Wal-Mart accused of violating ADA
Yesterday, we reported on a case in which the 9th Circuit ordered Walt Disney Co. to be more accommodating to disabled theme park visitors. Today, were bringing you news about another disability-related case involving the worlds largest retailer: Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
July 26, 2012 at 06:52 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Yesterday, we reported on a case in which the 9th Circuit ordered Walt Disney Co. to be more accommodating to disabled theme park visitors. Today, we're bringing you news about another disability-related case involving the world's largest retailer: Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
Yesterday, disability rights advocates filed suit against Wal-Mart for purportedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California state laws because the payment machines in its stores are not accessible to disabled customers who use wheelchairs and scooters. The suit, which is reportedly the first of its kind, claims that disabled customers are forced to “stretch and strain upwards” to see the payment screens at Walmart stores, and others are risking identity theft by giving their personal identification numbers orally to cashiers in order to make purchases.
The plaintiffs seek class action status and a permanent injunction that would require Wal-Mart to make payment machines fully accessible to disabled customers.
“Wal-Mart should be an industry leader, not a defender of discrimination,” Bill Lann Lee, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
Meanwhile, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Ashley Hardie said in a statement that the retailer's “goal is that every [point-of-sale] machine be accessible within the regulations and guidelines of the ADA and California law.”
Read Thomson Reuters for more about the suit.
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllSEC Ordered to Explain ‘How and When the Federal Securities Laws Apply to Digital Assets’
4 minute readMeta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Trending Stories
- 1'Not the President's Personal Lawyer': Lawyers Share Concerns Over How AG Pick Bondi’s Loyalism to Trump May Impact DOJ
- 2US Judge OKs Partial Release of Ex-Special Counsel's Final Report in Election Case
- 3The Demise of Truth and Transparency in Federal Sentencing
- 4Former Phila. Solicitor Sozi Tulante Rejoins Dechert
- 5'I've Seen Terrible Things': Lawyer Predicts Spike in Hazing Suits
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