Lawsuits, Investigations & Settlements

Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Fry v. Napoleon Comm. Schools limits IDEA’s exhaustion requirement to those cases which seek relief for a denial of FAPE allowing for some claims brought under Title II and Section 504 on behalf of IDEA eligible students to proceed directly to court without implementation of IDEA’s administrative processes before litigation is commenced.

On February 22, Justice Kagan delivered the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Fry v. Napoleon Comm. Schools et al., 580 U.S. ____ (2017), and refined the scope of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) exhaustion requirement by holding that this requirement may – in certain circumstances – not apply to a complaint brought under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  The case specifically addressed whether IDEA’s exhaustion requirement barred claims for injunctive and monetary relief under Title II and Section 504 based on allegations that a school district denied a disabled child the right to bring a service dog to school.

Noting that IDEA’s statutory language requires exhaustion when a civil action is brought “seeking relief that is also available under [the IDEA],”  the Supreme Court held that to meet the IDEA’s statutory exhaustion standard, “a suit must seek relief for the denial of a [free appropriate public education (FAPE)], because that is the only ‘relief’ the IDEA makes ‘available.’”  The Court found that a court should look to the “gravamen” of the plaintiff’s complaint in making the determination and pointed out that that “exhaustion of the IDEA’s administrative procedures is unnecessary” in cases where the broader point of a suit is about “something other than the denial” of that statute’s guarantee of FAPE for students with disabilities.  The Court recognized overlap in the protections afforded by IDEA, which is designed to guarantee students individually tailored special education and related services to provide FAPE, and the protections of Title II and Section 504, which mandate nondiscriminatory access to public instruction.  In doing so, the court provided “clues” to guide the exhaustion determination.  The Court described the first clue as coming from the following “pair of hypothetical questions”:

“First, could the plaintiff have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a public facility that was not a school–say a public theatre or library?  And second, could an adult at the school–say, an employee or visitor–have pressed essentially the same grievance?”

The Court opined that when “the answer to these questions is yes, a complaint that does not expressly allege the denial of a FAPE is also unlikely to be truly about the subject.”  The Court identifies the second clue as:

“emerg[ing] from the history of the proceedings.  In particular, a court may consider that a plaintiff has previously invoked the IDEA’s formal procedures to handle the dispute–thus starting to exhaust the Act’s remedies before switching midstream.”

Recognizing the history of the underlying proceedings might suggest that the “gravamen of [Parents’ federal lawsuit] is the denial of FAPE,” the Court remanded the case with instructions that the court below “decide whether their actions reveal that the gravamen of their complaint is indeed the denial of a FAPE, thus necessitating further exhaustion.”

As a practical matter, this decision highlights the importance of compliance with Title II’s and Section 504’s accessibility mandates.  Failure to adequately monitor and address issues of alleged noncompliance could more readily lead to a lawsuit filed directly in federal court without IDEA’s processes and opportunities to resolve complaints before litigation is commenced. Therefore, this holding suggests that more litigation will be filed directly in federal court under Title II and Section 504 asserting that a public school failed to provide non-discriminatory access to an aid, benefit or service to disabled students otherwise eligible for IDEA’s special education programming.

Edited by Kristina Launey.

Seyfarth Synopsis: With the recent proliferation of web accessibility demand letters and lawsuits, businesses often ask whether settling a claim with one plaintiff will bar future lawsuits brought by different plaintiffs. One federal judge recently said no.

Plaintiffs Rachel Gniewskowski, R. David New, and Access Now, Inc.—represented by Carlson, Lynch, Kilpela & Sweet—sued retailer Party City in the Western District of Pennsylvania on September 6, 2016, alleging that Party City’s website is not accessible to visually impaired consumers in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  On October 7, 2016 (while the Pennsylvania lawsuit was pending), Party City entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Andres Gomez, who had previously filed a similar lawsuit in Florida.  Both lawsuits contained the same basic set of facts and legal claims, and sought similar relief—modification of the website to make it accessible to, and useable by, individuals with disabilities.

Party City filed a summary judgment motion in the Pennsylvania case, arguing that the Pennsylvania case was barred by the prior settlement under principles of res judicata.  Res judicata applies when three circumstances are present: (1) a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving (2) the same parties or their privies, and (3) a subsequent suit based on the same cause of action.  In an order issued on January 27, 2017, the court denied the motion, finding that Party City could not establish the second element.

In its attempt to establish the second element, Party City argued that the Pennsylvania plaintiffs Gniewskowski and New were “adequately represented” in the Florida action by Gomez.  The Court disagreed, finding Gomez did not purport to represent Gniewskowski or New, noting that the “complaint in Gomez’s lawsuit made clear that Gomez brought his lawsuit ‘individually.’” Nor could Party City “point to any ‘procedural protections…in the original action’ that were intended to protect the current plaintiffs’ rights to due process”, such as notice of the prior settlement, or measures the court in the prior litigation took to determine whether the settlement was fair as to absent parties.

The court’s straightforward application of res judicata principles is not surprising, and even less so because there is no indication that Party City had committed to making its website accessible in the confidential settlement agreement—the relief sought in the Pennsylvania case. Public settlement agreements requiring a company to make its website accessible, or a consent decree in which a court orders a company to make its website accessible, are much more likely to deter additional website accessibility lawsuits.  Companies that are under a court order to make their websites accessible have a strong argument that any subsequent ADA Title III suit is moot because the only relief that can be obtained in such a suit—injunctive relief—has already been ordered.  Plaintiffs are also likely to find companies that have made a contractual commitment to making their websites accessible to be less attractive targets because the work may be completed while the second lawsuit is pending, mooting out the claim.  Ultimately, the best deterrence is having a website that is accessible to users with disabilities.  While there is still no legally-prescribed standard for accessibility (nor, with the present Administration’s actions toward regulations does it appear likely one will issue anytime soon), the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, 2.0 Levels A and AA are widely used in the industry as the de facto standard.

Seyfarth synopsis:  A Florida Judge Holds that SeaWorld’s website is not a place of public accommodation covered by Title III of the ADA but the decision has its limits.

Defendants fighting website accessibility lawsuits in the past several years have not had a great deal of success, so the recent decision by Florida federal Magistrate Judge Carol Mirando holding that SeaWorld’s website is not a place of public accommodation was a small bright spot — albeit one with limitations.

The disabled pro se plaintiff in this case sued SeaWorld under Title III of the ADA because the business allegedly did not provide him with an electric wheelchair or allow his two service dogs entry.  The court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring these claims because there was no threat of imminent harm.  The plaintiff also alleged that SeaWorld’s website was not accessible to individuals with disabilities, although it is not clear how his disability impacted his use of the website.  The court rejected this claim, holding:

“Neither Busch Gardens’ nor SeaWorld’s online website is a physical or public accommodation under the ADA.  The Internet is a unique medium — known to its users as ‘cyberspace’ — located in no particular geographical location but available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the internet.  Hence, Plaintiff is unable to demonstrate that either Busch Gardens’ or SeaWorld’s online website prevents his access to a specific, physical, concrete space such as a particular airline ticket counter or travel agency.  As a result, Plaintiff may not plead a claim based on accessibility of an online website under Title III of the ADA.”

In so holding, the court cited to Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 227 F.Supp.2d 1312 (S.D.Fl. 2002), where another Florida district court had dismissed an ADA Title III claim against Southwest because the Southwest website was neither a public accommodation nor was a means of accessing a physical place of public accommodation.  The court in the Southwest Airlines case relied on the Eleventh Circuit holding in Rendon v. Valleycrest Prods., 294 F.3d 117 (11th Cir. 2002). There, the appellate court held that a plaintiff alleging that the telephone screening process for the Who Wants to be a Millionaire gameshow had stated a claim under Title III of the ADA — despite the fact that the telephone was not a physical place — because the screening process was a means of accessing the show which took place in a physical location.

The SeaWorld decision is not surprising in light of the Rendon decision and this pro se plaintiff’s failure to plead that the inaccessibility of the website prevented him from accessing a physical place of public accommodation.  The outcome could have been different if the case had been brought by a different plaintiff who was represented by competent counsel.

Moreover, as we have noted, other judicial circuits such as the First Circuit do not require that a business have a nexus to a physical location to be a place of public accommodation.  Thus, plaintiffs bringing lawsuits about websites that do not have a nexus to a physical place will likely choose those circuits for their lawsuits.  The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has also made clear its position that a website need not have any connection to a physical place to be covered by the ADA.  Thus, businesses that choose to argue in defense of a lawsuit that their websites are not public accommodations may invite an intervention by the DOJ as we blogged about last month.

In short, many considerations should go into a business’ decision as to whether it should fight or resolve a website accessibility lawsuit.

Edited by Kristina Launey.

Seyfarth Synopsis: New website and mobile app accessibility settlement agreement requires WCAG 2.0 AA conformance, training, and feedback mechanism.

Being named one of the most innovative companies of 2016 doesn’t make one immune from a website and mobile app accessibility lawsuit.  Capping 2016’s banner accessibility lawsuit count, including record website accessibility lawsuit numbers, on which we reported yesterday, was an end-of-the-year settlement between innovative local-sourcing salad restaurant Sweetgreen, Inc. and two blind individuals, on behalf of other similarly-situated individuals.

The settlement concluded a lawsuit filed on March 2, 2016 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which alleged that Sweetgreen discriminated against the plaintiffs due to an online ordering portal and mobile app that were not accessible in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Sweetgreen’s online and mobile app ordering systems allowed customers to “customize signature salads, filter by dietary preferences, track calories and more,” but that barriers to accessibility on the online ordering portal and mobile app prohibited them from independently placing salad orders online for pick-up.

The settlement agreement requires:

  • Improving accessibility to both the online ordering portal and mobile app (excluding third party content except as integral to an online transaction function) to conform to, at minimum, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria by March 31, 2017, and maintaining that conformance;
  • A link on Sweetgreen’s contact page that provides visitors the opportunity to provide feedback regarding accessibility;
  • Attempt to remedy accessibility issues raised through the feedback page within 30 days of receipt; and
  • For a period of two years, web accessibility training to employees who write or develop programs or code for http://order.sweetgreen.com, and its mobile applications, or who publish final content to http://order.sweetgreen.com, and its mobile applications.

These are common settlement terms; signaling they are also good proactive steps for companies to take in their own web and mobile app accessibility efforts.  And for those companies frustrated with the proliferation of ADA lawsuits and demand letters, some solace in knowing they’re not the only ones grappling with this issue.

Notably, one of the plaintiffs, Mika Pyyhkala, was a plaintiff (in addition to the National Federation of the Blind) in the landmark web accessibility H&R Block lawsuit and consent decree.  Advocacy group Washington Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights And Urban Affairs represented Pyyhkala in the Sweetgreen lawsuit.

Edited by Minh Vu.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The number of federal ADA Title III lawsuits continue to surge, fueled by new plaintiffs, new plaintiffs’ lawyers, and website accessibility claims.

Our 2016 lawsuit count is complete, and the results no less remarkable than prior years.  In 2016, 6,601 ADA Title III lawsuits were filed in federal court — 1,812 more than in 2015. This 37 percent increase continues the upward trend in the number of filings, which we’ve been tracking since 2013.  In 2015, there were 8 percent more Title III lawsuits filed than in 2014.

ADA Title III Lawsuits in Federal Court: 2013-2016: 2013 (2722); 2014 (4436, 63% Increase over 2013); 2015 (4789, 8% Increase over 2014); 2016 (6601, 37% Increase over 2015)
ADA Title III Lawsuits in Federal Court: 2013-2016: 2013 (2722); 2014 (4436, 63% Increase over 2013); 2015 (4789, 8% Increase over 2014); 2016 (6601, 37% Increase over 2015)

California and Florida continue to be hotbeds of litigation, with 2,468 and 1,663 lawsuits, respectively. New York, Arizona, and Texas hold distant third, fourth, and fifth positions.  Here are the numbers for the top ten states:

  1. CA: 2468
  2. FL: 1663
  3. NY: 543
  4. AZ: 335
  5. TX: 267
  6. GA: 193
  7. UT: 124
  8. PA: 102
  9. MN: 96
  10. CO: 92
Top 10 States for ADA Title III Federal Lawsuits in 2016: CA (2468); FL (1663); NY (543); AZ (335); TX (267); GA (193); UT (124); PA (102); MN (96); CO (93)
Top 10 States for ADA Title III Federal Lawsuits in 2016: CA (2468); FL (1663); NY (543); AZ (335); TX (267); GA (193); UT (124); PA (102); MN (96); CO (93)

The number of cases in Utah jumped from only one in 2015 to 124 in 2016 — due almost entirely to plaintiff Carolyn Ford who filed 105 of those suits.  Other states that experienced significant increases include Arizona, California, Colorado, and Georgia.  Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming are the only states that had no ADA Title III lawsuits at all filed in 2016.

What is driving these numbers?  While historically there had been a few predictable plaintiffs and attorneys filing Title III lawsuits, over the past year we’ve seen quite a few newcomers filing (the most common) physical accessibility lawsuits, as well as a recent proliferation of plaintiffs and attorneys filing website accessibility lawsuits.  There were more than 250 lawsuits filed in 2016 about allegedly inaccessible websites and/or mobile apps.   This number does not include the hundreds, if not thousands, of demand letters plaintiffs sent to businesses asserting website accessibility claims.

Plaintiffs who filed more than a hundred lawsuits in 2016 were Theresa Brooke (274), Scott Johnson (258), Howard Cohan (251), Lional Dalton (184), Jon Deutsch (175), Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities LLC/Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities Foundation Incorporated, Advocates for American Disabled Individuals LLC (165), Chris Langer (163), Santiago Abreu (152), Damien Moseley (141), Patricia Kennedy (138), Doug Longhini (114), Andres Gomez (113), and Carolyn Ford (105).  We expect to see fewer suits from Howard Cohan who was the subject of a news expose in late 2016 which showed videos here and here of him not appearing to be limited in his mobility.  Mr. Cohan has filed many hundreds of suits over the years concerning alleged barriers that would affect people who are limited in their mobility.

In 2016, lawmakers in both the Senate and House proposed legislation called the ADA Education and Reform Act designed to, among other things, reduce the number of lawsuits filed by serial plaintiffs by requiring them to give businesses notice of the alleged violations and an opportunity to address them before filing suit.  Those efforts stalled but may gain new momentum with a new administration that is sympathetic to the plight of small businesses and hostile to federal regulation.  There were also state legislative efforts, which will no doubt continue in 2017.

We will, as always, continue to keep tracking lawsuit filings, legislative efforts, and other breaking developments and keep you up to date — as the Title III trend shows no signs of cooling down in 2017.

Seyfarth Synopsis: A disability advocacy group behind approximately 1,700 Arizona access lawsuits breaks new ground by filing suit against the Arizona Attorney General, in an unusual counter-attack to the AG’s motion to dismiss those cases for lack of standing. 

As we previously reported here, the Arizona Attorney General (“AG”) responded to a surge of access suits filed in that state’s courts by moving to consolidate and to intervene in all actions initiated by self-styled disability rights advocacy groups, including Advocates for Individuals With Disabilities Foundation (“AIDF”) and David Ritzenthaler.  The state court granted the AG’s motions on September 23.  Soon thereafter the AG filed a Motion to Dismiss and For Judgment on the Pleadings.

In a further twist on this story, AIDF and Ritzenthaler have now sued AG Mark Brnovich in his official capacity for mandamus relief against the AG and for attorneys’ fees and costs.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek an order that the AG must initiate an investigation into the violations that have been alleged in approximately 9,000 complaints allegedly filed with the AG’s office.  Plaintiffs argue that the AG is required to investigate such complaints under state law, and has failed to do so. Plaintiff further alleges that non-compliance with the state’s accessibility statute is widespread, apparently citing an AIDF press release.

Whether or not this tactic is an effective litigation strategy remains to be seen.  The AG’s pending Motion to Dismiss challenges both the individual’s (Ritzenthaler’s) and the organizations’ standing to bring their claims under Arizona law.  According to the AG, Arizona has a “rigorous” standing requirement, which the plaintiffs in the consolidated matters fail to meet for several reasons.  First, they fail to allege that they patronized or attempted to patronize the defendants’ businesses.  Second, the AG argues that the plaintiffs fail to allege an actual barrier to their access.  The AG noted that the state accessibility law violations identified in the consolidated complaints concern accessible parking signage, but that plaintiffs “assume that every instance of non-compliance with ADA or AZDA regulation, no matter how minor, represents a ‘barrier.’”  The AG then states that “not all instances of ADA or AZDA non-compliance are barriers, and not all barriers deny access to all persons with disabilities.”  Third, the AG asserts that plaintiffs fail to sufficiently allege standing because they did not allege denial of access based upon an identified disability.  In other words, the plaintiffs do not link an identified instance of non-compliance to their particular disability.  Fourth, the AG argues that Arizona does not recognize a “deterrence” theory of standing, which conceivably might overcome other failures in the complaint.  Finally, the AG argued that the consolidated plaintiffs fail to allege the additional standing requirements for injunctive relief, i.e., that the plaintiffs provided prior notice or an opportunity to remediate alleged violations and allege an intent to patronize the businesses in the future.

The AG argues that the various Plaintiffs in these consolidated actions should not be given leave to amend such deficiencies in the pleadings, due to a “documented history of bad faith, abusive tactics, and dilatory motives.”   To support this assertion, the AG notes that plaintiffs have filed over 1,700 deficient complaints in 2016, and have “extracted” about $1.2 million from those lawsuits.  The AG also contends that the plaintiffs’ proposed “Universal Amended Complaint” still fails to adequately plead standing, further demonstrating undue delay.  It also, perhaps, demonstrates futility of amendment under these circumstances.

These, first-of-their-kind, cross actions between an enforcement agency and a serial plaintiff may continue to provide additional data and insight into assertions of lawsuit abuse in the disability access context.   We will continue to monitor these actions and keep posting on developments.

Edited by Kristina Launey and Minh Vu.

Seyfarth Synopsis: Fighting a web accessibility lawsuit could invite DOJ’s intervention, as did a Florida retailer’s recent Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

Fighting a website accessibility lawsuit is very tempting to many frustrated businesses, but can be a risky decision. One such risk – Department of Justice intervention in the lawsuit – came to fruition for one such business on Monday in Gil v. Winn Dixie, when the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest in the case pending in the Southern District of Florida.

In the lawsuit, Gil alleged that he attempted to access the goods and services available on the Winn-Dixie website, but was unable to do so using his screen reader technology or any other technology provided on the Winn-Dixie website. Accordingly, he claimed the website is inaccessible in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Triggering the DOJ’s somewhat unexpected involvement in this prolific plaintiff’s (by our count, as of October 20, 2016, Gil’s attorney had filed 43% of the 244 federal website accessibility cases filed this year) lawsuit was Winn-Dixie filing a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  The DOJ states that Winn-Dixie admitted in the Motion that, through its website, patrons can order prescription refills to be picked up at the store pharmacy; search for nearby stores; and gather information on store hours, products, and services. Winn-Dixie argued that it has “no obligation under the ADA to ensure that Mr. Gil and other blind patrons can access these and other services and advantages offered through its website” because under the Eleventh Circuit law, only physical locations are subject to Title III of the ADA. The DOJ could not stand by and let this position go unchallenged:

“Because Winn-Dixie Stores’ argument cannot be squared with the plain language of the statute, the regulations, or with federal case law addressing this issue, the United States respectfully submits this Statement of Interest to clarify public accommodations’ longstanding obligation to ensure that individuals with disabilities are not excluded, denied services, or treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, such as accessible electronic technology. This obligation means that websites of places of public accommodation, such as grocery stores, must be accessible to people who are blind, unless the public accommodation can demonstrate that doing so would result in a fundamental alteration or undue burden.”

DOJ’s authority is the ADA’s requirement that public accommodations provide auxiliary aids and services – including accessible electronic information technology – at no extra charge to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities, unless it would result in a fundamental alteration or undue burden.

In response to Winn-Dixie’s position that Title III applies only to its physical location. DOJ cited the language of the ADA which says that “Title III applies to discrimination in the goods and services ‘of’ a place of public accommodation, rather than being limited to those goods and services provided ‘at’ or ‘in’ a place of public accommodation.”  DOJ also argued Title III’s application to the website at issue is consistent with every other court decision to have addressed the coverage of websites with a nexus to brick and mortar locations. DOJ went on to state its view that even websites with no nexus to a brick and mortar location are also covered under Title III of the ADA – a position that has been explicitly rejected by the Ninth Circuit.

Coming on the heels of the DOJ’s intervention in the MIT and Harvard cases, and one retailer’s loss on summary judgment when fighting a web accessibility lawsuit in Colorado Bags N’ Baggage, this case demonstrates that litigating a website accessibility case has broader implications than just winning or losing on the merits.  Few businesses want the DOJ inquiring into their ADA Title III compliance practices, of which websites are only a part.

Edited by Minh Vu.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The number of federal lawsuits alleging inaccessible websites continues to increase, along with the number of law firms filing them.  Businesses should seek advice now on how to manage risk in this chaotic environment.

As we predicted, website accessibility lawsuits and threatened claims have become big business for the plaintiffs’ bar.  More law firms are filing lawsuits or sending demand letters alleging individuals with disabilities are denied access to a business’s goods and services due to inaccessible websites than ever.  The number of lawsuits filed in federal court since the beginning of 2015 has surged to at least 244 as of October 20, 2016.  Retailers have been the most popular targets, followed by restaurant and hospitality companies.

Number
Number of federal website lawsuits by industry from January 2015 to October 20, 2016: Academic (3), Dating Services (1), Entertainment (9), Financial (2), Gaming (1), Hospitality (12), Insurance (1), Medical (8), Personal Services (4), Restaurant (45), Retail (148), Sports (2), Utility (1), Vehicle Manufacturer (7)

We analyzed the data to find that five firms dominate the space, but we have seen more and more attempting to get in on the action.

Plaintiff's firms filing the most federal website lawsuits since January 2015: Block Leviton (3%), Carlson Lynch (45%), Law Office of Joseph R. Manning Jr. APC (7%), Lee Litigation Group (33%), Nelson Boyd (5%), Newport Trial Group (19%), Scott R. Dinin, PA (106%), Stewart, Murray & Associates Law Group (6%), Other Firms (8%)
Plaintiff’s firms filing the most federal website lawsuits since January 2015: Block Leviton (1%), Carlson Lynch (18%), Law Office of Joseph R. Manning Jr. APC (3%), Lee Litigation Group (14%), Nelson Boyd (2%), Newport Trial Group (8%), Scott R. Dinin, PA (43%), Stewart, Murray & Associates Law Group (3%), Other Firms (8%)

Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, and California federal courts have 95% of the lawsuits at this point, but, with two months left in the year, that could change.

States with the most federal website lawsuits being filed since January 2015: California (29), Massachusetts (5), Pennsylvania (43), Washington (5), Florida (124)
States with the most federal website lawsuits since January 2015: Arizona (1), California (29), Florida (124), Indiana (1), Massachusetts (5), New York (35), Pennsylvania (43), Texas (1), Washington (5)

We have previously reported that several law firms representing unnamed clients with disabilities had sent out hundreds of demand letters to various types of businesses concerning their allegedly inaccessible websites.  From what we can tell, very few of those demand letters went to financial services institutions.  We have learned that the most recent batch of demand letters is focused on the websites of community banks around the country.

Meanwhile, we still have no proposed regulations for public accommodations websites from the DOJ and a change in administration could derail or delay the rulemaking process further.  Thus, the need is no less urgent for businesses to come up with a plan to mitigate their litigation exposure in this tumultuous environment.

Edited by Kristina M. Launey.

*We updated this post to correct the data, as we found the number of lawsuits filed to be even higher than we previously reported. There is no easy way to track these website cases as they are filed so the numbers could be even higher.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  Massachusetts recently enacted its first statewide ride-sharing law requiring companies like Uber to provide accessible transportation for individuals with disabilities.

On the heels of news that Uber and the National Federation of the Blind (“NFB”) settled their federal court lawsuit in California, which began with a fight over whether Uber is subject to Title III of the ADA as a place of “public accommodation” or a “specified public transportation service,” Massachusetts is taking ride-sharing accessibility matters into its own hands.

Massachusetts enacted its first ride-sharing law last month which – though not the first of its kind – continues the nationwide trend of states and cities implementing ride-share regulations.  What is novel is Massachusetts’s specific prohibition on these companies from discriminating against individuals with disabilities, a requirement that they provide wheelchair accessible vehicles, and a mandate that they provide accommodations to individuals traveling with service animals. Massachusetts’s new law is far broader than the recent California settlement, which was limited to only Uber and an agreement to provide accommodations to individuals with service animals.

The Massachusetts law also prohibits ride-sharing companies from charging higher fares or fees to individuals with disabilities and requires that they demonstrate that they have “an oversight process in place” to ensure their compliance with the new law and with all nondiscrimination laws in all “areas” (which is not defined) in which they operate.  The law also requires ride-sharing companies to have “established procedures governing the safe pickup, transfer, and delivery of individuals with visual impairments and individuals who use mobility devices, including … wheelchairs, … walkers, and scooters.”

The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (“DPU”) is responsible for drafting detailed regulations to support and enforce this new law and will likely provide guidance to companies as to the “oversight process” and ‘procedures’.”  DPU has announced that it looks forward to “implementing one of the most comprehensive ride-for-hire laws in the country to support innovation, public safety, and accessibility for those with special accommodation needs.”

The new law also calls for the formation of a task force, which will include a representative of the Disability Law Center, Inc., a Massachusetts non-profit disability advocacy organization, to consider the establishment of a Massachusetts Accessible Transportation Fund.  This Fund will be credited with annual surcharges from ride for hire companies that do not, as determined by the task force, provide sufficient wheelchair-accessible service.  The task force is required to file a report with the Massachusetts Legislature of its recommendations and proposed legislation by July 1, 2017.

Edited by Kristina Launey.

Seyfarth Synopsis:  The number of access lawsuits has surged in both Arizona state and federal courts, prompting an unprecedented intervention by the Arizona Attorney General.

By our count, nearly 300 ADA Title III lawsuits have been filed in federal court in Arizona this year to date.  This number represents a dramatic increase from 2015 when only 207 lawsuits were filed for the entire year.  In 2013 and 2014, there were only 20 and 8 of such lawsuits, respectively.

Four plaintiffs filed 284 of these nearly 300 2016 Arizona federal court lawsuits:  Damien Mosley (132 suits), Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities Foundation, Inc. (AIDF) (57 suits); Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities LLC (AID) (formerly known as Advocates for American Disabled Individuals, LLC (AADI)) (71 suits); and Santiago Abreau (24 suits).

Even more astonishing is the number of cases AIDF and AID/AADI have filed in Arizona state court under the Arizonians with Disabilities Act (AzADA) since January 2015.  The AzADA is similar to the federal ADA but allows plaintiffs to recover compensatory damages.  Under the ADA, prevailing private plaintiffs can only obtain injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.

The number of lawsuits filed by AIDF, AID, and AADI in Arizona state court (all in Maricopa County) in 2015 and 2016, according to our own research, are:

  • AID/AADI: 503 cases
  • AIDF: 1121 cases

In total, these plaintiffs have filed 1,624 cases since the beginning of 2015.  Compare that to the 584 suits filed in Arizona federal courts since the beginning of 2015.  Then compare that to the data we’ve collected on lawsuits filed in other states and nationwide.

Apparently alarmed by the number of suits flooding the Arizona court system, the Arizona Attorney General has filed a motion asking the Arizona state court in Maricopa County to consolidate all of the pending cases filed by AADI and to allow his intervention to stop what he calls a “systemic abuse of the judicial system.”  The motion provides two grounds for intervention.  First, it states that these lawsuits “imperils the State enforcement regime established by the Legislature” by signaling to other plaintiffs that it is more profitable to file these private suits than to utilize the state’s investigation and enforcement regime created by the AzADA which provides opportunities for a pre-litigation resolution.  Second, the State of Arizona has a strong interest in how the courts apply and interpret the AzADA’s statutory scheme.

Though outcry over the years over ADA lawsuit abuse has been consistent, as well as multiple legislative attempts at reform with little meaningful effect, we are not aware of any other instance when an enforcement agency has stepped in to address the actions of a serial plaintiff.  We will keep you updated on the developments.

Edited by Kristina Launey.