Tags: 2.0, 2019, AB 434, accessibility, Assembly Bill, blind, California, deaf, Department of Justice, Director of Technology, Government Code, Government Entity, Governor, hard of hearing, Inactive List, Jerry Brown, July 1, legislation, Rehabilitation Act, Section 11546.7, Section 508, Section 7405, State Agency, State Entity, Visually Impaired, WCAG, WCAG 2.0 AA, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, website
I am in a wheelchair. I have to go to my local hospital (in California) for some outpatient services. My problem is that I cannot open the rest room door from the hallway into the bathroom or from inside the bathroom back out into the hallway. It’s the same with every bathroom accessible to the public. There isn’t any type of automatic device for opening the door to get into or out of the bathroom. If I’m by myself, I have to wait for someone to come along to open the door for me. Once inside the bathrooms, the stalls and the sinks are accessible. It’s getting into and out of the bathrooms that is a problem. I know other people have the same problem. But nothing has ever been done in response to complaints. Are hospitals exempt from the ADA?

Fuller has gone after big names, such as Sephora, Helzberg Diamonds, The Home Depot and Chick-fil-A, claiming their websites are not ADA compliant. Some of her recent cases are against the Clearwater shoe store, an active wear boutique in Orlando called Sassy Pants and Tampa Sportservice Inc, the company that runs a store that sells Tampa Bay Lightning apparel inside Amalie Arena. 
One of the first major ADA lawsuits, Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Ellerbe Becket Architects and Engineers (PVA 1996) was focused on the wheelchair accessibility of a stadium project that was still in the design phase, MCI Center (now known as Capital One Arena) in Washington, D.C. Previous to this case, which was filed only five years after the ADA was passed, the DOJ was unable or unwilling to provide clarification on the distribution requirements for accessible wheelchair locations in large assembly spaces. While Section 4.33.3 of ADAAG makes reference to lines of sight, no specific reference is made to seeing over standing patrons. The MCI Center, designed by Ellerbe Becket Architects & Engineers, was designed with too few wheelchair and companion seats, and the ones that were included did not provide sight lines that would enable the wheelchair user to view the playing area while the spectators in front of them were standing. This case[69][70] and another related case[71] established precedent on seat distribution and sight lines issues for ADA enforcement that continues to present day.
Defendant: HRB Digital LLC, one of the largest tax return preparers in the United States that offers a wide range of services online via website and mobile apps. Services include professional and do-it-yourself tax preparation, instructional videos, office location information, interactive live video conference and chat with tax pros, online and in-store services and electronic tax-return filing.
If you do get sued, if you immediately remediate your website, you may be able to get the lawsuit dismissed on mootness (there’s no longer anything in dispute, i.e. plaintiffs are arguing your website is inaccessible but you’ve already made it accessible). This definitely does not mean you should wait to fix your website but it does mean you may have an out.
The good news for potential defendants is that the only remedies available in private ADA suits are injunctions that force you to come into compliance and attorneys’ fees. If the Department of Justice gets involved, they can seek civil fines and penalties. Hence, you need to do the risk/benefit analysis as to whether it is worth challenging the claim or not. This report says the lawsuits are on the rise.
There are thousands of code jurisdictions in the United States that enforce some combination of state building codes. Some, but not all of these include accessibility requirements. Although many are based on a model code, there are major variations among the state codes. Design and construction in accordance with these codes will not constitute compliance with the ADA, unless the codes impose requirements equal to or greater than those of the ADA.
Any other privately funded multistoried building that is not a shopping center, shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider, and that is less than three stories high or less than 3,000 square feet (279 m2 ) per story if a reasonable portion of all facilities and accommodations normally sought and used by the public in such a building are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.
Seyfarth’s ADA Title III team consists of attorneys with extensive experience in ADA Title III litigation located in many offices across the United States, including California where plaintiffs are most active. With additional litigators admitted to practice in virtually every jurisdiction in the country, we have the resources to defend our clients against lawsuits and investigations on a nationwide basis and provide consistent and efficient service in national engagements. We have successfully defended against or resolved hundreds of lawsuits brought under Title III of the ADA and applicable state laws.
We have a number of unlicensed sober living-group homes in Orange County that are not ADA compliant, and the City does not enforce the ADA requirements upon these homes. Because individuals with addictions are considered disabled, the house in which they reside in, by law, need to be ADA compliant (according to the Justice Department in Washington D.C). My question is: How can the City be held accountable to enforce ADA upon these facilities? I am not disabled and do not wish to sue; however, our City is doing nothing to hold these businesses accountable. Please advise.
"III-3.6000 Retaliation or coercion. Individuals who exercise their rights under the ADA, or assist others in exercising their rights, are protected from retaliation. The prohibition against retaliation or coercion applies broadly to any individual or entity that seeks to prevent an individual from exercising his or her rights or to retaliate against him or her for having exercised those rights ... Any form of retaliation or coercion, including threats, intimidation, or interference, is prohibited if it is intended to interfere."
Privately owned multi-family dwellings are not subject to the new CBC Chapter 11B accessibility requirements for EVCS. The new requirements do apply at public housing facilities which are defined below. CBC Chapter 11B accessibility requirements do not apply to Section 8 housing credit recipients – the Section 8 program is a housing voucher program, not a public housing program.
Three defendants were able to dismiss website access lawsuits early because they had already entered into consent decree or settlement agreements with previous plaintiffs which required them to make their websites conform to the WCAG 2.0 within a specified amount of time. That said, not all courts agree that a prior settlement — as opposed to a binding judgment or court order — can be the basis for a dismissal.
Settlements like these were entered into across the country, and 2015 included: edX, Inc. and Carnival Cruise Lines (Carnival Corp.). Needless to say, by the mid to early 2010s, the DOJ were well aware of website accessibility issues and knew exactly where it stood on these issues. In the fall of 2014, the DOJ issued a Statement of Regulatory Priorities stating, “the Department received approximately 440 public comments and is in the process of reviewing these comments… the Department plans to follow with the publication of the title III NPRM in the third quarter of fiscal year 2015.” That did not happen. Rather, in the fall of 2015, the DOJ decided to “extend the time period for development of the proposed Title III Web site accessibility rule and include it among its long-term rulemaking priorities. The Department expects to publish Title III Web site accessibility NPRM during fiscal year 2018.” In 2016, the DOJ requested additional public comment. And this year, the Trump Administration placed the DOJ’s rulemakings under Titles II and III of the ADA for websites, medical equipment, and furniture of public accommodations and state and local governments on the 2017 Inactive Actions list.
I work in a building with five businesses and two residences, there is only one handicapped parking space that one of the residences parks permanently in, her car rarely moves. She has two cars one is parked in a regular space & the other is in the handicap. This creates no handicap parking spaces for customers. Is this compliant in San Diego County? If not what can be done? A conversation has taken place with the owner of the building, he is not willing to give the tenant her own residential handicap spot and leave another handicapped spot for customers. He’s not willing to do anything.
This was a case filed before The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division on behalf of the Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America against University of Michigan – Michigan Stadium claiming that Michigan Stadium violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in its $226-million renovation by failing to add enough seats for disabled fans or accommodate the needs for disabled restrooms, concessions and parking. Additionally, the distribution of the accessible seating was at issue, with nearly all the seats being provided in the end-zone areas. The U.S. Department of Justice assisted in the suit filed by attorney Richard Bernstein of The Law Offices of Sam Bernstein in Farmington Hills, Michigan, which was settled in March 2008.[66] The settlement required the stadium to add 329 wheelchair seats throughout the stadium by 2010, and an additional 135 accessible seats in clubhouses to go along with the existing 88 wheelchair seats. This case was significant because it set a precedent for the uniform distribution of accessible seating and gave the DOJ the opportunity to clarify previously unclear rules.[67] The agreement now is a blueprint for all stadiums and other public facilities regarding accessibility.[68]
"Universal design" is a broader, more comprehensive "design-for-all" approach to the development of architecture around human diversity. It recognizes the changing diversity of needs important to all types of people regardless of their varying age, ability, or condition, during an entire life. By comparison, "accessibility" has traditionally focused on addressing the needs of a few people with separate circumstances from those of the public at large, when in fact almost everyone is, over the course of their lifetime, quite able to benefit from barrier-free design, user-friendly architecture, and comfortable environments.

Access Now v. Southwest Airlines was a case where the District Court decided that the website of Southwest Airlines was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because the ADA is concerned with things with a physical existence and thus cannot be applied to cyberspace. Judge Patricia A. Seitz found that the "virtual ticket counter" of the website was a virtual construct, and hence not a "public place of accommodation." As such, "To expand the ADA to cover 'virtual' spaces would be to create new rights without well-defined standards."[76]
(function(){"use strict";function s(e){return"function"==typeof e||"object"==typeof e&&null!==e}function u(e){return"function"==typeof e}function l(e){X=e}function a(e){G=e}function c(){return function(){r.nextTick(d)}}function f(){var e=0,n=new ne(d),t=document.createTextNode("");return n.observe(t,{characterData:!0}),function(){t.data=e=++e%2}}function p(){var e=new MessageChannel;return e.port1.onmessage=d,function(){e.port2.postMessage(0)}}function h(){return function(){setTimeout(d,1)}}function d(){for(var e=0;et.length)&&(n=t.length),n-=e.length;var r=t.indexOf(e,n);return-1!==r&&r===n}),String.prototype.startsWith||(String.prototype.startsWith=function(e,n){return n=n||0,this.substr(n,e.length)===e}),String.prototype.trim||(String.prototype.trim=function(){return this.replace(/^[\s\uFEFF\xA0]+|[\s\uFEFF\xA0]+$/g,"")}),String.prototype.includes||(String.prototype.includes=function(e,n){"use strict";return"number"!=typeof n&&(n=0),!(n+e.length>this.length)&&-1!==this.indexOf(e,n)})},"./shared/require-global.js":function(e,n,t){e.exports=t("./shared/require-shim.js")},"./shared/require-shim.js":function(e,n,t){var r=t("./shared/errors.js"),o=(this.window,!1),i=null,s=null,u=new Promise(function(e,n){i=e,s=n}),l=function(e){if(!l.hasModule(e)){var n=new Error('Cannot find module "'+e+'"');throw n.code="MODULE_NOT_FOUND",n}return t("./"+e+".js")};l.loadChunk=function(e){return u.then(function(){return"main"==e?t.e("main").then(function(e){t("./main.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"dev"==e?Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("dev")]).then(function(e){t("./shared/dev.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"internal"==e?Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("internal"),t.e("qtext2"),t.e("dev")]).then(function(e){t("./internal.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"ads_manager"==e?Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("ads_manager")]).then(function(e){t("./ads_manager/main.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"publisher_dashboard"==e?t.e("publisher_dashboard").then(function(e){undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined,undefined}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):"content_widgets"==e?Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("content_widgets")]).then(function(e){t("./content_widgets.iframe.js")}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe):void 0})},l.whenReady=function(e,n){Promise.all(window.ansWebWebpackChunks.map(function(e){return l.loadChunk(e)})).then(function(){n()})},l.installPageProperties=function(e,n){window.Q.settings=e,window.Q.gating=n,o=!0,i()},l.assertPagePropertiesInstalled=function(){o||(s(),r.logJsError("installPageProperties","The install page properties promise was rejected in require-shim."))},l.prefetchAll=function(){t("./settings.js");Promise.all([t.e("main"),t.e("qtext2")]).then(function(){}.bind(null,t))["catch"](t.oe)},l.hasModule=function(e){return!!window.NODE_JS||t.m.hasOwnProperty("./"+e+".js")},l.execAll=function(){var e=Object.keys(t.m);try{for(var n=0;n
Settlements like these were entered into across the country, and 2015 included: edX, Inc. and Carnival Cruise Lines (Carnival Corp.). Needless to say, by the mid to early 2010s, the DOJ were well aware of website accessibility issues and knew exactly where it stood on these issues. In the fall of 2014, the DOJ issued a Statement of Regulatory Priorities stating, “the Department received approximately 440 public comments and is in the process of reviewing these comments… the Department plans to follow with the publication of the title III NPRM in the third quarter of fiscal year 2015.” That did not happen. Rather, in the fall of 2015, the DOJ decided to “extend the time period for development of the proposed Title III Web site accessibility rule and include it among its long-term rulemaking priorities. The Department expects to publish Title III Web site accessibility NPRM during fiscal year 2018.” In 2016, the DOJ requested additional public comment. And this year, the Trump Administration placed the DOJ’s rulemakings under Titles II and III of the ADA for websites, medical equipment, and furniture of public accommodations and state and local governments on the 2017 Inactive Actions list.

Explain to the plaintiff that you’ve reviewed the grievance and talked with a lawyer. It may be best to explain the ADA guidelines, and that proposed laws are not currently laws, nor are there current penalties for violating these proposed laws. Knowing that you’ve gone to this trouble can sometimes scare away anyone attempting to file a lawsuit. It’s best to let your attorney contact the plaintiff when making statements.
×