Is your website ADA compliant? If it isn’t you should work to get it to that point. It has gotten to the point that lawsuits are being filed and they are coming fast and furious. No business seems to be able to escape them and it seems like every business that gets sued is fighting a losing battle. Today we are going to highlight some of these lawsuits. Some of these have been settled, some are still ongoing but these should serve as a cautionary tale to your business and your website.
Winn-Dixie
This was the first lawsuit to hit the courts. Juan Carlos Gil of Miami, Florida is blind and he found using the website of Winn-Dixie, a local supermarket chain, to be difficult to use. His screen reader did not work with the website. He was a frequent shopper of the chain and had decided to use the website rather than going to a physical location. The website allows users to submit prescriptions, grocery lists, use coupons and locate stores.
When Mr. Gil’s screen reader software did not work he began using another local chain. He also filed the lawsuit and said he would return to being a customer of the chain when their website was fixed. The judge in this case determined that a company’s website is a service of public accommodation and thus covered by the ADA and that “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.”
Gil was not awarded any damages but Winn-Dixie was forced to update their site. The company set aside $250,000 to complete those updates and for legal fees. More importantly precedent was set.
Harvard University and MIT
The National Association of the Deaf filed a lawsuit against both Harvard and MIT for not making open online content, guest lectures and other video content accessible for those that are hard of hearing or deaf. Much of this content was hosted on YouTube and some did have captions but with many of those videos the captions did not work properly.
Both institutions argue that they should not be required to provide closed captioning on every single video and they argued that their institutions were exempt from the ADA Title III. That argument was rejected but the judge did rule that they could not be held responsible for third-party content on their website. The schools took this to mean that this included any content produced by students, professors, and other faculty members which took this suit to a new level but that argument was also later rejected by the same judge. This should exhaust any other legal options and force Harvard and MIT to add closed captioning.
This has been a contentious issue with academic institutions. California-Berkely was hit with a similar lawsuit and rather than fighting it simply removed all of the content citing the expense of adding closed captioning. Harvard’s channel still has thousands of videos and not all have added closed captioning. MIT’s channel has several hundred videos and nearly every one has added closed captioning to it.
Hooters
The restaurant chain Hooters has been sued several times regarding ADA issues and their website. Following the first lawsuit they agreed to make their website ADA accessible but that did not stop Dennis Haynes, a blind Floridian from filing his own lawsuit. The restaurant argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed since they were working to fix the issue and a judge agreed, dismissing the case.
But that was not the end of the story. Haynes appealed his case to the 11th Circuit arguing that there was no visible proof that the website was being updated. The appeal was upheld and the case was sent back to district court for trial. The resolution of this case is still pending.
Domino’s Pizza
ADA compliance is also for more than just websites, it is also for apps too. Guillermo Robles of California is blind and wanted to order a pizza through Domino’s website or app. Neither the website or the app were accessible to his screen reader software and a lawsuit was filed. At first it was dismissed with the judge ruling that Domino’s did not have due process in the case since no clear rules were set in place by the Department of Justice. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit overruled the decision and the case is set to go to trial back in district court with an appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s decision possibly headed to the Supreme Court.
This could be a groundbreaking case regarding who should be responsible for enforcing the ADA, the DOJ or the courts. Domino’s is arguing that the DOJ should and since no clear guidance has been set in place their due process was violated. Stay tuned to this as this could set the course of the ADA in the future.
Let These Serve As A Cautionary Tale
Now we know that all of these businesses or institutions are large organizations. Chances are yours is not but that does not prohibit someone from filing lawsuits against you. Do you know what the best way to avoid this happening is? Make your business or organization’s website ADA compliant. If you haven’t done it now get started (and if you do get started follow through on it, don’t be Hooters).
Americans with disabilities want to be a part of the economy as well and they are entitled to be able to live their life with as little disruption just like an able-bodied person is. Whether it is ordering a pizza, sitting back and learning something or getting their prescription filled they should be able to live their lives too. You can help that happen, even if it is just in a small way by making your website ADA compliant. So far many of the lawsuits have targeted larger organizations. It is a matter of time before yours is the target of lawsuits as well. Nip this in the bud now.