Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Is your website ADA – Compliant?
.
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA): IS YOUR WEBSITE ADA – COMPLIANT?
In recent years we have witnessed an increase of lawsuits involving claims of discrimination or a lack of reasonable accommodation as required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The new trend of these lawsuits targets the ADA compatibility of websites.
Under the ADA requirements, certain websites need to be accessible to persons with disabilities that affect their hearing, vision, or physical capacities.
The reason for this is simple: websites act as the central hub of a business.
Clients use websites for virtually everything, from researching to making purchases or reservations. As a result, business owners need to ensure that their website is accessible to persons with disabilities and ADA compliant to avoid potential fines, penalties, or lawsuits.
A successful plaintiff under the ADA is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees. While oftentimes ADA plaintiffs will settle upon a showing that you brought your website in compliance with the ADA requirements once you learned of the lawsuit, it is advisable to make your website compliant in advance and defeat any lawsuits before they come.
In 2020, we have helped many of our clients (including a restaurant and a hotel owner) both regarding legal actions and ADA compliance.
Feel free to reach out to our office to discuss more on this topic.
Some significant examples of ADA cases include:
National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard
“In 2015, four deaf and hard of hearing students partnered up with the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) to file two class action lawsuits against MIT and Harvard University. These federal lawsuits stated that the schools didn’t caption online content, including massive open online courses (MOOCs). They claimed that because of this, the schools were discriminating against hard of hearing and deaf people. The plaintiffs asserted that Title III of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was violated.
This video and audio content was all free and made available to the general public to use, but inaccessible to those with hearing limitations.
While the universities tried to dismiss the cases originally, in 2019 the plaintiffs and Harvard reached an agreement. The settlement required the University to add high-quality captions or transcripts to all of the video and audio content available publicly online. This includes videos that are live-streamed and content on third-party platforms like YouTube. Harvard also was responsible for the Class Counsel’s motion for $1,575,000 in attorneys’ costs and fees.”
(Source: https://www.rev.com/blog/ada-website-compliance-lawsuits-settlements-examples-of-cases)
National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix
“The National Association of the Deaf stepped up to bat again in the 2012 lawsuit against the online television and movie streaming giant Netflix. This case was particularly notable, as it was one of the first that established that accessibility should include not only physical businesses but online properties, too.
They asserted that Netflix violated the ADA by failing to provide equal access to its “Watch Instantly” streaming content, as there had previously been a “refusal” by the streaming company to provide closed captions. They filed the lawsuit, claiming a violation of Title III of the ADA.
In late 2012, Netflix and the NAD reached a settlement agreement. Netflix would provide closed captions to 100% of their online streaming content within a two-year period. They also had to pay $755,000 in attorney fees and costs, which included fees to monitor the decree”.
(Source: https://www.rev.com/blog/ada-website-compliance-lawsuits-settlements-examples-of-cases).
Antoninetti v. Chipotle
“In 2005, Maurizio Antoninetti filed an ADA lawsuit against Chipotle. He stated that there was a 45-inch barrier at the restaurant that blocked his view of the counter. This prevented him from seeing the food options laid out in front of him. He claimed that it impacted his ability to choose food and watch his meal preparation.
Chipotle argued that their accommodations were reasonable and that they would bring wheelchair users spoons of their chosen items before preparation to ensure it was what they wanted.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco ordered removal of the barrier. Chipotle later retrofitted their restaurants with new counters that were accessible to wheelchair users. They also had to pay part of the attorneys’ fees and administrative costs.”
(Source: https://www.rev.com/blog/ada-website-compliance-lawsuits-settlements-examples-of-cases).