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 trial court properly awarded attorney fees to the plaintiff in this case which alleged that defendant's website violated the ADA and Civ. Code sections 51 and 52 by not being readable by web programs for the blind and visually impaired. Unlike Doran v. North State Grocery, Inc. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 484 and Linton v. County of Contra Costa (2019)… Read More
Following Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (2005) 36 Cal.4th 824, this decision holds that the Unruh Act does not prohibit disparate impact discrimination. So, having a website that is not specially adapted to be readable by the vision-impaired is not an independent violation of the Unruh Act, even if the business is aware that its website can't be read… 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
