Legal precedent is changing, and ADA compliance related lawsuits are becoming more successful, and the courts are seeing more of them as a result. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act pertains to private sector businesses. Lately, those protections are more frequently expanding into digital territory as web and mobile applications become more necessary in our day-to-day lives.
For instance, if you have a video that displays the benefits of your product, but it doesn’t have captions, then people who are deaf or hard of hearing will not get to find out how great your product is. The same goes for when you have images with no alternate text. The point of the alternate text is to allow screen reading tools to describe the image to someone who is blind, so if you don’t have that text, some of your audience will miss out. Similarly, it’s important to ensure your website is fully accessible without a mouse so that people with physical limitations can use it.
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.

Settlements like these were entered into across the country, and 2015 included: edX, Inc. and Carnival Cruise Lines (Carnival Corp.). Needless to say, by the mid to early 2010s, the DOJ were well aware of website accessibility issues and knew exactly where it stood on these issues. In the fall of 2014, the DOJ issued a Statement of Regulatory Priorities stating, “the Department received approximately 440 public comments and is in the process of reviewing these comments… the Department plans to follow with the publication of the title III NPRM in the third quarter of fiscal year 2015.” That did not happen. Rather, in the fall of 2015, the DOJ decided to “extend the time period for development of the proposed Title III Web site accessibility rule and include it among its long-term rulemaking priorities. The Department expects to publish Title III Web site accessibility NPRM during fiscal year 2018.” In 2016, the DOJ requested additional public comment. And this year, the Trump Administration placed the DOJ’s rulemakings under Titles II and III of the ADA for websites, medical equipment, and furniture of public accommodations and state and local governments on the 2017 Inactive Actions list.
While an ADA retaliation claim does not warrant compensatory and punitive damages, lawyers are able to pursue compensation for their client’s legal fees, which may range from such amounts as $25,000 to astonishing digits. The court may also issue an injunction for the defendant to make their website accessible to people with disabilities by a specified date. In other cases, the defendant may be forced to pay a civil penalty.
Government Code §11546.7 – The requirement that state agency heads certify, every two years, that their agency’s website meets the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, Version 2.0 or a subsequent version, at Level AA or higher, and the requirements of Sections 11135 and 7405 of the Government Code. Created by AB 434 (Baker, Chapter 780, Statutes of 2017), and sometimes referred to as AB 434.
If your website is not already ADA compliant, you are automatically missing out on millions of potential customers who cannot access your site due to their disabilities. In fact, there are nearly 50 million people with disabilities in the U.S., which means about 19 percent of this country has a disability. Many of them might be interested in your products or services, but once they arrive at your website, they won't be able to navigate easily enough to buy anything or even contact you, all because your website is only accessible to people without disabilities. Thus, they may move on to your competitors.

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.
Barden v. The City of Sacramento, filed in March 1999, claimed that the City of Sacramento failed to comply with the ADA when, while making public street improvements, it did not bring its sidewalks into compliance with the ADA. Certain issues were resolved in Federal Court. One issue, whether sidewalks were covered by the ADA, was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that sidewalks were a "program" under ADA and must be made accessible to persons with disabilities. The ruling was later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case, letting stand the ruling of the 9th Circuit Court.[62][63]
Mention ADA compliance to many web developers and you may encounter a blank stare. First, find an agency working with the web platform or framework you use and ask about how their development workflow addresses accessibility. Most platforms have a partner directory. From there, you can start vetting agencies for their actual experience with web accessibility.
An "adaptable dwelling unit" is a dwelling unit in a building with a building entrance on an accessible route designed in such a manner that the public and common use areas are readily accessible to and usable by a person with a disability, and all doors are designed sufficiently wide to allow passage into and within all premises by persons who use wheelchairs as required by the building code.
The CBC Chapter 11B accessibility requirements for EVCS do not distinguish between the different EVCS standards like those listed. However, building officials may view different types of service as separate facilities. Where different types of EVCS service are provided at a location, the code enforcement official must determine the applicability of Table 11B-228.3.2.1.
It is the intent of the California Legislature that the building standards published in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) relating to accessibility by people with disabilities shall be used as minimum requirements to ensure that buildings, structures, and related facilities are accessible to, and functional for, every member of the public, so as to provide equal opportunity to access public accommodations. Access is to be provided to, through, and within the buildings, without loss of function, space, or facility where the general public is concerned.
There is some confusion about whether the “accessible path” that is required means there must be an accessible path from the EVSE (charger) to the facility/building at which the station is installed, or whether the accessible path is just from the parking spot to the EVSE (charger). If the prior is enforced, it could increase the costs of installing EVSE in some instances. What is the correct interpretation of “accessible path”?
I own a condo in Anaheim Ca. My son has recently become handicapped and in a wheelchair. We have handicap parking and visitor parking. But we have No Ramps or other ways for handcap people to get to the condo’s. I have asked the HOA at a meeting if we could install a temporary ramp in a common area so our son can be able to get in and out of our condo in the case of an emergency. I had a company build us a 2 ramps. One for our porch, and one for the common area. It was built to as close to code as possible with the length of walk way we had. They allowed us to keep the porch ramp and denied the common area ramp. They said it was not safe. And told us we can’t install the ramp because it isn’t safe. I paid to have these ramps made and they haven’t even seen the ramp or inspected the ramp. Just said no. What can I do? Terry
It’s great that the building has multiple access points – but it’s difficult to comment on the sidewalk that’s not compliant, without knowing what the compliance issues are and the normal function that the sidewalk performs. Does the sidewalk, for instance, provide a path of travel from accessible parking stalls, or a path of travel from the street? If you want to send a sketch or photo to [email protected], we’ll be happy to take a look at it.
It is important to remember that a disability placard or special license plate with an ISA can be issued to a driver or passenger for a disability that does not necessitate the use of a wheelchair or mobility device; therefore it is incorrect to assume that an accessible EVCS will be underutilized, because disability placard holders may have an electric vehicle or may purchase one in the near future.
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.
At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks, to the accessible building entrance they serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, facilities, elements and spaces that are on the same site.

For the next few months I corresponded with this housing authority, until I caught the attention of the regional manager, likely because I registered his letter. He called and asked to visit, upon his arrival, accompanied by our maintenance person, who having seen the pictures and the stove above the countertop, still maintained all the countertops are the same height. The R/M inspected this anomaly and the maintenance man still stated the countertops are all the same, I said no they are not and the R/M turned and asked which were not, I told him which apt my friend lived in and he headed that way. When he returned he stated I was correct and he would see about fixing this mistake and the maintenance person apologized. I never heard back from him, one day I found him in the hallway and asked what is the plan and he stated that I needed to put in a request for a reasonable accommodation, which makes no sense, in my reasoning all of ADA constitutes a reasonable accommodation, however, I did not nor would I request it. Furthermore, had I known they were going to do this I would not be on this blog?
Parking requirements for multi-unit residential buildings vary depending on when the building was constructed / first occupied, who owns the building, and whether public money funded construction of the building. In general, if your building was originally occupied after 3/13/91, then the requirements of the California Building Code Chapter 11A apply.
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.
×