Florida Stays Near Top of Web-Access Lawsuit Venues as New Filings Flatten
Florida federal courts claim second place in a state-by-state look at new lawsuit filings.
May 06, 2020 at 11:38 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Florida trails only New York in the number of website access lawsuits filed under the American with Disabilities Act based on a study by Seyfarth Shaw.
But after explosive growth in the number of lawsuits filed in 2018, it appears the once-rising tide of litigation has leveled off, the study found.
In 2019, 2,256 ADA web access suits were filed in the nation's federal courts compared with just two more than that in 2018, according to Seyfarth labor and employment partners Minh Vu and Kristina Launey, who keep a tally of ADA lawsuits and blog about their findings.
The latest ADA blog post comparing the latest year-over-year data is titled "The Curve Has Flattened for Federal Website Accessibility Lawsuits."
For sure, 2019 saw plenty of new suits. But on a year-over-year basis, the number was flat, the blog authors said. By contrast, there was "an explosive 177% increase" from 814 in 2017.
But some things don't change. The New York federal court system remains the dominant place for new filings just as in recent years, the attorneys found. The Empire State saw 1,354 web access suits launched in 2019, down from 1,564 in 2018.
Meanwhile, Florida held steady with the second-highest tally with 526 cases lodged in 2019, down from 576 in 2018.
In a change for the distant third and fourth leaders, California at 120 and Pennsylvania at 92 moved past Illinois at 91 and Massachusetts at 33 in 2019 for those spots. At the same time, the number of website-accessibility actions for the four top states more than doubled year over year, Vu and Launey said.
In other findings, the partners pointed to the lack of any surge in new cases after the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would not review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's pro-plaintiff Robles v. Domino's decision on web access.
Vu and Launey noted they predicted no high court review of the Robles decision would lead to an increase in case filings. But thy were off. Before the Supreme Court's Oct. 7, 2019, refusal to hear the case, an average of seven lawsuits were filed a day. Afterward, an average of four a day were filed.
They also reported that "while the greatest number of suits were filed in July and August (258 and 270, respectively), monthly filings then decreased by nearly half for each of the last four months of the year."
In 2020 so far, they added, "The number of filings went back up for the first three months … but were still lower that the number of filings in the same months in 2019."
Over the last decade, the growing web access area of litigation — in which disabled people, citing the ADA, sue websites that allegedly aren't coded to work with assisting technologies such as screen readers — has generated controversy.
As the litigation grew rapidly over the last decade, some have publicly criticized what they see as a plaintiffs lawyer-driven glut of suits that seem mostly geared to collecting attorney fees, especially when some states impose seemingly low caps on amounts plaintiffs can recover.
But in a 2019 interview with the New York Law Journal, Joseph Mizrahi of Cohen & Mizrahi, a leading New York firm bringing web access suits, defended the need for litigation.
"We have many clients, and over the course of their lives they have visited many websites that they cannot access, and they want to enjoy the internet just like anybody else does," he said in the interview.
The ADA "allows for attorney fees. There is a lot of work that goes into preparing, litigating and monitoring compliance," Mizrahi said. "So which attorney is going to work for free?"
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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