.1 AA for the websites or mobile apps of public accommodations.  Instead, the ADA mandates that public accommodations provide auxiliary aids and services as necessary to ensure “effective communication” with individuals with disabilities in the provision of their goods and services.  While having a website and mobile app that can be used by individuals with disabilities is one way of ensuring effective communication, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the courts have left open the possibility that public accommodations can ensure effective communication of the information on their websites/mobile apps in some other fashion.  In 2022, the DOJ issued a Guidance on website accessibility stating that “businesses … have flexibility in how they comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication” and references WCAG as “helpful guidance.”

Thus, in contrast to the current state of the law under the ADA, AB 1757 dictates that websites and mobile apps themselves must provide “effective communication” and a website or mobile app is presumed to provide equally effective communication if it complies with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level AA.  In short, the bill creates a de facto requirement that all websites and mobile apps that can be accessed by people in California conform to the WCAG 2.1 Level AA.  This is a tall order considering that even federal government websites right now are only required to comply with the less demanding requirements of WCAG 2.0 Level AA (and, as DOJ recently reported, many of those websites do not).

Second, there is no transition period or consideration of small business hardship.  Another troubling aspect of the bill is the absence of a transition period for business establishments and their developers to bring existing websites and mobile apps into conformance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA.  In our experience, bringing existing websites into conformance with this standard can take many months, significant resources, training of web content managers and developers, and the assistance of expensive website accessibility consultants and web developers.

The bill also fails to address the hardship on small businesses which may not have the resources to comply with this new standard.  Even the DOJ acknowledged in its now defunct website accessibility rulemaking for public accommodations that a transition period may be necessary and that small businesses may need a different compliance timetable.  The threat of greater legal exposure could result in small businesses taking their websites down, which could have dire consequences for their ability to drive business.

Finally, liability for website and mobile app developers will drive up the cost of website development.  AB 1757 would give individuals with disabilities and business establishments the new right to sue web developers for creating websites that do not conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA.   While this new cause of action will likely incentivize website/mobile app development companies to create WCAG 2.1 AA conforming websites, it will also drive the cost of website development higher and could cause small web developers out of business.

It should be noted that the language in the existing bill, AB 1757, was taken from AB 950 which died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. That Committee Analysis found that the bill would result in various costs, including a cost of $800,000 if just 50 plaintiffs or public prosecutors brought lawsuits under the bill. While we do not track lawsuit filings in California state courts, we know from our federal court filing statistics that the Committee’s estimates on the number of lawsuits is much too low.  There were 3,255 website accessibility lawsuits filed in federal court in 2023—an all-time high.

AB 1757 is presently in the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration of these amendments. If approved by the requisite committees and vote of the full Senate, the bill would then return to the Assembly for concurrence in the amendments by September 14 before going to the Governor for his approval.  If this bill becomes law in its present state, it could well open the floodgates of website and mobile app accessibility lawsuits in California.

By John W. Egan and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: New York federal courts have generally been friendly to plaintiffs in website accessibility lawsuits, but a few recent decisions are demanding more of plaintiffs to establish standing.

While federal New York courts (particularly the Southern District) have historically been a friendly jurisdiction for ADA website plaintiffs, there have been a string of recent decisions dismissing website accessibility cases for lack of standing that signal judicial frustration with the plaintiff’s bar and serial filers.

Case in point:  EDNY Judge Cogan’s opinion in Winegard v. Golftec Intellectual Property LLC.  The plaintiff in that case had a hearing disability and sued over non-captioned video content on the business’s website.  In granting the motion to dismiss, the Court applied the standing requirements from the Second Circuit’s decision in Calcano v. Swarovski North Am. Ltd. dismissing a consolidated case alleging that the defendants failed to provide gift cards in Braille in violation of the ADA.  Judge Cogan found that the allegations that the plaintiff visited the defendant’s website on a specific date and “on subsequent days” to attempt to watch golf-related videos was not enough to establish an intent to return to the website in the future, and further stated:

To find standing on the paltry allegations here would allow any sensory-impaired person to sit down at their computer, visit 50 websites (possibly after being referred to them by their non-sensory-impaired lawyer), and bring 50 lawsuits.  Standing requires more.

Judge Cogan also determined that “the fact that plaintiff is a serial filer” made it less plausible that his stated intent to return to the website was genuine:

With 49 cases and counting, the range of . . . [plaintiff’s] interests would have to be unusually substantial, ranging from industrial supplies to etiquette classes to robotics to freediving and spearfishing to instructions for assembling a “Nashville Hot Chicken” kit

. . . .   

While “the ADA serves the important function of facilitating full participation in American life for those with disabilities,” Judge Cogan noted, mass litigation that “allows for a quick recovery of attorney’s fees [through a settlement] with relatively minimal difficulty:”

. . . saps judicial resources, wastes attorneys’ and litigants’ time, and ultimately mock[s] the statutes mission. . . . The limited resources of the federal courts need to be marshalled for resolving genuine disputes, not to provide a platform for extracting nuisance settlements that do little, if anything, to further the important goals of the ADA.  

(citation omitted).

In Rendon v. Berry Global Inc., the blind plaintiff sued a business-to-business website for having investor relations-related content that he could not access using his screen reader. SDNY Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the case, observing that the Second Circuit ruling in Calcano “raised the bar appreciably for adequately pleading standing to seek injunctive relief in ADA cases” (quotation omitted).  The Rendon complaint failed to allege details regarding past visits to the website or the frequency of past visits, what they were hoping to learn, why they became interested in investing, or why they planned to return.  While the Court did allow the plaintiff to file an amended complaint, it did so with the following admonishment:

If Plaintiffs can figure out a way to assert a concrete and particularized injury they are welcome to try; however I would suggest that they think about where to bring suit, as well as whether to bring suit. 

In Suris v. Crutchfield New Media, LLC, EDNY Judge Nina Morrison held that the plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to offer any factual context for his alleged intent to return to the website, as distinguished from a number of referenced cases where New York district courts found that the intent to return element was adequately pled.  The Court also determined that plaintiff’s claims were moot in any event, relying on declarations attesting that the businesses manually reviewed and remediated 4,000 videos on the website, instituted new processes to ensure that future content would be captioned, and was in the process of hiring a digital accessibility vendor.

While it remains to be seen whether these decisions indicate a shift in the legal landscape in this jurisdiction, it appears that more New York judges are getting tired of being the most favored venue for serial website accessibility plaintiffs.

By Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth synopsis:  The opening brief in Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, the first case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court in more than 18 years, was filed today.

Today, Petitioner/Defendant Acheson Hotels LLC filed its opening brief in the first ADA Title III case before SCOTUS in over eighteen years.  In our view, the decision in Acheson v. Laufer will either (1) open the floodgates for individuals with disabilities to visit businesses they do not intend to patronize in order to test and sue them for ADA non-compliance, or (2) make it a little bit harder for such individuals to sue. 

As we discussed in an earlier post when SCOTUS granted Certiorari, the question before the Court is whether a person with a disability has standing to sue a business for non-compliance with ADA requirements if that person has no interest in ever patronizing that business.    

In Acheson, the plaintiff visited the hotel’s website and alleged that it was missing accessibility information required by the ADA.  The district court concluded that the plaintiff was not injured by the alleged violation and did not have standing to sue because she had no interest in patronizing the hotel.  The First Circuit disagreed and reversed, holding that an intent to patronize the business was not necessary for standing.  We think that SCOTUS granted Certiorari because the First Circuit’s decision does not align with its more recent decisions on standing and there is a bona fide circuit split on this issue.

While Acheson is a website case, SCOTUS’s decision will also be relevant to the standing analysis for cases involving alleged physical barriers because, to have standing to sue, plaintiffs must demonstrate a desire to return to the allegedly non-compliant facilities in the future.  If plaintiffs can satisfy this requirement by simply claiming that they intend to return as testers to evaluate compliance, all plaintiffs will seemingly be able to meet this requirement.  On the other hand, if SCOTUS determines that an intent to patronize is necessary, plaintiffs will need to work a little harder to allege facts demonstrating their desire to patronize the business in the future (prior visits, their reasons for visiting, proximity to their residence, etc.). 

Plaintiff/Respondent’s brief is due August 2, 2023.  No argument date has been set.

Edited by John W. Egan

By John W. Egan, Dov Kesselman, and Ashley S. Jenkins

A recent “Dear Colleague” letter issued jointly by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education (OCR) places colleges and universities on notice of recent enforcement activities under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) directed at digital accessibility.  Referencing recent consent decrees entered into between OCR and more than 50 institutions of higher learning in just the last year, the Letter sends a clear message that institutions should meaningfully address the accessibility of their online properties and communications.

The Letter describes the increasing reliance by colleges, universities, and post-secondary institutions on not only their own websites, but also third-party social media and third-party platforms like YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts, to deliver services, programs, and activities.  It cites broad obligations to provide disability access, not only to students, but to members of the public as well.

Specifically, the Letter references the recent court-approved consent decree in an ADA enforcement action commenced by the DOJ against the University of California at Berkeley, which addressed the accessibility of Berkeley’s online content, including thousands of hours of free coursework made available to the public.  This agreement, as well as the 50-plus consent decrees that OCR entered into with covered entities over the last year that are also referenced in the Letter, have a number of common themes that provide insight into the DOJ’s and OCR’s position on these issues:

• Digital Accessibility Standard: Adoption of an institution-wide digital accessibility standard, such as Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), Version 2.0 or 2.1, Level AA; 
• Broad Remedial Coverage: Requirement to audit digital properties and content via a qualified consultant.  Audit methodologies to include not only automated scanning tools, but also manual code review and testing with a screen reader.  Audit scope to cover not only university websites but also third party social media and other sites where they post content, with a corresponding remedial obligation for identified accessibility barriers;
• New Content to Be Accessible With Institutional Controls: New content on the university website and third-party sites all subject to the institution’s selected digital accessibility standard, with certain agency reporting obligations, and the requirement to develop a plan to maintain accessibility going forward; and
• Means To Provide Feedback: Posting of an accessibility statement and/or means for individuals to notify the university of any alleged technology-based barriers or related commentary.

Further, the Letter references a 20-part internet video series developed by OCR, which, while not exhaustive, does address digital accessibility concepts and methods of execution. It covers topics such as digital access in education, how people with disabilities use various forms of assistive technology, related federal regulations, and coding techniques for the elimination of barriers, including through the use of mini lessons.  Additionally, the Letter references the Department of Education’s intention to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Section 504 regulations, which may address digital accessibility.

Based on these developments, now is the time for colleges and universities to review, with the advice of qualified counsel, their policies, procedures, and protocols addressing key areas of regulatory focus, such as:

1. Accessibility of digital content on university websites and social media platforms;  
2. Procurement of accessible technologies from third parties, such as vendors that provide athletics, library, merchandising/e-commerce functionality on institution websites;
3. Audits for WCAG conformance and existing consultant contracts and relationships; and
4. The terms of previous settlement agreements or consent decrees, and the institution’s ongoing compliance with these terms. 

We will continue to monitor these regulatory and enforcement activities and will provide additional reporting on future developments.

By  John W. Egan and Ashley S. Jenkins

Seyfarth Synopsis: New Kansas law will allow resident businesses to sue ADA website plaintiffs and their counsel over “abusive” litigation to recover defense fees and potentially punitive damages.

The Kansas legislature recently passed The Act Against Abusive Website Access Litigation that, starting on July 1, 2023, will allow Kansas businesses to sue ADA plaintiffs and their counsel to recover legal fees, as well as potentially punitive damages, for “abusive” website accessibility litigation commenced in any jurisdiction.  The new law allows businesses (or the State Attorney General on behalf of a class of businesses) to file claims against plaintiffs and their attorneys in a Kansas court of competent jurisdiction to recover fees incurred in the defense of out-of-state website accessibility litigation, as well as in the Kansas enforcement action.  The new law even authorizes the court to award punitive damages or sanctions not to exceed three times the fee award but does not provide any standards to guide the court in that determination (all these remedies also assume that a Kansas court would have personal jurisdiction over ADA plaintiffs and their law firms).

The new law adopts a “totality of the circumstances” test to determine if an ADA website lawsuit qualifies as abusive, which considers: (1) the number of substantially similar actions filed by the same plaintiff or firm (including those previously-declared frivolous or abusive litigation in the previous 10 years); (2) the defendant’s number of full-time employees and available resources to correct the alleged website access violation(s); (3) whether the jurisdiction or venue is a “substantial obstacle” to defending the case; (4) whether the plaintiff or his or her attorney is a Kansas resident; and (5) the nature of settlement discussions, including the “reasonableness of settlement offers and refusals to settle.” 

If the prospect of punitive damages were not enough of a deterrent for plaintiffs to sue Kansas businesses over website accessibility, the law even includes an available presumption that an ADA website case is abusive.  Specifically, when a business makes good faith attempts to cure the alleged violation after being placed on notice (either in the pleadings or otherwise) within 30 days, then the presumption applies. However, the presumption is unavailable where the business fails to correct the violation within 90 days of being placed on notice, as determined by the court.  This framework harkens back to previous failed legislative initiatives to amend the ADA to mandate that plaintiffs provide businesses with notice of violations and opportunity to cure before a case can proceed. 

The Kansas law will sunset if and when DOJ issues website accessibility regulations – which may well happen in the coming years.

As we have previously reported, website accessibility litigation is now making up a greater percentage of federal ADA Title III cases than ever before.  The litigation is highly concentrated geographically, with 92 percent of federal ADA website cases filed in only three jurisdictions last year: New York, Florida, and California.  Businesses of all shapes and sizes are often targeted, including many businesses domiciled outside of these jurisdictions.  

The Kansas law explicitly states that there are instances where website accessibility litigation “is abused for the primary purpose of obtaining an award of attorney fees for the plaintiff instead of remedying the alleged access violation,” and that “this small minority of cases . . . are almost always filed in another state’s court system against smaller Kansas businesses.”  In fact, according to our data, the entire state of Kansas only had seven ADA Title III accessibility lawsuits in 2022 and none of them were about websites.  It remains to be seen whether the Kansas law will deter website lawsuits against Kansas businesses, and whether plaintiffs, their lawyers, and the U.S. Department of Justice will challenge the law.

Edited by Kristina M. Launey 

By Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth synopsis:  A New York federal judge invokes the All Writs Act to dismiss a later-filed website accessibility lawsuit against the same defendant to protect the integrity of an existing consent decree that already requires the defendant to make its website accessible.

Businesses that are sued under Title III of the ADA for allegedly having a website that is not accessible to people with disabilities often want to know how they can avoid being sued again after settling a case.  A decision issued last week by Southern District of New York Judge Andrew Carter suggests that entering in to a consent decree which requires the defendant business to make the subject website accessible can be an effective way of deterring future lawsuits in federal court — at least for as long as the consent decree is in effect.

In Hanyzkiewicz v. Allegiance Retail Services, the defendant had entered into a consent decree to resolve a prior lawsuit alleging that its website was not accessible in violation of Title III of the ADA. The consent decree required the defendant to modify its websites “to substantially conform to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 and/or Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.1 Level A Success Criteria… so that [they] will be accessible to persons with vision disabilities” by April 1, 2024.  The defendant was then sued by a second plaintiff (Hanyzkiewicz) in a new case which made the same claim as the one that had been resolved with the consent decree.  The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the consent decree in the first case mooted the controversy in the second case.  The Court did not agree that the matter was moot because the second complaint alleged that the website still had accessibility barriers.  However, the Court dismissed the case anyway, invoking its powers under the All Writs Act.

The All Writs Act “empowers district courts to enjoin actions brought by nonparties when doing so is necessary to protect the court’s jurisdiction over a previously entered consent decree.”  The Court found that allowing the second case to move forward “could frustrate the Court’s prior consent decree, and must be enjoined.”  The court noted that the second plaintiff had included “a proposed class that is absent from the Consent Decree and seeks materially different remedies.” Accordingly, the court found that “[t]hough plaintiff does not intend to frustrate the Consent Decree, it is entirely possible that her conduct in an ensuing litigation might disrupt the already existing Consent Decree.  It is well-settled in this district that consent decrees serve a valuable role in preventing duplicative, harassing, and perhaps frivolous litigation.”  On this basis, the Court dismissed the new lawsuit and said the second plaintiff could file a motion to enforce the consent decree under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71 if she had reason to believe the defendant was in noncompliance.

While not controlling precedent, this decision should deter plaintiffs from suing businesses that are already under a consent decree to make their websites accessible.  This deterrence comes with a price, however.  A consent decree is a court order, and noncompliance with such an order could result in a defendant being held in contempt and subject to sanctions.  Moreover, plaintiffs would still be able to pursue state law claims for damages in state court even if a federal consent decree is in place.  In short, when resolving a claim, defendants must consider a number of factors in deciding whether to resolve a claim with a consent decree or settlement agreement. 

Edited by Kristina Launey

By Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: SCOTUS grants certiorari on an ADA Title III case for the first time in 18 years to resolve a circuit split on whether an ADA plaintiff has standing to sue without having any intention of frequenting the business.

“Does a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act ‘tester’ have Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation?” This is the question the defendant hotel asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case.  This will be the first time the Supreme Court hears an ADA Title III case in more than 18 years, and it has the potential to reshape the litigation landscape.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Acheson held that the plaintiff was not required to have actually intended to patronize the defendant hotel to have standing (i.e., be eligible) to sue the hotel over whether its website provided sufficient information about the hotel’s accessible features.  The Ninth, Eleventh, and Fourth Circuits have taken similar positions, finding that there is no need for a tester plaintiff to have an intent to patronize a business to have standing to file an ADA Title III lawsuit.  The Second, Fifth and Tenth Circuits, in contrast, have held that a plaintiff’s encounter with an ADA Title III violation on a website of a public accommodation does not automatically confer standing, unless there are downstream consequences resulting from the violation.  These courts require a plaintiff to show that the plaintiff wanted to patronize the public accommodation but could not because of the ADA violation on the website. 

If the Supreme Court affirms the Acheson decision and paves the way for more plaintiffs to file lawsuits without ever having to leave their homes or even feign interest in patronizing the defendant business, then the number of ADA Title III lawsuits is likely to increase substantially.  In 2022, federal courts saw the first decline in new ADA Title III lawsuit filings in the ten years that we have been tracking these statistics.  Even then, there were 8,694 such lawsuits, compared to a high of 11,452 in 2021.  On the other hand, if the Supreme Court adopts the approach of the Second, Fifth and Tenth Circuits, we doubt the lawsuits numbers will go down.  High-frequency plaintiffs and their attorneys will just have to work a little harder to persuade the courts they really want to patronize those thousands of businesses they sue each year.

Edited by John Egan

By Lotus Cannon and Minh Vu

Seyfarth synopsis:  Leading the country with 3,173 federal ADA Title III lawsuits in 2022, plaintiff-friendly court decisions will likely keep New York in the top spot.

It is no surprise that New York has become the nation’s leader in ADA Title III and website accessibility litigation, bypassing California by a substantial margin in 2022. District Court judges in New York – especially in the Southern District – have been increasingly reluctant to dismiss website accessibility lawsuits before discovery.

Cases in point: 

In Loadholt v Shirtspace, the blind plaintiff alleged that he attempted to access the defendant’s website with his screen reader to buy a T-Shirt and encountered various barriers to access.  Joining the “vast majority of courts” in the Southern District and consistent with his prior opinion in Slade v. Life Spectacular, Inc., U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter held that the defendant’s online-only business is a public accommodation covered by the ADA.  (This question has not been addressed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which decides appeals from New York federal courts).  Judge Carter also found that plaintiff’s allegations regarding the barriers allegedly encountered on the website, such as multiple dead links, were sufficient to state a claim and that plaintiff’s allegations regarding the T-shirt he intended to purchase, as well as his to return to the website to purchase several T-shirts once the website is made accessible, were sufficient to confer standing. Lastly, the judge denied defendant’s request to dismiss and/or strike plaintiff’s demand for civil penalties, fines, and punitive damages under the NYCHRL as premature.

In Weekes v The Outdoor Gear Exchange, Inc., the blind plaintiff alleged he encountered various barriers on defendant’s website, which offers a variety of products for outdoor activity, that prevented him from purchasing a carry-on bag. Defendant’s website offers a live telephone customer service representative during store hours whom customers can interact with to learn about defendant’s products and facilitate purchases. U.S. District Judge Ramos found that the availability of customer service representatives as an alternative auxiliary aid had no impact on whether plaintiff had suffered an injury in-fact for standing purposes, and noted that it is unclear whether customer service representatives would even serve as an effective alternative auxiliary aid if they cannot read plaintiff’s screen and are unavailable outside of business hours. Other courts have issued similar rulings, particularly at the motion to dismiss stage.  Judge Ramos also denied Defendant’s request to transfer venue to Vermont. Notably, while the defendant did not argue that its website was an online-only business exempt from ADA requirements, the Judge cited a holding in another decision issued by a Southern District of New York judge that a website with no nexus to a physical location where goods and services are offered is a place of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA.

These decisions suggest that New York, and particularly the Southern District, will continue to lead the nation as a hotbed of Title III and website accessibility litigation.

Edited by Kristina Launey

By Ashley Jenkins & Minh Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: After ten years, the Department of Justice (DOJ) finally issued a report on the accessibility of federal government websites which exposes widespread accessibility barriers.

The adage, “Do as I Say, Not as I Do” seems to be the motto of the federal government when it comes to compliance with digital accessibility standards.  A recent report shows that many federal agencies are not complying with Section 508’s mandate that their websites be accessible even while one of their own, DOJ, seeks to impose website accessibility mandates on state and local governments and privately-owned businesses under Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

On February 21, 2023, DOJ released its first report on the federal government’s compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act in ten years.  Section 508 requires federal agencies to ensure that their websites and other information and communication technologies are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Section 508 also requires the DOJ to submit a report to the President and Congress every two years regarding compliance with this requirement. 

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) blasted the recently-released data in a press release, making the following observations about the report: 

• “One in 10 public-facing websites at major federal departments and agencies are not fully accessible for people with disabilities. Three in five internal websites at major federal departments and agencies are not fully accessible to people with disabilities.”
• “The Department of Agriculture, Department of Labor, Department of State, and Department of Veterans Affairs reported that 50 percent or less of the public-facing websites that were tested comply with federal accessibility requirements.”
• “Some departments and agencies did not report conducting any accessibility testing of internal websites. It [is] not clear what steps departments and agencies are taking to test other types of technology covered by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.”
• “DOJ found that key government agencies, including DOJ itself, as well as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency did not have adequate ‘resources committed and/or staff trained to implement policies, processes, and procedures.’ These shortfalls in staffing were reflected in data regarding the low number of federal and contract employees directly supporting Section 508 programs in many agencies.”
• “DOJ also found that ‘[a]gency maturity remains largely unchanged from prior reporting,’ raising concerns that, despite over a decade of technological evolution, many federal government agencies have not made efforts to improve and better integrate Section 508 compliance and ensure the federal government’s resources are available for people with disabilities, including taxpayers and federal workers.”

The findings are not surprising because ensuring that websites are accessible to individuals with disabilities requires a substantial and ongoing commitment of resources which even the federal government seems to lack.  Nonetheless, the DOJ has in the past two years ramped up its enforcement efforts to compel private businesses to comply with accessibility standards and put in place rigorous website testing and monitoring efforts.  Private plaintiffs have also been extremely active, filing a record 3,255 website accessibility lawsuits in federal court against private businesses in 2022.  This latest data from DOJ is further evidence that DOJ needs to adopt reasonable website accessibility standards for public accommodations that recognize the real challenges that businesses face in making and keeping their websites accessible. 

Edited by Kristina Launey

By Minh Vu, Kristina Launey and Susan Ryan

Seyfarth Synopsis: The number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court dropped by 24 percent, the lowest since 2017, and California is no longer the center of the ADA Title III universe.

ADA Title III case filings in federal court had been on a sharp upward trajectory since we started compiling these statistics in 2013. That year, there were only 2,722 lawsuits nationwide.  Eight years later, in 2021, there were 11,452 such lawsuits.  In-between, year over year increases ranged from 4% to 63%.  2020 was the only “down” year, with a 1% slight decrease which was likely attributable to pandemic restrictions. 

We now have a second, far more significant, “down year”.  In 2022, Plaintiffs filed 8,694 Title III lawsuits in federal courts, a drop of 2,758 cases, or 24.1%, from 2021.  However, compared to the 2,722 total lawsuit count in 2013, 8,694 lawsuits is still a very significant number of lawsuit filings for a fairly discrete area of the law, and marks an astounding 319% increase from 2013. 

The other big news is that California – the historical leader in ADA Title III litigation – has fallen behind New York.  Plaintiffs filed 3,173 cases in the Empire State compared with 2,519 in the Golden State.  Third on the list was Florida with 1,350.  Rounding out the top five (well behind the leaders) were Texas with 348 and Pennsylvania with 245 lawsuits.  Sixth through tenth places went to: Tennessee (145), Missouri (142), Georgia (136), Colorado (117) and Massachusetts (71).  (Missouri is a newcomer to the top ten.)  Nevada and Illinois dropped out of the top 10.  Illinois came in at number 11 with 63 cases and Nevada plummeted to 4 cases from 130 in 2021.

The states with no federal ADA Title III filings in 2022 were Alaska, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont.

The end of the year was the least busy time for filings – November and December had 521 and 532 filings respectively.  The busiest months?  June (884), May (878) and March (872).  The year started out busy, but dropped precipitously in the second half.

So what’s behind this decrease in filings?  As we discussed in a post about the mid-year lawsuit numbers, one prolific plaintiff’s firm in Southern California was sued by the Los Angeles and San Francisco District Attorneys which may have slowed down their filings.  That lawsuit was dismissed by the trial court (an appeal has been taken) so that firm may return to its normal pace of filings in 2023.  Several attorneys from that firm also left to form their own firm which will likely result in additional filings in California.  Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in October 2022 that was unfavorable to plaintiffs’ attorneys which might have had a chilling effect for the rest of the year.  Unfortunately for businesses, a different panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed course in January 2023 when it issued a decision which will likely cause a surge in new filings by serial plaintiff “testers” unless it is rescinded.  The defendant in that case has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc which is under consideration.

We should note that federal website accessibility lawsuits accounted for 37% of the 8,694 ADA Title III lawsuits filed in federal court in 2022 – the largest percentage ever.  This is not surprising because serial plaintiffs can visit websites for the purpose of filing a lawsuit without even leaving their house. Lawsuits involving physical barriers at least require at least one visit to the place of business.

A note on our methodology: Our research involved a painstaking manual process of going through all federal cases that were coded as “ADA-Other,” manually culling out the ADA Title II cases in which the defendants are state and local governments, and categorizing them by state.  The manual process means there is the small possibility of human error.

By John W. Egan and Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: Under a new Consent Decree with the DOJ, 24 Arizona eye surgery centers can no longer require patients with mobility disabilities to pay for third-party services to transfer them on and off operating tables, must pay $1M in damages and penalties, and implement comprehensive ADA policies and training.   

We predicted that the DOJ would get more aggressive in enforcing Title III of the ADA during the Biden Administration and we were right. On the heels of a comprehensive Consent Decree with UC Berkeley comes a Consent Decree involving 24 eye surgery centers in Arizona. 

The Consent Decree concluded a lawsuit the DOJ filed in the U.S. District Court of Arizona against the medical practice operating these eye surgery centers, as well as the organization that provided management, infrastructure, and technology services to that practice, as well as other partner practices. The lawsuit alleged that the eye centers refused to provide transfer assistance to patients who needed such assistance to get onto tables for surgery, and instead required them to pay a medical transportation provider to transport them from their homes in gurneys or stretchers and place them on the surgical table.  The DOJ alleged that the defendants had “sometimes” assisted patients, but in 2017 began requiring surgical patients with mobility disabilities who could not bear their own weight to pay for their own assistance.  The agency took the position that this was an unlawful surcharge under the ADA, as well as a violation of the obligation to provide reasonable modifications to normal policies, practices, and procedures, free of charge.

Last week, the DOJ and defendants agreed to a 22-page Consent Decree under which not only would defendants stop requiring patients with mobility disabilities to assume transfer-related costs, but also pay $1 million in damages and penalties, including establishing (and publicizing) a claims fund for aggrieved individuals, and implementing ADA policies and staff training.  Here are the key aspects of the Consent Decree:

1. “Interactive Process” Required For Providing Transfer Assistance.  Defendants and partner practices will engage in an “interactive process” with patients in need of transfer assistance when scheduling surgical appointments, which must include consideration of patient preferences and an individualized assessment of patient needs to determine transfer assistance options.  Defendants will provide and pay for transfer options that may consist of in-house staff assistance, equipment to provide transfer assistance, or third-party transportation services.
2. Policy Requirements.  Defendants and partner practices will implement a transfer assistance policy that includes, among other things, a process for conducting individualized assessments for transfer assistance requests, acquiring transfer equipment, training of personnel to provide this assistance, and resolution of related patient disputes.  Defendants will also adopt and post a non-discrimination policy on their websites, as well as in employee handbooks and patient materials.  
3. Staff Training.  Defendants and partner practices will provide annual training on ADA Title III requirements for facility accessibility, interacting with individuals with disabilities, and techniques for safely transferring individuals with disabilities to and from medical equipment, examination tables, and surgical tables.     
4. Claims Fund, Damages, and Civil Penalty.  Defendants will deposit a sum of $725,000 into an independently-administered claims fund for aggrieved persons and pay for the administration of the fund.  The fund is to be distributed, in its entirety, to patients and prospective patients who, since 2017, were advised that they needed to pay for third-party medical personnel to transport them to surgical appointments.  Additionally, defendants will pay compensatory damages in the amount of $225,000 to specific individuals to be identified by the DOJ, as well as a civil penalty of $50,000 to the United States Treasury.
5. Settlement Notice.  Defendants will notify patients eligible for compensation by U.S. Mail and e-mail monthly for one year.  Notice will also be provided on defendants’ websites, and this posting must conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), Version 2.0, Level AA.  Additionally, once a month for at least 6 months, defendants will “post, pin, and maintain a tweet” on their Twitter accounts publicizing the Notice, and do the same on their Instagram and Facebook pages.    

*           *           *

The DOJ’s position is generally consistent with its previous guidance entitled Access to Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities issued in July 2010.  In response to FAQs addressing accessible services and facilities at doctors’ offices, clinics, and other health care providers, the guidance states that medical personnel must provide “reasonable assistance” to enable individuals with mobility disabilities to receive medical care, which may include providing aid, through trained personnel and potentially with the assistance of lifts or other medical equipment, to facilitate the transfer in and out of mobility devices as necessary to receive treatment and care.  

The DOJ’ s position that the ADA requires health care providers to provide transfer assistance in health care settings raises a thorny question for health care providers with limited staff who neither have the training nor physical strength to provide such assistance.  Does a dental practice with one dentist, a receptionist and a dental assistant need to hire additional staff to provide transfer assistance, for example?  The ADA and its implementing regulations state that public accommodations do not have to modify a policy, practice, or procedure that “fundamentally alters” a public accommodation’s services or facilities, but this defense has not been tested in the context of transfer assistance in the health care setting.  The defendants in this case elected not to test this defense.  Had they done so, the analysis would have been fact intensive and would have required an analysis of their operations, the types of patient assistance they already provide, the nature of the services provided, and other factors. 

Medical providers of all sizes should take note, evaluate their own protocols for handling transfer requests, and consult with knowledgeable counsel as to the ADA compliance considerations that these issues raise.  

Edited by Kristina Launey

By Kristina M. Launey & Minh N. Vu

Seyfarth Synopsis: Plaintiffs filed 3,225 website accessibility lawsuits in federal court in 2022 – a 12% increase over 2021. 

2022 was another record setting year for website accessibility lawsuits filed in federal court.  The total number of lawsuits filed in federal court alleging that plaintiffs with a disability could not use websites because they were not designed to be accessible and/or work with assistive technologies in 2022 was 3,255–360 more than 2021. This 12% increase in the number of lawsuits in 2022 is just slightly lower than the 14% 2021 increase, and matches the 12% increase we saw in 2020.  While these numbers pale by comparison to the explosion of cases we saw from 2017 to 2018 (an increase of 177%), the continued year-over-year increases are still very significant.

Especially striking is the fact that, based on our soon-to-be-released overall 2022 ADA Title III lawsuit numbers, these website accessibility lawsuits made up a whopping 37% of the ADA Title III lawsuits filed in 2022, up from roughly 25% in 2021.

The first half of 2022 saw a steady climb from 210 in January to 383 in March, a dip to 164 in April, then spikes at 412 and 448 in May and June. The monthly numbers were more consistent at between 232-273 in July through October, with a dip to 163 in November, before a December finish of 201.

New York, Florida, and California federal courts continued to be the busiest by far, with Florida regaining the #2 spot and Pennsylvania besting California for the #3 spot.  New York federal courts continued to be bombarded with lawsuits, totaling 2,560 lawsuits in 2022 (continuing an upward trend from 2,074 in 2021, 1,694 in 2020, 1,354 in 2019, and 1,564 in 2018).  Florida was a distant second with 310 lawsuits. California federal courts saw only 126 lawsuits in 2022 (halting the prior upward trend of 359 in 2021, 223 in 2020, 120 in 2019, and 10 in 2018), as shown in the chart below. Pennsylvania passed the 200 mark at 216 in 2022, materially up from 167 lawsuits filed in 2021 and 173 in 2020.  Illinois retained the #5 spot with 19 suits—considerably fewer than its 34 in 2021 and 32 in 2020 and 91 in 2019). Connecticut and Indiana remained in the top 10 with relatively meager numbers at 5 and 2, respectively, and newcomers Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Minnesota beat out Oregon and Wisconsin for the final 3 top 10 spots, with 13, 3, and 1 filings, respectively.

If you’re wondering why California has so few website accessibility cases relative to New York, it is likely because New York courts have been more favorable toward plaintiffs, especially when the defendant is an online-only business. Whether online only businesses are covered by the ADA remains unanswered by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; however, with a few exceptions, district court judges in New York that have addressed the issue have found that online only businesses are covered by the ADA. 

In contrast, in California, both federal and state courts of appeals have reached the conclusion that online only businesses are not covered by the ADA, making it much more difficult (if not impossible) for plaintiffs to sue online-only businesses for accessibility violations.  Thus, we predict fewer website accessibility cases in both California state and federal courts in the future.

These numbers do not account for the many demand letters sent out by law firms which never result in lawsuits, as well as lawsuits filed in state courts (mostly in California) which are more difficult to track.  These numbers also do not include lawsuits filed alleging that a mobile app is inaccessible, unless the lawsuit also alleged an inaccessible website.

Will the Title II rulemaking effort slated to start in 2023 make a difference in the 2023 lawsuit count?  Unlikely, as that process can take a significant amount of time, and only would apply to state and local governments under Title II and not private businesses.  While a Title III rulemaking could follow, it is highly unlikely to be completed by the end of this Presidential term.

***

About our methodology:  Our 2022 numbers are based on searches using keywords of data from the Courthouse News Services.  Thus, it is possible that there are some website accessibility cases that were not captured in the searches if their descriptions did not include the keywords.  We then review the thousands of entries manually to remove lawsuits that may be about websites but are not about a website’s accessibility to a user with a disability.  For example, there were a number of lawsuits in 2018-2021 (a very large explosion of such suits in 2021 in California) brought by plaintiffs with mobility disabilities alleging that the reservations websites of hotels did not provide adequate information about the accessibility of hotel facilities.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  We predict another busy year on all fronts as DOJ continues to push its regulatory and enforcement agenda.

Lawsuit Numbers.  Last January, we predicted that roughly the same number of ADA Title III lawsuits would be filed in federal court in 2022 as in 2021, but halfway through 2022 it became apparent that the numbers would likely be substantially lower.  That downward trend continued, and while our diligent research department is waiting for the dust to settle for December numbers before we announce the total for 2022, we are certain that the final number for the whole year will be substantially less than the number of ADA Title III lawsuits filed in 2021.  We attribute that decrease in part to the fewer number of filings by one Southern California plaintiffs’ firm (the Center for Disability Access), after the Los Angeles and San Francisco District Attorneys filed a civil lawsuit against the firm alleging fraudulent conduct in connection with its lawsuit activities.  The trial court dismissed this lawsuit in August 2022, but the newly-elected San Francisco District Attorney filed an appeal in November 2022, so the matter is far from over.  Stay tuned for our final 2022 ADA Title III federal lawsuit count and more analysis in the coming weeks.

For 2023, we think the number of lawsuits filed in federal court will increase as certain plaintiffs’ firms regroup and new plaintiffs and firms continue to enter the scene.

Physical Barrier Lawsuits.  If the past is any indication, lawsuits concerning physical access barriers at public accommodations facilities will continue to be the most common type of ADA Title III lawsuit.  Hotels, shopping centers, restaurants, and retail stores continue to be the most popular targets, particularly for those serial plaintiffs.  We continue to see lawsuits and demands from some serial plaintiffs whose disabilities are highly questionable.  The most common barriers alleged in these lawsuits pertain to accessible parking, loading zones, public restrooms, sales counters, accessible tables, and aisle width.

Website-Related Lawsuits.  In 2022, we continued to see large numbers of private lawsuits filed in federal and state courts, as well as demand letters, about website accessibility. We also saw the beginnings of renewed efforts by DOJ on the regulatory (discussed here and here) and enforcement front concerning accessible websites. A few notable court decisions issued in 2022, including an unceremonious end to the Winn-Dixie and Domino’s sagas, a few pro-defendant standing, class cert, physical nexus, and anti “serial plaintiff” decisions. What does 2023 have in store?  

Website Accessibility Lawsuit Numbers.  We are still finalizing our count of lawsuits filed last year in federal court concerning websites that are allegedly not accessible to the blind, but a preliminary peek suggests that  over 3250 such lawsuits were filed —  a significant jump from 2021. As in prior years, the vast majority of these lawsuits were filed by only a handful of law firms, overwhelmingly based in New York.  We predict the number of these suits filed in 2023 will be comparable to 2022.  We will be taking a closer look at this increase in another post later this month.

“Tester” Standing.  “Does a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act ‘tester’ have Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation?” This is the question the defendant hotel has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer.   The First Circuit Court of Appeals in Acheson had answered this question in the affirmative, putting it at odds with other circuits which have reached the opposition conclusion.  The Second and Tenth Circuits, for example, have held that a plaintiff’s encounter with an ADA violation found on a website of a public accommodation does not automatically confer that plaintiff with standing to sue unless there are downstream consequences resulting from the violation.  These courts require a plaintiff to show that the plaintiff wanted to patronize the public accommodation but could not because of the ADA violation on the website.  

While Acheson is a case about the alleged lack of accessibility information on a website (i.e., a deficient content issue), the question presented is also relevant to lawsuits in which plaintiffs with disabilities claim they could not use/navigate a website due to digital barriers.  In the Second and Tenth Circuits, as noted above, these plaintiffs would have to show that they wanted to patronize the public accommodations but could not because of digital barriers on their websites.

The Supreme Court will decide whether it will hear the case in January 2023.

Online-Only Businesses.  Online-only businesses will likely see fewer ADA lawsuits in California in 2023 because in 2022, the California Court of Appeals agreed with the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that a “public accommodation” under the ADA must be a physical place where goods and services are offered.  (The California Supreme Court declined review of the decision.)  Thus, only websites that have a nexus to a business with a physical location where goods and services are offered to the public are subject to Title III of the ADA.  With both state and federal courts in California now aligned in their interpretation of the ADA on this issue, plaintiffs will face a significant barrier in suing online-only businesses in California for violations of the ADA or Unruh Act.  (In lawsuits based on disability discrimination, plaintiffs can establish violations of the Unruh Act by proving either a violation of Title III of the ADA or intentional discrimination.)

Hotel Reservations Websites.  In late 2020 and early 2021, the aforementioned Center for Disability Access filed over 550 lawsuits in federal court alleging that hotels had failed to disclose sufficient information about the accessibility of their hotels as required by ADA regulations.  After suffering over 90 defeats in district court and then in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the firm voluntarily dismissed nearly all of these suits in 2022.  In its decision, the Ninth Circuit endorsed the interpretation of the regulation that had been implemented by lodging industry leaders back in 2012 when the regulation became effective. While we saw a very small handful of these cases filed in 2022, new lawsuits of this type are unlikely because most U.S. hotel comply with the Ninth Circuit’s direction,

U.S. Department of Justice Enforcement Actions. Last January we predicted the DOJ would be busy enforcing the ADA in 2022, and we were right.  The DOJ filed two enforcement lawsuits under Title III:  One concerning architectural barriers at Wrigley Field in Chicago and another against a number of eyecare facilities for refusing to provide transfer assistance to patients who use wheelchairs.  The DOJ also entered into at least fifteen settlement agreements or consent decrees in 2022 resolving many different types of alleged ADA Title III violations. These resolutions included a multi-million dollar settlement with a rideshare app company to resolve claims that the company failed to waive wait time charges for passengers with disabilities, a settlement with a Rhode Island university regarding its student medical leave policies, a settlement with a New York university regarding accessible student housing, and settlements with three retailers concerning the accessibility of their vaccine appointment scheduling websites.  The DOJ also filed one Statement of Interest in which it maintained that plasma donation centers are places of public accommodation covered by Title III of the ADA.

The DOJ was equally busy enforcing Title II of the ADA, which imposes obligations similar to Title III of the ADA on state and local governments.  One of the most notable ADA Title II resolutions was the DOJ’s comprehensive agreement with UC Berkeley about its website and other online content.  Other universities, both public and private, should take note.

All of these enforcement activities are set out on the DOJ’s website.

Regulatory Developments.  We will see continued rulemaking activity by DOJ and the U.S Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) on website accessibility, medical diagnostic equipment, and kiosks in 2023.

Websites: As we previously reported, the DOJ announced in July 2022 that it would be issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) (essentially, a draft regulation) in April 2023 setting forth the accessibility requirements for state and local government websites under Title II.  This has just been pushed back to May 2023.  Given its dismal track record of issuing any regulations on the subject of accessible website for the past decade (including many missed deadlines), it will be interesting to see if DOJ actually meets this revised target date.  If DOJ does issue proposed regulations for state and local government websites under Title II of the ADA, it is likely the agency will later using those as a framework for regulations covering public accommodations under Title III of the ADA.  

Medical Diagnostic Equipment: DOJ has also announced that it will be issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Medical Diagnostic Equipment in April of this year.  This rule, if finalized, would make the Standards for Medical Diagnostic Equipment (MDE) previously issued by the Access Board into binding legal standards for health care providers covered under Title III of the ADA.  Health care providers should be on the lookout for this NPRM and be ready to comment on the proposed rule. 

Self-Service Kiosks: Meanwhile, the Access Board will be busy this year reading public comments filed in response to its Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the accessibility of self-service kiosks.  It recently announced that a proposed rule will issue by November 2023.  As we explained in a prior post, the Access Board is responsible for issuing technical standards which are not legally binding on public accommodations until the DOJ incorporates them into its regulations through a separate rulemaking process.  Thus, the Access Board’s ANPRM, and subsequent proposed rule, for self-service kiosks is the first step of a lengthy regulatory process.

***

2023 will likely be another busy year in the ADA Title III space.  We will be here to provide our insight into the latest developments.  Happy 2023 from The Seyfarth ADA Title III Team!

Edited by Kristina Launey