On May 26, 2020, a woman with an alleged respiratory disability filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against a supermarket chain in Pennsylvania after she was denied entry because she could not wear a face mask. This lawsuit marks a growing trend of disability access lawsuits challenging face mask policies.
On January 22, 2020, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) proposed new amendments to the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) regulations. These amendments would further restrict the type and use of service animals on airplanes.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its highly-anticipated website accessibility opinion in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, reaffirming the obligation to make retailers’ websites accessible and rejecting the due process and primary jurisdiction arguments commonly asserted by defendants in website accessibility litigation.
On August 8, 2017, the Nevada attorney general moved to intervene in an action brought by Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) serial litigant Kevin Zimmerman and to consolidate it with the more than 150 other pending Zimmerman actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.
Are public accommodations required to admit personal care providers for free? That’s the question that the lawyers in our Disability Access Practice Group have been hearing with increasing frequency since the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a decision in May of 2016 holding that The Franklin Institute, a nonprofit museum, was required to offer complimentary admission to the personal care attendant of a severely disabled individual. Below we provide a brief overview of the case and its currently narrow reach, an even shorter critique of the decision, and finally a summary of what your public accommodation may want to consider in the wake of the decision.
With the extraordinary volume of Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Title III claims clogging the courts, and an increase in the number of plaintiffs’ lawyers litigating ADA issues, we can expect to see another flood of Title III cases in 2016. After defending countless “drive-by” lawsuits through the years, we have learned that, for the most part, these suits lack creativity in identifying barriers presented by public accommodations. Put another way, the same types of barriers are routinely alleged in complaints. While few Title III plaintiffs visit retail stores with tape measure in hand, nearly anyone with minimal training can detect a host of technical violations very quickly.