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.
Of the 814 federal cases, New York and Florida led the way with more than 335 and 325 cases, respectively. Surprisingly, California only had nine new website accessibility lawsuits in 2017, most likely because plaintiffs filed in state court.  Federal courts in Arizona (6), Georgia (9), Illinois (10), Massachusetts (15), New Hampshire (2), Michigan (1), New Jersey (4), Ohio (8), Pennsylvania (58), Puerto Rico (1), Texas (7), and Virginia (24) also had their share of website accessibility lawsuits.
Congress, by authorizing the certification of state and local accessibility requirements under Title III, recognized the important role that state and local building codes and standards may play in achieving compliance with the building-related aspects of accessibility. State and local building officials who are involved in plan approval and construction inspection processes may provide important assistance to construction and design professionals through their oversight of the accessibility requirements of a certified state code.
In court, Netflix tried to argue that websites should not be part of ADA compliance regulations, as there is no physical structure / location. They also argued that websites should not be in scope of ADA as there is no public component (the original ADA compliance law specifically called out that ADA rules apply primarily to services, locations, and products that are supposed to be open to the public).

In court, Netflix tried to argue that websites should not be part of ADA compliance regulations, as there is no physical structure / location. They also argued that websites should not be in scope of ADA as there is no public component (the original ADA compliance law specifically called out that ADA rules apply primarily to services, locations, and products that are supposed to be open to the public).


Tags: 2.0, 2019, AB 434, accessibility, Assembly Bill, blind, California, deaf, Department of Justice, Director of Technology, Government Code, Government Entity, Governor, hard of hearing, Inactive List, Jerry Brown, July 1, legislation, Rehabilitation Act, Section 11546.7, Section 508, Section 7405, State Agency, State Entity, Visually Impaired, WCAG, WCAG 2.0 AA, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, website
ADA compliance isn’t a set-it-and-forget-it thing. Compliance standards must be followed and will evolve just as your website does. There are guidelines all website contributors must know to stay within ADA guidelines. It is generally not burdensome but it does require some web managers to change their workflows. For example, loading images up to your ecommerce site will always need some of that alternative text (alt tags) mentioned above.
The 30 minute time limit applies to drive-up EVCS of any type. This design option allows brief charging and queuing for charging service, and does not consider that batteries will be charged to full capacity. Where DCFC or any other type of charging is intended for use longer than 30 minutes, EVCS may be provided in regular parking-style vehicle spaces.
Accessible route is a fundamental term used to describe, “A continuous unobstructed path connecting accessible elements and spaces of an accessible site, building or facility that can be negotiated by a person with a disability using a wheelchair, and that is also safe for and usable by persons with other disabilities…” In short, we can think of it as the ground surface which allows travel by wheelchair. The technical requirements are in CBC Chapter 11B Divisions 3 (Building Blocks) and 4 (Accessible Route). EVCS required by CBC Chapter 11B to be accessible must have an accessible route to the facility entrance (see CBC Section 11B-812.5.1) and an accessible route from the vehicle space to the EVSE (see CBC Section 11B-812.5.2). No exceptions are provided but you can use existing accessible routes to help satisfy these requirements.
In 2017, lawsuits against companies for ADA website compliance were not nearly as common and based on this article, you can see that lawyers had to prove that the web presence was closely related to Winn-Dixie’s physical location. Nowadays, we are seeing that websites are being held to the same standards as physical locations as it relates to ADA. Websites are now a public space.
We have some accessibility issues with the sidewalks and telephone poles that are in the center of the walks. This does not allow for a wheelchair to travel on the sidewalk. Also, the walks have huge cracks so there are different levels in the walk. In addition, at one point wheel chairs must circumvent blockage by traveling into the street which has a 45 mph speed limit. Is there a source to let the city know they need to do corrections? Is this an ADA non-compliance issue?

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 finishing construction of an 18 unit apartment building in the City of Los Angeles. I have an ADA compliant lift going up/down the handrail for the entrance to the building. When down, all of the mechanical equipment is on may property but the lift platform encroaches the City sidewalk during ingress/egress. The lift is stored at the top when not in use, so the only time of encroachment is in the down position.
Is there anyone who can help from the ADA? It does not make sense to me that just because we are on private property that the policy will not ticket these violators. Is there anything the ADA can do to help my HOA realize that we are asking for the most basic of safety and access rights in our community by providing at the minimum a safe and clear path to walk on instead of being forced to walk in a weaving pattern being forced into the street and around cars parked across sidewalks?

I am in a wheelchair. I have to go to my local hospital (in California) for some outpatient services. My problem is that I cannot open the rest room door from the hallway into the bathroom or from inside the bathroom back out into the hallway. It’s the same with every bathroom accessible to the public. There isn’t any type of automatic device for opening the door to get into or out of the bathroom. If I’m by myself, I have to wait for someone to come along to open the door for me. Once inside the bathrooms, the stalls and the sinks are accessible. It’s getting into and out of the bathrooms that is a problem. I know other people have the same problem. But nothing has ever been done in response to complaints. Are hospitals exempt from the ADA?
The question of ADA’s exact wording comes down to two issues: 1) whether the ADA applies to a website at all, and 2) if ADA applies only to websites that have a physical connection to goods and services available at a physical store or location, or if it applies to all websites even if they don’t have physical spaces. Courts are split on these issues but one thing is for certain: the tide is moving toward ADA compliance for websites, and the lack of specific legal wording prohibiting web discrimination has not stopped businesses from being sued.
The lack of regulations here has led to the absolute worst-case scenario. People with disabilities have not been served since most companies are unaware this is an issue. Most don’t even realize this is something they have to consider until they receive a demand letter. That has certainly been the case for some of my clients. This leads to a scramble to get compliant. Unfortunately, it can take up to a year to do so depending on the complexity of the site. Meanwhile, plaintiffs’ attorneys across the country are taking advantage of the confusion. More than 260 website accessibility lawsuits were filed in 2016, and significantly more were filed by the end of 2017. But these numbers do not even begin to cover the cases that are settled pre-litigation.
If the lift encroaches into the City’s property (presuming they allow that), my concern is less regarding an ADA issue and more regarding a potential tripping hazard when the lift is down. WE have on occasion, when a temporary ramp is used to provide access over a single step, also used orange traffic cones to alert pedestrians about a potential tripping hazard.
Claims: The Department of Justice launched an investigation into the NMCP’s compliance with title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and found that it failed to make all of its exhibits, public programs and other offerings accessible to individuals with disabilities; failed to provide necessary auxiliary aids and services to ensure efficient interaction with people with disabilities.
In April of 2011, the DOJ reached a settlement with Law School Admission Council (LSAC). A complaint was brought by the National Federation of the Blind claiming, in part, that barriers on the www.lsac.org website made it impossible for blind students to register for the LSAT. The DOJ joined in this lawsuit and is a signatory to the settlement agreement wherein LSAC agreed to provide “Full and Equal Access” to the lsac.org website, no later than September 1, 2011.  “Full and Equal Access” meant that “www.lsac.org meets the nonvisual requirements of WCAG 2.0, level AA and that blind guests using screen-reader software may acquire the same information and engage in the same transactions as are available to sighted guests with substantially equivalent ease of use.”
Claims: The Department of Justice launched an investigation into the NMCP’s compliance with title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and found that it failed to make all of its exhibits, public programs and other offerings accessible to individuals with disabilities; failed to provide necessary auxiliary aids and services to ensure efficient interaction with people with disabilities.
×