As our blog readers are aware, website accessibility claims have been on the rise for the past decade, with no end in sight. To make matters worse, there is a new bill making its way through the California assembly that will exacerbate these types of claims. And, although the bill is state-specific, it would have consequences throughout the country. 
Indeed, if passed, this bill would immediately create liability for businesses everywhere, so long as those businesses’ websites have California-based visitors. In other words, virtually every business with a representative reading this blog would be affected.
By way of background, the U.S. Department of Justice has emphasized that businesses should make websites accessible to the disabled and has emphasized that businesses should do so by relying on a set of accessibility guidelines called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”). Last year, the DOJ issued what it termed “helpful guidance” on website accessibility, stating that businesses have “flexibility in how they comply with the ADA’s general requirements of nondiscrimination and effective communication.”
In contrast, this proposed new CA law takes a much stricter and more rigid approach. Specifically, Continue reading
As such, it appears to be only a matter of time before marijuana is legalized throughout the entire country. However, with these changes comes the potential for more employees to be under the influence of both legal and illegal drugs at the workplace. So, what can employers do to maintain a safe workplace? What restrictions are there for testing employees for drug use? Can employers really impose a drug-free workplace policy considering these seemingly pro-marijuana laws?
When an administrative agency, like the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), receives a complaint of discrimination or retaliation, the employer is given an opportunity to respond and provide information/evidence pursuant to the agency’s investigation of the complaint. In its response, the employer can explain why the action taken against the employee was legitimate or did not occur as alleged. These responses are an opportunity for the employer to provide sufficient information to avoid further action by the administrative agency or potentially litigation of the claim(s). A strong response could demonstrate there is no support for the complaint and resolve the complaint in a favorable manner for the employer. However, these responses can also create a written record of admissions to which the agency can hold the employer accountable, and any supporting documentation may be closely scrutinized and used to establish liability. Thus, employers must be thoughtful in sharing information at this early stage and should ensure there is a procedure in place for managing and developing these responses.
Another year has gone by, and yet the lawsuits filed against hotels and other places of public accommodation alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) continues to increase. We still see hundreds of lawsuits filed each month against hotels for their failure to identify and describe accessible features at their properties in sufficient detail on their websites. Many of these lawsuits continue to allege that Online Travel Agencies (“OTAs”) such Expedia, Hotels.com, or Orbitz fail to provide information about the accessible amenities of the hotel, including its rooms, to individuals with disabilities, or fail to allow an individual with a disability to book an accessible guestroom. While it may seem counterintuitive that a Hotel would be responsible for the information provided on the OTAs website, that often is the case.
