As background, Title III of the ADA prohibits owners of places of public accommodation (e.g., retail stores) from discriminating against disabled persons. (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).) Circuits are split on whether websites fall within the category of “places of public accommodation,” with the majority of courts agreeing that websites are not subject to Title III “unless some function on the website hinders the full use and enjoyment of a physical space.”

he did not have two hands. Universal allowed only patrons with two hands to ride the Aqua Coaster. Campbell, who was born with only one hand, sued Universal for violating the ADA. Universal argued that it did not violate the ADA because Florida regulations required it to prohibit Campbell from riding. The district court agreed and entered summary judgment for Universal. On July 7, 2023, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding that compliance with state law does not relieve Universal of its obligations under the ADA.Title III of the ADA prohibits entities that provide a public accommodation1 from imposing eligibility criteria that preclude individuals with a disability from enjoying the goods or services of that accommodation. A public accommodation may, however, impose such eligibility criteria if it can show that criteria “to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(i). After a plaintiff in an eligibility criteria case demonstrates that (1) he or she has a disability, (2) the defendant provides a public accommodation, and (3) the defendant uses eligibility criteria to screen out individuals with disabilities, Title III places the burden on provider of the public accommodation to demonstrate that any eligibility criteria are “necessary.”Here, the Eleventh Circuit found that Universal did not meet its burden; Universal failed to demonstrate that excluding patrons who did not have two hands is “necessary.” The ADA does not define “necessary,” but that definition is key to the court’s holding. According to the court, “necessary” includes, but is not limited to, criteria required for legitimate safety reasons.2Universal argued three additional justifications in the definition of “necessary”:(1) compliance with state law,(2) following manufacturers’ recommendations, and(3) administrative feasibility and uniformity. The court disagreed with all three justi

A prudent first step might be to check with your IT vendor, web developer, or other IT professional to ascertain whether your website already meets generally recognized standards for website accessibility.[6] If not, or if you have any questions or concerns about whether your website is ADA-compliant, the better course of action would be to consult with legal counsel or a qualified accessibility consultant who can provide advice that is tailored to your business and that takes into account applicable state and local law, as well as developments in ever-changing case law under the ADA.Notes[1] 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).[2]Id. at § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).[3] 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(f).

ADATitle III of the ADA, enacted in 1990, prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, including those who are blind and vision impaired, in places of public accommodation:No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to) or operates a place of public accommodation.42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Although Title III of the ADA does not provide civil penalties for violations of the ADA, it does permit private rights of action and allows individuals to bring enforcement actions, seek injunctive relief and recover costs and attorney’s fees. 42 U.S.C. § 12188.As originally enacted over 30 years ago, the ADA did not expressly include websites as places of “public accommodation,” principally because the internet was in its infancy at the time.

While many traditional places of public accommodation, such as theaters, stadiums, restaurants, amusement parks, and retail stores, have shut down their operations in response to “shelter in place” and “social distancing” orders issued to prevent the spread of COVID-19, many businesses deemed “essential” by government orders or otherwise continuing operations have adopted sound safety rules designed to keep their employees safe.For the most part, these safety rules are both recommended and lawful, but they are subject to obligations under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) & (iii)) to provide “reasonable modifications” of policies, practices and procedures, or “auxiliary aids and services,” where necessary to provide equal access to persons with disabilities against the regulatory right to implement neutral policies where it would be a “direct threat” to health or safety to modify the practice. In other words, neutral rules must still be weighed against these ADA obligations.Below are answers to some frequently asked questions (FAQs) that businesses have been asking.FAQs for Businesses’ Treatment of Customers During COVID-19 PandemicQuestion 1: What laws govern how a business treats its customer during the pandemic?Answer 1: In addition to any federal, state, or local orders, such as the many “shelter in place” or lockdown orders, businesses should be mindful of their obligations under the ADA and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination in places of public accommodation, and analogous state and local laws that prohibit di

Moreover, the ADA and its implementing regulations do not directly address this issue, and these claims beg other questions. For example, if gift cards must be in braille, as these plaintiffs allege, then what about product tags, labels, or credit cards?The ADA generally provides that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). However, the ADA also contains an exemption “where compliance would ‘fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.’

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals “on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). While the ADA includes an exemption “where compliance would ‘fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden,’”42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)), the applicability of this exemption remains to be seen.

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals “on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). While the ADA includes an exemption “where compliance would ‘fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden,’” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii)), the applicability of this exemption remains to be seen.

at 903-04.3Id. at 907-09.4Id. at 905.5 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)6 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); see also 28 C.F.R. §36.303(a)7See, e.g., Statement of Interest of the United States, Gil v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2017), available at https://www.ada.gov/briefs/winn_dixie_soi.pdf, at 5, citing 42 U.S.C. §12182(a) and 28 C.F.R. §36.201(a).8See, e.g., Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Netflix, Inc., 869 F. Supp. 2d 196, 200 (D. Mass. 2012), citing the First Circuit’s decision in Carparts Distrib.

(Id. at *23) The genesis of the Court’s conclusion is Title III’s mandate that places of public accommodation provide individuals with a disability with the “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). A place of public accommodation violates Title III if it fails to provide auxiliary aids and services – which may be necessary to ensure effective communication for individuals with disabilities – unless it can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods, services, facilities, privileges or would result in an undue burden.