It should be understood that the initial response from the Department of Justice is preliminary. The process for ADA certification will undoubtedly take time; include public participation meetings, interaction with the United States Department of Justice, and rulemaking for building standards. It should therefore be assumed that the side-by-side analysis, including comment from the Department of Justice, is subject to revision. These documents are preliminary, are provided for informational purposes only, and should not be considered as final determinations by the United States Department of Justice and/or the Division of the State Architect.
Tennessee v. Lane[80], 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. George Lane was unable to walk after a 1997 car accident in which he was accused of driving on the wrong side of the road. A woman was killed in the crash, and Lane faced misdemeanor charges of reckless driving. The suit was brought about because he was denied access to appear in criminal court because the courthouse had no elevator, even though the court was willing to carry him up the stairs and then willing to move the hearing to the first floor. He refused, citing he wanted to be treated as any other citizen, and was subsequently charged with failure to appear, after appearing at a previous hearing where he dragged himself up the stairs.[81] The court ruled that Congress did have enough evidence that the disabled were being denied those fundamental rights that are protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and had the enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It further ruled that "reasonable accommodations" mandated by the ADA were not unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the harm.[82]

If a building or facility has been inspected by a Certified Access Specialist, and is subsequently the subject of an ADA lawsuit, the owner of the property can request a “stay” of proceedings for 90 days, which stops the legal process and provides an opportunity for the plaintiff and defendant to resolve whatever issues may need to be addressed.   An inspection by a Certified Access Specialist won’t guarantee that a property will not be subject to an ADA lawsuit, but it will  significantly reduce the likelihood that an ADA attorney will go after the property looking for $4,000 in statutory damages.
My husband and I are Airbnb hosts and rent out one bedroom in our primary residence to potential guests, usually for one week or less. Recently, we received an inquiry and the potential guest indicated that they had a service animal. Although we do not allow pets (we have our own small dog who is people-friendly but not always dog-friendly), I felt I should tread carefully concerning this request. Are there any laws concerning welcoming service animals into my home if I am running a business from said home? Airbnb always indicates that we set the rules in our own homes but suggested if I want more information, to contact my local government. I live in an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County. Thank you for any information you can provide.
Many members of the business community opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Testifying before Congress, Greyhound Bus Lines stated that the act had the potential to "deprive millions of people of affordable intercity public transportation and thousands of rural communities of their only link to the outside world." The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be "enormous" and have "a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive."[35] The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA "a disaster for small business."[36] Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Act was "an expensive headache to millions" that would not necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.[37]
Courts have essentially taken three positions when approached with this issue. Some courts take the position that the ADA applies to all commercial sites because the law was meant to protect disabled individuals from having a more difficult time than able-bodied individuals from doing business. That is why the website Scribd was unable to get a case summarily dismissed and ended up settling.
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.
1:15 PM, Nov. 12, 2018 This story incorrectly says that nearly 5,000 ADA lawsuits were filed in federal court for alleged website violations in the first six months of 2018 and that 10,000 were projected to be filed by year’s end, up 30% from 2017. Those numbers actually refer to all ADA lawsuits for disability discrimination involving public accommodation filed in that period. Of those suits, lawsuits alleging website accessibility violations totaled 1,053 in the first six months, a number that is projected to rise to 2,000 by year’s end, up 90% from 2017.
I am hearing impaired with one hearing aide and a cochlear implant in the other ear. It is becoming increasing harder for me to hear on the phone, in fact I have been texting as my first method of communication. On Tues I had a hearing test done, my hearing loss is progressively getting worse. Must cellular companies offer visual texting FREE to people under ADA? I live in CA. I am certified by the State of CA to be legally deaf.
Specific accessibility barriers that blocked claimants access to the site were a lack of alt text or a text equivalent embedded into graphical images; empty links that cause confusion for users of screen-reading software; redundant links that cause navigation issues and repetition for users of screen-reading software; linked images without alt text to inform the user about the function of the link.
SDG&E is refusing to approve my new residential solar installation because they require a 24″ clearance in all directions for their gas meter located on the side of my house. They refuse to grant a 4″ variance for one of the solar meters which is located about 3 feet above and to the right of gas meter. The encroaching solar meter would have to be moved 30 feet over a fixed stucco wall which would require me to walk all the way around the house instead of 10 feet to the current location. I would also be required to allow 24hr/7 day a week access to the Solar Company, SDG&E and City workers into my side and rear yards which is an unnecessary invasion of my privacy. If they trip and fall or have any accident as a result of an alleged dangerous condition of my property they can sue me outside of their workers comp plan and my home owners insurer will be required to pay and then raise my rates or drop my coverage. Can I ask that SDG&E grant the 4″ variance based on the ADA and the severe osteoarthritis I have in my hips and knees? I have had 4 surgeries so far and soon will need double knee and hip replacement surgeries.
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd.[64] was a case that was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2005. The defendant argued that as a vessel flying the flag of a foreign nation it was exempt from the requirements of the ADA. This argument was accepted by a federal court in Florida and, subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower courts on the basis that Norwegian Cruise Lines was a business headquartered in the United States whose clients were predominantly Americans and, more importantly, operated out of port facilities throughout the United States.
The fact that the California federal courts only had ten website accessibility lawsuits filings in 2018 may be a surprise to some since California continues to lead the pack in the number of all ADA Title III lawsuit filings in federal court.  However, it appears that plaintiffs filed their new cases in state court after a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a website accessibility lawsuit against Dominos’ in 2017.  The Ninth Circuit reversed that dismissal last month, making California federal court an attractive venue for plaintiffs once again.  We predict that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will cause the number of website accessibility lawsuits in California federal courts to increase dramatically in 2019.
It is important to note that the remarks in this document are intended to be informative but they are not a substitute for the requirements of the California Building Code. Also, despite the informative nature of this document, it is the appropriate jurisdictional code official who possesses the exclusive authority to enforce and interpret the requirements of the California Building Code. This document provides informal assistance regarding California accessibility requirements only for DSA's code-enforcement jurisdiction. The information contained in this document is not binding on the Division of the State Architect and is not intended or designed to give any legal advice on compliance with federal, state, or local laws and regulations. It should be noted that laws, regulations, and standards are subject to revisions, additions, or deletions, at any time.
When a property owner hits the 20% cost limitation on path of travel improvements, the jurisdictional entity cannot require further improvements to the path of travel to occur. The property owner should be advised, however, that for older facilities that pre-date the ADA, barrier removal is required by the ADA. Barrier removal, however, will not be enforced by the local jurisdictional entity.
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
3 These standards apply to all CDE web content without regard to who created it, whether it was created by CDE staff, contractors, or any partner of affiliate working on behalf of CDE. Content is considered CDE content, if CDE provides direction for the creation of the content; CDE staff time to develop, approve, or maintain the content, or if non-pass-through state or federal funds distributed by CDE are used to create the content.
Path of travel is a term exclusively used in CBC Chapter 11B within the context of alterations to existing sites (see Section 11B-202.4, including Exception 10). For EVCS projects it only applies where EVCS are installed at existing facilities where vehicle fueling, recharging, parking or storage is a primary function. These types of facilities include gas stations, stand-alone parking lots and stand-alone parking structures (see Section 11B-202.4 Exception 10). When an accessible path of travel is required, an accessible path of travel to the specific area of alteration shall be provided; this path of travel, by definition in Chapter 2 of the CBC, includes a primary entrance to the building or facility, toilet and bathing facilities serving the area of alteration, drinking fountains serving the area of alteration, public telephones serving the area of alteration, and signs as well as accessible routes which connect the area of alteration with site arrival points such as sidewalks, streets, and accessible parking (see CBC Section 11B-202.4). These listed elements – primary entrance, toilet and bathing facilities, drinking fountains, public telephones, signs and site arrival points as well as accessible routes connecting all of them – are sometimes called “path of travel elements.” These elements are required to comply with the current code requirements or be brought into compliance when an alteration occurs. Compliance is required to the maximum extent feasible without exceeding 20 percent of the cost of the work directly associated with the installation of EVCS (see Section 11B-202.4 Exception 10).
×