Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Americans with Disabilities Act

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

This decision holds that a stand-alone website, not acting as the gateway to a physical location is not a "place of public accommodation" within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Hence, maintaining a stand-alone website in a format that is not readable by standard programs for the visually impaired is not an ADA violation.  And, other than  extreme… Read More

Following Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 458 U.S. 371 (2013), which it holds effectively overruled Brown v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 246 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2001), this decision holds that the attorney fee and cost provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act does not limit a district court's normal discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) to award costs to… Read More

The district court erred in entering judgment in favor of the defendant property owner in this ADA suit over  the parking lot's lack of a space for parking a van with an access path for a person confined to a wheelchair.  The fact that plaintiff was a serial litigant in ADA cases was not a reason to deny him Article… Read More

Following Arroyo v. Rosas (9th Cir. 2021) 19 F.4th 1202, this decision affirms the district court's order declining supplemental jurisdiction over Unruh Act claims in this disability discrimination case.  California's procedural restrictions on disability discrimination suits under Civ. Code 52(a) and 55.56 are an exceptional circumstance warranting the refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (which would allow plaintiffs the chance to… Read More

A Workers Compensation judge's finding that the employer did not discriminate against the employee based on her industrial injury under Lab. Code 132a does not necessarily preclude the employee's claims for disability discrimination under FEHA--at least when the Workers Comp. judge expressly refuses to decide whether the employer discriminated against the employee based on her disability as opposed to the… Read More

The FAA applies to an arbitration agreement between defendant, a paratransit provider, and plaintiff, one of its drivers.  Though plaintiff was not an employer "in" interstate commerce since he drove only local, in-state routes not necessarily connected to airports or other modes of interstate commerce, his employer  provided paratransit services mandated by the ADA.  Plaintiff was hired to and did… Read More

While an easily correctible defect is not a disability protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a disability need not be permanent or long-term to be protected.  Here, the employee adequately alleged an ADA claim against her former employer by pleading facts plausibly establishing that she had a physical impairment both during an immediate post-surgical period after a bone biopsy… Read More

This decision reverses a summary judgment for defendant on plaintiffs Americans with Disabilities Act claim.  The summary judgment was granted on the ground that the defendant had fewer than 15 employees, the minimum threshold for application of the ADA.  However, the decision holds that there was a triable issue of fact whether the defendant, a Nevada law limited partnership, was… Read More