On Thursday, December 11, 2025, at 1 p.m. ET / 10 a.m. PT, join Jordan B. Schwartz and Megan S. Shaked for a webinar titled ADA Compliance Obligations for Businesses: Minimizing Legal Risks and Reputational Damage.
Regardless of whether you own or manage a hotel, store, restaurant, hospital, or any other place of business frequented by members of the public, you have an obligation to both (a) remove physical barriers to access at your facility in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); and (b) make sure that your website is accessible so that it can be read and understood by individuals with disabilities.
Every year, we continue to see an increase in lawsuits alleging, among other things, that restaurants do not have accessible tables, that hotels do not have proper access aisle at the passenger loading zone, and that public restrooms do not have ADA compliant grab bars, paper towel dispensers, or knee clearance under the sink. At the same time, lawsuits continue to be filed in increasing numbers against businesses with websites that are not accessible (e.g., not compatible with screen reader software), and thus not usable by individuals with visual and hearing impairments. Accordingly, to reduce the threat of lawsuits, businesses must have a plan in place to inspect their physical properties, test their website’s accessibility, and implement necessary changes to improve overall compliance with the ADA.
Participants in this webinar will learn: 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.
We have been blogging for more than five years about the rising litigation threat over website accessibility, and the surrounding confusion about what type of compliance, if any, is required. In our