California Companies Likely to See More ADA Website Accessibility Suits in 2019
A new analysis report predicts a surge in federal ADA website accessibility lawsuits could hit California companies in 2019. The Ninth Circuit ruled Domino's website was bound to the ADA last month, making California's federal courts more attractive to plaintiffs.
February 06, 2019 at 07:34 PM
3 minute read
Only 10 website accessibility lawsuits were filed in California's federal courts last year, according to a new report—but that number could rise in 2019, lawyers said.
A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling last month found Domino's Pizza Inc.'s website must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, reversing a lower court's decision. Kristina Launey, a labor and employment attorney at Seyfarth Shaw in Sacramento, said the ruling could make California's federal courts a more attractive destination for website accessibility lawsuits. She co-authored the recently released analysis report of ADA lawsuit trends.
“The state courts were seeming more friendly to plaintiffs but, obviously, with now a Ninth Circuit opinion saying the ADA does apply to websites and mobile applications and having other language in the opinion rejecting due process and primary jurisdiction arguments, we do expect that we'll probably see an increase in website accessibility lawsuits in federal court again in California,” Launey said.
Martin Orlick, a San Francisco-based partner at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, and David Raizman, the Los Angeles-based co-chair of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart's disability access and Title III practice group, both also said the Domino's ruling is likely to up the number of website accessibility suits filed in California federal court.
The lawyers said there's been a nationwide rise in website accessibility lawsuits in recent years. Seyfarth Shaw's report found there were at least 2,258 such cases filed last year, a 177 percent increase from 814 such lawsuits in 2017.
There are some ways California in-house counsel can prevent a website accessibility suit.
“I think the only responsible thing to do, and frankly the correct thing to do from a business perspective, is to incorporate website accessibility into the design of your website,” Raizman said. “From a litigation perspective, to have a plan that you are comfortable that you can execute it and put it in writing. So that if it is not complete by the time you're sued, at least you can point to it and say you are on track or ahead of schedule in completing this plan and we do not require the court's intervention.”
He and Orlick said companies should aim to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, the international best practice standard. The guidelines include providing text alternative for non-text content, such as photos, and creating alternative ways for content to be communicated.
Launey said it's also important for support staff to be trained on accessibility issues.
“Someone calls and says, 'Your website isn't working with JAWS [a screen reader].' And the customer service agent says, 'What's JAWS?' Little things like that,” Launey said. “Not knowing the terminology or the right questions to ask can really have a detrimental effect and might cause someone to go seek out a lawyer that they might not otherwise.”
Read More:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Marsh McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250