Tag: ADA

EEOC: What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws, today updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.” This Technical Assistance is intended to help employers address practical issues that may arise in their day-to-day operations and oversight of their employees as they return to work in the context of COVID-19. The EEOC has consistently reminded employers that the federal anti-discrimination laws continue to apply during the pandemic and that these laws do not interfere with the guidance issued by public health authorities, including the CDC.

What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws

The EEOC’s previously issued Technical Assistance discussed critical issues such as disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, confidentiality of medical information, and hiring and onboarding during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the EEOC provided detailed guidance on handling reasonable accommodations during the pandemic. In this newly issued Technical Assistance, the EEOC focuses in even further on these and related issues, and provides an analysis of common topics that many employers have been or will be facing as employees are preparing to return to work.

The updated questions and answers include topics such as: whether an employee is entitled to an accommodation under the ADA to avoid exposing a family member who is at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19; whether reasonable accommodations are required during the process of screening employees before they enter the worksite; whether employees age 65 or older, who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19, can be involuntarily excluded from the workplace based on their age; whether pregnant employees can be involuntarily excluded from the workplace due to their pregnancy and, relatedly, whether there is a right to accommodation based on pregnancy during the pandemic. In addition, the updated Technical Assistance discusses steps employers can take to prevent and address possible harassment and discrimination that may arise related to the pandemic, particularly as against employees who are or perceived to be Asian.

EEOC Technical Assistance Questions and Answers

Employers should review this newly issued Technical Assistance from the EEOC so that they are prepared to address these issues if they arise as businesses are re-opening and employees are returning to the workplace.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

For more on EEOC COVID-19 guidance, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

What Employers Need to Know About HIPAA

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect everyday business operations across the country, employers are confronting a variety of issues on how to handle these disruptions. The intent of this Legal Update is to educate employers about under what circumstances they are permitted to disclose information related to an employee’s or patient’s positive test for COVID-19 under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

It may be difficult in some circumstances to discern whether health information was received by an employer through its ordinary status as an employer or through its status as a self-insured health plan. Employers should take care in making this determination based on the facts and circumstances of each situation and seek legal counsel as needed.

Covered Entities under HIPAA

  • HIPAA defines “Covered Entities” to generally include health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses.

  • Covered Entities may not disclose protected health information (“PHI”) unless permitted by HIPAA. An individual’s health status related to testing positive for COVID-19 is considered PHI.

  • One permitted disclosure under HIPAA is that Covered Entities may disclose PHI to public health authorities to the extent relevant to the authority and purview of public health authorities. This includes disclosing positive test results for COVID-19 to state and local health departments, HHS, or the CDC as appropriate.

  • Covered Entities may not disclose PHI to the media.

  • Unless an employer is otherwise a Covered Entity as described above, it is not subject to HIPAA’s restrictions on disclosures of PHI.

Confidentiality under the ADA

  • The ADA requires employers that obtain medical information through inquiry or examination to maintain it in a confidential medical file and keep it separate from the employee’s personnel file.

  • Employers have been encouraged by the CDC and EEOC to question their employees regarding travel, exposure, or symptoms related to COVID-19. Any medical information disclosed as part of this dialogue should be treated as confidential.

  • If a positive case is identified in the workplace, the employer is encouraged to investigate the exposure of others in the workplace without disclosing the name of the individual or any personally identifiable information about the person.

  • The confidentiality requirements under the ADA do not prohibit disclosure to state, local, or federal health departments.

Employers with a Self-Insured Health Plan

  • Notwithstanding the discussion above regarding employers, a self-insured employee health plan maintained by an employer is a Covered Entity under HIPAA (i.e. the plan itself, not the employer, although we acknowledge this distinction is difficult to make for most employers). As a result:

    • If the employer obtained the information through its status as a plan (i.e., as the payer for the employee’s health care services), then such information is PHI and subject to HIPAA (see first bullet above for Covered Entities).

    • If the employer receives the information in the ordinary course (e.g. voluntary disclosure by the affected employee), then the second bullet above regarding employer permitted disclosures is applicable.

©2020 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

Indiana Federal Court Gives Frostbitten ADA Plaintiff The Cold Shoulder

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana recently granted summary judgment on behalf of a logistics employer in a case alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court found that because the plaintiff employee could not work in the freezer area of his employer’s warehouse, as was required for his job, he failed to establish that he was a “qualified individual” with a disability.

In Pryor v. Americold Logistics, LLC, the defendant employer operates a cold-storage warehouse that “provides temperature-controlled food warehousing and distribution services,” with “five cooler rooms, two freezer rooms, a loading dock, a designated battery-changing room, and a small office.” The plaintiff was a Lift Truck Operator (LTO) who filled orders by picking items from the various rooms of the warehouse and wrapping them on a skid for pickup by another employee. He had previously “suffered severe frostbite on his left hand after he spent three-quarters of a shift in the freezer with defective gloves,” and due to his prior frostbite “exposure to the freezer’s extreme cold caused pain and risked further injury.”

After treatment (and intervening stints of alternate duty), the plaintiff employee “reached maximum medical improvement” and was put on “a permanent restriction of exposure to the freezer for no more than thirty minutes per workday.” The plaintiff’s LTO role, however, required nearly constant exposure to subzero temperatures. When the plaintiff did not return from leave, he was terminated.

The plaintiff alleged that his employer “discriminated against him by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation for his disability and by terminating his employment.” The employer argued that the plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because “he could not perform the essential duties of an LTO with or without a reasonable accommodation.” The district court held that the plaintiff had not “presented sufficient evidence that he was able to perform the essential functions of his job with a reasonable accommodation,” and thus granted summary judgement in favor of the employer.

The court explained the employer’s judgment as to which job functions are essential is entitled to consideration. And with regard to the essential functions of the LTO role, the court found that the LTO role required “substantial exposure to freezer temperatures” each workday. The court explained that, because the plaintiff admittedly could not work in the freezer for more than thirty minutes per day, “he could not perform the essential functions of his LTO order selector position without reasonable accommodation.” He was thus a “‘qualified individual’ under the ADA only if he could perform the essential functions with reasonable accommodation.”

As for the question of what a reasonable accommodation might entail, the plaintiff argued that he could have been reassigned to a non-freezer position, a temporary “cooler-only” position, or a position in the loading dock or office. However, the court stated, “it is the plaintiff’s burden to show that a vacant position exists for which he was qualified.” The court explained that the ADA does not require an employer to “create a new position or transfer another employee to create a vacancy,” or to “transfer a disabled employee to a temporary position on a permanent basis.”

Ultimately, with regard “cooler-only” positions, the court held that the plaintiff failed to identify any vacancies, and noted that pursuant to a union contract, those positions had to be filled according to seniority. With regard to the vacant loading dock or office positions, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he was qualified. Thus, the court held that the plaintiff failed “to create a genuine issue of material fact whether reassignment was a reasonable accommodation,” and summary judgement in favor of the employer was appropriate.

The key takeaways from the Pryor decision for employers facing ADA claims are that employees must still be able to perform the essential functions of their job, and that courts should consider the employer’s determination of which job functions are essential. Moreover, the Pryor decision reaffirms that the ADA does not require employers to create positions or vacancies as part of the interactive process.

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
For more ADA cases, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Seventh Circuit: ADA Does Not Prohibit Discrimination Based on Future Impairments

On October 29, 2019, railway operator Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (“BNSF”) prevailed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit – which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin – in a case in which the company argued that its refusal to hire an obese candidate due to an unacceptably high risk that the applicant would develop certain obesity-related medical conditions incompatible with the position sought did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).

Ronald Shell applied for a job with BNSF as a machine operator position.  Per its standard practice when the applied-for position is safety-sensitive, as was the heavy equipment operator position sought by Shell, BNSF required him to undergo a medical examination.  During the medical examination, the examiner determined that Shell’s body mass index (“BMI”) was 47.  BNSF had a practice of refusing to hire individuals with a BMI higher than 40 for safety-sensitive positions.  In Shell’s case, the employer expressed concern that his obesity, although not causing any present disability, would cause Shell disabilities in the future, such as sleep apnea, diabetes, and heart disease.  BNSF asserted that this risk was significant because a sudden onset of any of these conditions could be catastrophic for a heavy machine operator.  BNSF therefore did not place Shell in the position.

Shell sued, arguing that he was “disabled” under the ADA’s definition of that term because BNSF had “regarded him as” having a disability.  The ADA not only protects individuals who are actually disabled or have a record of being disabled, but also protects individuals who have been subjected to an adverse employment action because of an actual or perceived physical impairment, whether or not that impairment substantially limits a major life activity.  Shell argued that by refusing to hire him based on the risk of future disabilities that he was at risk of as a result of his obesity, BNSF essentially treated him as though he currently had those conditions.

The Court ruled that the ADA does not protect non-disabled employees from discrimination based on a risk of future impairments.  The Court cited precedent from the Eighth Circuit, where BNSF also faced challenges to its practice of refusing to hire obese applicants due to the risk of future impairments.  The Eighth Circuit, like the Ninth and Tenth Circuits, also has held that the statutory language of the ADA does not protect non-disabled individuals who have a risk of disability in the future.

Of note, Shell also argued at the trial court level that his obesity constituted an actual disability, rendering BNSF’s refusal to hire him based on this characteristic a violation of the ADA for this reason as well.  However, as you may recall from our blog post from earlier this year, just a few months ago, the Seventh Circuit addressed this argument in another case, Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority, and held that obesity, by itself, is not a disability for purposes of the ADA unless it is caused by an underlying physiological disorder.  Shell did not present any evidence in his case of such an underlying disorder, and thus could not, therefore, claim that he was actually disabled.  Notably, the federal appellate courts are split on this issue, which may tee it up for consideration by the United States Supreme Court in the future.  In contrast, among the appeals courts that have addressed the issue of future disabilities, all have agreed, thus far, that the ADA’s reach does not extend to potential or likely future disabilities of currently non-disabled individuals.

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more ADA litigation, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

ADA Website Litigation Likely to Increase

There has been considerable confusion amongst business owners as to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as it relates to websites. The ADA requires, among other things, that places of “public accommodation” remove barriers to access for people with disabilities. This law has long been understood to apply to brick-and-mortar establishments, such as restaurants, retail stores, and hotels, but recent court decisions have held that the ADA applies to the websites and mobile applications of businesses offering goods and services online.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), which is responsible for establishing regulations pursuant to the ADA, has thus far failed to issue any guidance, regulations, or technical standards for online platforms, resulting in uncertainty for many business owners. Many have looked to the case of Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC   for potential guidance. Robles was filed by a blind man who claimed that he could not access the Domino’s website and mobile app with his screen-reading software. The District Court dismissed the case on the basis that, although the ADA applied to the website and app, the DOJ’s failure to provide guidance as to the ADA’s application to websites violated Domino’s due process rights. The Ninth Circuit reversed this ruling, and on October 7, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition by Domino’s Pizza asking the Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Ninth Circuit decision maintains the uncertainty in what will no doubt be an expanding field of litigation. Business owners should expect to see an increase in ADA website litigation, and should take steps to ensure that their websites and mobile apps are accessible to disabled users.

 

© 2010-2019 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

ARTICLE BY Rachel M. Sanders of Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP.
More website regulation on the National Law Review Internet, Communications & Media law page.

To Stalk or Not to Stalk . . . That Is the Question – Using Social Media for Applicant Review

Now more than ever, employers are using social media to screen job applicants. According to a 2018 survey, 70 percent of employers use social media to research candidates. Using social media to research job applicants can provide you with useful information, but it can also get you into trouble.

When you review an applicant’s social media account, such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, etc., you may learn information regarding the applicant’s race, sex, religion, national origin, or age, among other characteristics.

As our readers are aware, a variety of state and federal laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit employers from choosing not to hire a candidate based on a number of legally protected classes. Just as it would be unlawful to ask an applicant if he or she has a disability during an interview and fail to hire that applicant based on his or her disability, it would also be illegal not to hire an applicant because you observed a Facebook post in which she expressed her hope to be pregnant within the next six months.

Consider the following best practice tips for using social media to screen applicants:

  1. Develop a Policy and Be Consistent – Implement a policy detailing which social media websites you will review, the purpose of the review and type of information sought, at what stage the review will be conducted, and how much time you will spend on the search. Applying these policies consistently will help to combat claims of discriminatory hiring practices should they arise.
  2. Document Your Findings – Save what you find, whether it is a picture or a screenshot of a comment the applicant made. What you find on social media can disappear as easily as you found it. Protect your decision by documenting what you find. In case the matter is litigated, it can be produced later.
  3. Wait Until After the Initial Interview – Avoid performing a social media screening until after the initial interview. It is much easier to defend a decision not to interview or hire an applicant if you do not have certain information early on.
  4. Follow FCRA Requirements – If you decide to use a third party to perform social media screening services, remember that these screenings are likely subject to the Fair Credit Reporting Act requirements because the screening results constitute a consumer report. This means the employer will be required to: 1) inform the applicant of the results that are relevant to its decision not to hire; 2) provide the applicant with the relevant social media document; 3) provide the applicant notice of his or her rights under the FCRA and; 4) allow the applicant to rebut the information before making a final decision.
  5. Do Not Ask for Their Password – Many states have enacted laws that prohibit an employer from requesting or requiring applicants to provide their login credentials for their social media and other internet accounts. Although some states still allow this, the best practice is not to ask for it. Further, while it is not illegal to friend request a job applicant, proceed with caution. Friend requesting a job applicant (and assuming the applicant accepts the request) may provide you with greater access to the applicant’s personal life. Many people categorize portions of their profiles as private, thereby protecting specific information from the public’s view. If you receive access to this information you may gain more knowledge regarding the applicant’s protected characteristics. If you are going to friend request applicants, you should include this in your written policy and apply this practice across the board.

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP

More information for employers considering job applicants on the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Practical Tips and Tools for Maintaining ADA-Compliant Websites

Title III of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990, prohibits discrimination against disabled individuals in “places of public accommodation”—defined broadly to include private entities that offer commercial services to the public. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Under the ADA, disabled individuals are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, and accommodations offered by a place of public accommodation. Id. § 12182(a). To comply with the law, places of public accommodation must take steps to “ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals.” Id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).

In the years immediately following the enactment of the ADA, the majority of lawsuits alleging violations of Title III arose as a result of barriers that prevented disabled individuals from accessing brick-and-mortar businesses (i.e., a lack of wheelchair ramps or accessible parking spaces). However, the use of the Internet to transact business has become virtually ubiquitous since the ADA’s passage almost 30 years ago. As a result, lawsuits under Title III have proliferated in recent years against private businesses whose web sites are inaccessible to individuals with disabilities. Indeed, the plaintiffs’ bar has formed something of a cottage industry in recent years, with numerous firms devoted to issuing pre-litigation demands to a large number of small to mid-sized businesses, alleging that the businesses’ web sites are not ADA-accessible. The primary purpose of this often-effective strategy is to swiftly obtain a large volume of monetary settlements without incurring the costs of initiating litigation.

Yet despite this upsurge in web site accessibility lawsuits—actual and threatened—courts have not yet reached a consensus on whether the ADA even applies to web sites. As discussed above, Title III of the ADA applies to “places of public accommodation.” A public accommodation is a private entity that offers commercial services to the public. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). The First, Second, and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that web sites can be a “place of public accommodation” without any connection to a brick-and-mortar store.1 However, the Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals have suggested that Title III applies only if there is a “nexus” between the goods or services offered to the public and a brick-and-mortar location.2 In other words, in the latter group of Circuits, a business that operates solely through the Internet and has no customer-facing physical location may be under no obligation to make its web site accessible to users with disabilities.

To make matters even less certain, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has established a uniform set of standards for maintaining an accessible web site. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has, for years, signaled its intent to publish specific guidance regarding uniform standards for web site accessibility under the ADA. However, to date, the DOJ has not published such guidance and, given the agency’s present priorities, it is unlikely that it will issue such guidance in the near future. Accordingly, courts around the country have been called on to address whether specific web sites provide sufficient access to disabled users. In determining the standards for ADA compliance, several courts have cited to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1, Level AA (or its predecessor, WCAG 2.0), a series of web accessibility guidelines published by World Wide Web Consortium, a nonprofit organization formed to develop uniform international standards across the Internet. While not law, the WCAG simply contain recommended guidelines for businesses regarding how their web sites can be developed to be accessible to users with disabilities. In the absence of legal requirements, however, businesses lack clarity on what, exactly, is required to comply with the ADA.

Nevertheless, given the proliferation of lawsuits in this area, businesses that sell goods or services through their web sites or have locations across multiple jurisdictions should take concrete steps to audit their web sites and address any existing accessibility barriers.

Several online tools exist which allow users to conduct free, instantaneous audits of any URL, such as those offered at https://tenon.io/ and https://wave.webaim.org/. However, companies should be aware that the reports generated by such tools can be under-inclusive in that they may not address every accessibility benchmark in WCAG 2.1. The reports also can be over-inclusive and identify potential accessibility issues that would not prevent disabled users from fully accessing and using a site. Accordingly, companies seeking to determine their potential exposure under Title III should engage experienced third-party auditors to conduct individualized assessments of their web sites. Effective audits typically involve an individual tester attempting to use assistive technology, such as screen readers, to view and interact with the target site. Businesses also should regularly re-audit their web sites, as web accessibility allegations often arise in connection with web sites which may have been built originally to be ADA-compliant, but have fallen out of compliance due to content additions or updates.

Companies building new web sites, updating existing sites, or creating remediation plans should consider working with web developers familiar and able to comply with the WCAG 2.1 criteria. While no federal court has held that compliance with WCAG 2.1 is mandatory under Title III, several have recognized the guidelines as establishing a sufficient level of accessibility for disabled users.3 Businesses engaging new web developers to design or revamp their sites should ask specific questions regarding the developers’ understanding of and ability to comply with WCAG 2.1 in the site’s development, and should memorialize any agreements regarding specific accessibility benchmarks with the web developer in writing.

1 See Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New England, Inc., 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994) (“By including ‘travel service’ among the list of services considered ‘public accommodations,’ Congress clearly contemplated that ‘service establishments’ include providers of services which do not require a person to physically enter an actual physical structure.”); Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 381, 393 (E.D.N.Y. 2017); Doe v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1999).

2 See Peoples v. Discover Fin. Servs., Inc., 387 F. App’x 179, 183 (3d Cir. 2010) (“Our court is among those that have taken the position that the term is limited to physical accommodations”) (citation omitted); Parker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1010-11 (6th Cir. 1997); Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000); Haynes v. Dunkin’ Donuts LLC, 741 F. App’x 752, 754 (11th Cir. 2018) (“It appears that the website is a service that facilitates the use of Dunkin’ Donuts’ shops, which are places of public accommodation.”).

3 See, e.g. Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898, 907 (9th Cir. 2019) (holding that failure to comply with WCAG is not a per se violation of the ADA, but that trial courts “can order compliance with WCAG 2.0 as an equitable remedy if, after discovery, the website and app fail to satisfy the ADA.”).

© 2019 Vedder Price
This article was written by Margaret G. Inomata and Harrison Thorne of Vedder Price.
For more web-related legal issues, see the National Law Review Communications, Media & Internet law page.

When Good Sites Go Bad: The Growing Risk of Website Accessibility Litigation

For a growing number of companies, websites are not only a valuable asset, but also a potential liability risk. In recent years, the number of website accessibility lawsuits has significantly increased, where plaintiffs with disabilities allege that they could not access websites because they were incompatible with assistive technologies, like screen readers for the visually impaired.

If you have never asked yourself whether your website is “accessible,” or think that this issue doesn’t apply to your company, read on to learn why website accessibility litigation is on the rise, what actions lawmakers and the courts are taking to try to stem the tide, how to manage litigation risk, what steps you can take to bring your company’s website into compliance, and how to handle customer feedback on issues of accessibility.

The Growing Risk of Website Accessibility Litigation

In recent years, there has been a nationwide explosion of website accessibility lawsuits as both individual lawsuits and class actions. Plaintiffs have brought these claims in federal court under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and, in some cases, under similar state and local laws as well. In 2018, the number of federally-filed website accessibility cases skyrocketed to 2,285, up from 815 in the year prior. In the first half of 2019, these cases have increased 51.7% over the prior year’s comparable six-month period, with total filings for 2019 on pace to break last year’s record by reaching over 3,200.

Why Website Accessibility Litigation is on the Rise

The ADA was enacted in 1990 to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities in locations generally open to the public (known as public accommodations). The ADA specified the duties of businesses and property owners to make their locations accessible for people with disabilities, but it was enacted before conducting business transactions over the internet became commonplace. With the rapid growth of internet use, lawsuits emerged arguing that websites were places of public accommodation under the meaning of the ADA.

These claims have presented serious questions about whether, when, and how website owners must comply with the ADA. There is no legislation that directly sets out the technical requirements for website accessibility. And while the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has stated that “the ADA applies to public accommodations’ websites,” it has not clarified exactly what standards websites must meet to comply with the law. In the absence of clear guidance, courts considering the question have frequently looked to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), first developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in 1999, but most recently updated in 2018.

In 2017, federal district courts in Florida and New York ruled that business websites failing to meet WCAG guidelines can violate Title III of the ADA, opening the door for litigants to bring an onslaught of claims in these courts. As a result, the rate at which these suits have been filed has skyrocketed, especially in New York and Florida, reaching businesses based throughout the U.S. and internationally. With the pace of these suits showing no signs of slowing, it is critical that every business operating a website consider how to manage the growing risk of litigation.

A Future Fix?
Some recent developments suggest that lawmakers or courts may soon stem the tide.  Congress may decide to enact precise standards, or the DOJ might give clarification or promulgate new rules. At the state level, lawmakers in New York have announced plans to address website accessibility suits based on an outcry from the business community.

Recent decisions in the Southern District of New York and the Fourth Circuit suggest that companies can successfully move to dismiss accessibility suits after mooting claims by taking swift remedial action or by showing that the plaintiff was neither eligible nor in a location to receive the goods or services provided on the website. In addition, the Eleventh Circuit and the Supreme Court may soon weigh in on whether Title III of the ADA categorically applies to all websites and apps.

How to Manage Litigation Risk for Website Accessibility

Knowing your level of exposure is an important first step. Individual risk is currently based on three factors:

  • Location: Brick and mortar locations, the delivery of products, or the performance of services in New York or Florida heighten a company’s exposure.
  • Industry: The present trend shows that retail, food service, hospitality, banking, entertainment industries, and educational institutions are especially at risk.
  • Current website structure: Sites with e-commerce functions or purchased from third-party developers not currently in compliance with WCAG standards are popular targets.

Unfortunately, it is often difficult to predict the cost and complexity of bringing a website into WCAG compliance-based simply on viewing it. An audit of the source code is often required. That said, you can start with a review of your site and develop plans and processes for accessibility. The first steps can include:

  • Assess current compliance: Use free online tools like wave and chrome vox and/or enlist a third-party audit to help you understand your current level of accessibility.
  • Plan for future compliance: Create an overall plan for achieving accessibility on a timeline that makes business sense.
  • Take immediate action: Adopt first-step improvements that can be implemented immediately, and create a process for considering accessibility before all future implementations.

Bringing your business into compliance with WCAG web standards does not need to be a standalone project. By integrating accessibility into regular updates, redesigns, and new pages, you can make meaningful improvements as part of your existing process. And if you don’t have a process for ongoing maintenance and updates on your website, consider whether your website is still looking fresh and modern and if it is still an accurate expression of your corporate brand.

Include in-house and third-party development teams as stakeholders in the process. Make accessibility a discussion in all new engagements and set expectations for accessibility going forward for new and existing teams:

  • Increase accessibility awareness: Make accessibility the topic of the next all-hands meeting with all stakeholders.
  • Ask third-party developers and vendors: Specifically, discuss your website’s current accessibility and which site options are readily available.
  • Integrate accessibility in projects: Ensure that agreements for ongoing and future site additions and upgrades incorporate accessibility. Seek representations, ask about compliance levels, and consider seeking warranties and indemnification.

Good customer care is always good business, but making thoughtful use of feedback on your website is a critical step to reducing your risk of an accessibility lawsuit. Everyone on the customer care team should be trained on the risk posed by non-compliance, and they should be empowered to carefully consider and respond to website feedback. The development team should also ensure that the site, whatever its level of WCAG compliance:

  • Encourages feedback: Provide a way for users to give feedback on and receive assistance with accessibility.
  • Supports engagement with feedback: Document, consider, and carefully respond to user feedback.
  • Reflects expert input: When receiving feedback, notices, complaints, or threatened litigation, consult with legal counsel and website accessibility experts as early as possible to ensure that your next steps limit potential liability.

Website accessibility is a fast-moving area of law that is primed for reform. With an increasing number of conflicting decisions and the possibility of new legislation or Supreme Court guidance, we will be closely monitoring this topic in the coming years.

©2019 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.

Does Asking About Employee’s Alcohol Use Violate the ADA?

In Lansdale v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc., No. 16-4106 (July 23, 2019), the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota concluded that a jury had sufficient evidence to find that an employer’s discharge of an employee for suspected corporate credit card abuse following an investigation in which the employee was asked about his alcohol use and drinking habits did not constitute disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or corresponding state law.

Background

The employer had a policy prohibiting employees from using corporate credit cards for personal purchases and providing inaccurate expense reports. Following an audit that revealed discrepancies between the employee’s corporate credit card expenses and expense reports, the employer conducted an investigation. During the investigation, the employer interviewed the employee, who indicated that he had used his corporate card for personal charges in order to hide his alcohol consumption from his wife. During the interview, the employer asked the employee several questions about his drinking habits and how his drinking affected his health and family.  The following morning, the employer discharged the employee.

The employee contended that he had been asked impermissible disability-related questions and that his employment had been terminated based on his responses. Under the ADA, an employer “shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

Analysis

The court found that the jury had been provided sufficient evidence to find that, even if the questions posed to the employee had been disability-related inquiries, the inquiries had not caused the termination of his employment; rather, the employee’s acknowledgement that he had used his corporate credit card for personal use was a sufficient evidentiary basis for a jury to find that this admission by itself was the reason for the termination.

Additionally, while alcoholism may constitute a disability under the ADA and corresponding state laws, this case confirms that an employee so claiming must still establish that he or she had an impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities, or that the employer regarded him or her as having such an impairment, and that it was a motivating factor in the termination decision.

Conclusion

Here, the court found that a reasonable jury, weighing the credibility of the witnesses—in  particular, the employee’s own testimony about his alcohol consumption and how it impacted him, his wife’s testimony that he drank nightly, and his doctor’s testimony that he drank more than what was recommended (though the doctor never applied any diagnostic criteria or noted any serious concerns)—could have found that the employee failed to prove that he suffered from an impairment that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities, that the employer regarded him as having such an impairment, and that it was a motivating factor in the termination decision. In the end, the employee’s belated attempts to claim a disability to excuse his corporate credit card and expense report abuses were insufficient to establish a disability discrimination claim.

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more ADA questions see the Labor & Employment Law page on the National Law Review.

No Soup for You!

An 11-year-old boy required to eat his homemade, gluten-free chicken sandwich outside a restaurant on a school field trip will get to take his case to trial.

The boy sued the owner of the Shields Tavern in Colonial Williamsburg for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act and Virginia law. The tavern offered to make the boy a gluten-free meal, but the boy and his father declined. The boy suffers from a serious gluten allergy, and had gotten ill from cross contamination at other restaurants. The tavern then asked the family to eat outside, citing a public health concern.

In a divided decision, the Fourth Circuit allowed the case to proceed to trial. The court found factual issues remained about whether the boy’s gluten allergy created a disability, and whether his request to eat his own food was necessary, reasonable, and would fundamentally alter the nature of the restaurant, which tries to create a historic colonial experience for visitors.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote a blistering dissent, accusing the court of establishing an “almost per se rule” that forces restaurants “to give up control over their most valuable asset: the food they serve.” Read the opinion here: J.D. v. Colonial Williamsburg Found., No. 18-1725 (4th Cir. May 31, 2019).

©2011-2019 Carlton Fields, P.A.
Post By David A. Karp of Carlton Fields
Read more about Disability Rights on the National Law Review Civil Rights page.