By Minh N. Vu and John W. Egan
Seyfarth Synopsis: Enterprising plaintiffs in New York are suing more than 100 businesses under a new theory – – that ADA Title III requires Braille gift cards.
Between Thursday, October 24 and as recently as last Friday, over 100 putative class action lawsuits (and counting) have been filed against businesses for violations
Continue Reading New York Federal Dockets Flooded With Cases Alleging That Failing To Provide A Gift Card With Braille Violates The ADA
Seyfarth Synopsis: A Missouri federal judge orders a theatre to provide, upon request, captioning services for the deaf for all theatrical performances.
A federal judge in Missouri recently ordered a 4500-seat indoor theatre to provide open or closed captioning for all theatrical performances upon request with two weeks’ notice, in a lawsuit brought by deaf patrons and advocacy organizations.
The
Continue Reading Theatre Must Provide Captioning For All Live Performances Says Federal Judge
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
Continue Reading A Cautionary Tale: DOJ Intervenes in Another Web Accessibility Lawsuit
Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Department of Education (DOE) issued a joint guidance Under Title II of ADA (the “Guidance”) explaining the obligation of public schools to provide “auxiliary aids and services” to ensure effective communication with students with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities. Although this Guidance applies to state and local
Continue Reading New Justice Department Guidance Provides Useful Roadmap for Public and Private Schools on Their Effective Communication Obligations
By John W. Egan
On Friday of last week—the day before the ADA’s twenty-fourth anniversary—the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a proposed rule that would require movie theaters with digital screens (and possibly those with only analog screens) to show movies with closed captioning and audio descriptions (if available), and to purchase equipment that would allow the transmission of such information to moviegoers with hearing or sight disabilities. The regulations would also require theaters to inform the public about the availability of such captioning and audio descriptions in its advertisements and other communications about the movies they show.
The regulations implementing Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) already require that public accommodations, including movie theaters, provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication with persons with visual and auditory impairments. The proposed rule would require that movie theaters provide specific equipment and accommodations to patrons who are blind or have low vision, as well as patrons with auditory impairments. DOJ estimates that complying with these proposed requirements would cost the industry between $138.1 and $275.7 million and that a substantial number of small businesses will experience “a significant economic impact.”
The major provisions are discussed below.
Title III of the ADA requires that public accommodations provide, at their expense, “auxiliary aids and services” to ensure effective communication with persons with hearing, vision, or speech disabilities. But what does that really mean for a business? What is effective communication? The Department of Justice last month released its most recent guidance on this topic (the “Guidance”). DOJ’s previous guidance on the subject was issued in 2011 in a primer targeted for small businesses. Since the DOJ and state enforcement agencies have taken a keen interest in this subject, businesses should take a minute to review these two guides and make sure that they, and their employees, are meeting their obligations.
The “effective communication” obligation exists because people who have hearing, vision, or speech disabilities communicate differently from people without these disabilities. For example, a person who is blind is not going to be able to read a menu or legal documents. A person who is deaf is not going to be able to hear what a doctor says about his diagnosis. Thus, in most instances, these individuals will need appropriate “auxiliary aids and services” to ensure effective communication.
The Guidance explains that the key to effective communication is to consider the “nature, length, complexity, and context of the communication” and the person’s “normal method of communication.” In some contexts, effective communication may entail simply reading something to a blind individual (e.g., a menu so he or she can order in a restaurant ), or exchanging notes with a deaf individual (e.g., about a product for sale in a retail setting).
In other contexts where communication is extensive (e.g., educational or medical settings), ensuring effective communication can be complex and costly, and may require the provision of an interpreter or the acquisition and use of unfamiliar technology. As the Guidance explains, various technologies can be used to ensure effective communication, such as computer-assisted real-time transcription, video remote interpreting, and screen reader software. The public accommodation should consult with the individual—especially in these more complex situations —to determine an aid or service that will provide effective communication. If more than one aid or service would allow equally effective communication, the public accommodation is not required to provide the individual’s requested aid or service.
The Guidance notes that the public accommodation must provide the aid or service unless it can show that it would “fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered or would result in an undue burden, i.e., significant difficulty or expense.” The standard for establishing this defense is quite high; the Guidance states it will be shown only in “rare” circumstances.
As important reminders, the Guidance also notes the following:
Continue Reading New Justice Guidance Reminds Businesses They Are Responsible for Ensuring Their Communications With People with Disabilities Are Effective
By Minh Vu and Paul Kehoe
Since we reported that the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued its proposed regulations last month concerning the definition of a “disability” under Titles II (applicable to state and local governments) and III (applicable to public accommodations) of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), we have received a number of inquiries about the regulations’ impact and whether clients need to take any action. We share here our initial thoughts.
Background and Key Provisions. The proposed regulations implement the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) which amended the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Congress passed the ADAAA in response to several court decisions, including from the Supreme Court, that narrowly interpreted the definition of “disability.” The point of the ADAAA, according to the DOJ, was to “mak[e] it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the statute.”
In March 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued its final regulations to implement the ADAAA’s requirements for Title I of the ADA, which prohibits disability discrimination by employers. These DOJ proposed regulations will implement ADAAA requirements for Titles II and III of the ADA, which prohibit discrimination in state and local programs and by public accommodations, respectively. DOJ’s proposed regulations closely track the statutory requirements of the ADAAA and the EEOC’s final regulations.
The ADAAA did not change the ADA’s definition of disability, which continues to be:
Continue Reading More People Will Be Individuals With a "Disability" Under Proposed Justice Department Regulations
