Litigation

A lower court’s decision to dismiss Mildred Block’s age discrimination lawsuit against  Aramark, Inc . was upheld earlier this week, when the New York Appellate Division found that replacing Ms. Block, an 85-year old New Jersey woman, with a 75-year old woman did not amount to age discrimination.  Last year, Mildred Block sued the concession giant Aramark when she alleged that she was  assigned to a less lucrative food selling station at New York Met home baseball games, where she made less money.   Stadium concessionaire  Aramark  denied discriminating against the elderly Ms. Block and justified their move to replace the beer selling veteran upon complaints they received from customers about long lines at Block’s former beer stand.  

The intricacies of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defenses become apparent when we dig into recent case law. A compelling example is a recent case where the Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims due to their failure to satisfy the standing requirement. This examination will explore the facets of Suris v. Crutchfield New Media, LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96603, including a discussion on the standards of standing and mootness in ADA cases, essential considerations for an effective ADA defense strategy.

Understanding the Standing Requirement in ADA Defense

To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that they suffered an actual, concrete, and particularized injury that is either imminent or has already occurred. They also need to demonstrate that the injury was likely caused by the defendant and would likely be redressed by judicial relief (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203, 210 L. Ed. 2d 568 (2021)).

In the ADA context, a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief has suffered an injury in fact when they can allege past injury under the ADA, that the discriminatory treatment would likely continue, and they intended to return to the subject location (Calcano, 36 F.4th at 74).

In the case at hand, the plaintiff's claim failed on the third prong of the Calcano test: intent to return. Their failure to offer any "non-conclusory factual allegations" demonstrating a plausible intention to return to the defendant's website due to barriers of access was the determining factor.

The Importance of Concrete Facts in ADA Defense

The absence of concrete facts regarding the plaintiff's intention to return to the website was a significant element leading to the dismissal. A successful ADA defense strategy should carefully scrutinize the plaintiff's allegations for factual context, especially their intention to return to the site or location in question.

Cases where district courts found an intent to return adequately pled, plaintiffs typically alleged more concrete facts (Walters v. Fischer Skis U.S., LLC; Chalas v. Barlean's Organic Oils, LLC). By contrast, courts have dismissed cases for lack of standing where plaintiffs raised conclusory allegations, as seen in Velazquez v. Everlast Worldwide, Inc. and Tavarez v. Moo Organic Chocolates, LLC.

Mootness as a Key Element in ADA Defense

Beyond the standing requirement, mootness also emerged as a critical element in this case. The defendant successfully demonstrated that the plaintiff's claims were moot, arguing that they had corrected the error that led to the identified videos lacking closed captioning, making it unreasonable to expect the discriminatory treatment to recur.

This scenario highlights the importance of proactive measures in an ADA defense strategy. Demonstrating a commitment to remedying identified accessibility issues can effectively render ADA claims moot.

Conclusion

In ADA defense, understanding and applying standing and mootness concepts can mean the difference between dismissal and proceeding to trial. This case underscores the importance of these elements in an ADA defense strategy, emphasizing the need for concrete facts to back plaintiff's claims and proactive measures from defendants to address accessibility issues. For effective ADA defense, these factors are crucial.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III mandates that public accommodations provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities to ensure equal access and enjoyment of facilities. These accommodations may include removing physical barriers to improve mobility, providing alternative communication methods for those with visual, auditory, or vocal impairments, and providing trained staff to assist individuals with disabilities.

However, there are limitations to the reasonable accommodations required under Title III. The modifications must not fundamentally alter the nature of services provided by the public accommodations or result in an undue burden for the business. For example, restaurants are not required to provide braille menus, but can offer assistance from waiters to read the menu for customers with visual impairments. Similarly, retail establishments are not required to have sign language interpreters on staff. The removal of physical barriers is only required when it is "readily achievable," which means it can be carried out without significant difficulty or expense. The determination of what is "readily achievable" is made on a case-by-case basis.

In the United States, individuals with disabilities are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which aim to prevent discrimination based on disability. In recent court decisions, Avila v. Acacia Network, Inc. and Hanyzkiewicz v. Allegiance Retail Servs., LLC, plaintiffs brought forward ADA and FHA claims against defendants for alleged violations.

Avila v. Acacia Network, Inc. involved a plaintiff who brought forward an FHA and ADA claim against a landlord for failing to comply with a doctor's recommendation for transfer to a one-bedroom apartment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim but granted leave to amend. To state a claim of intentional discrimination under the FHA, the plaintiff must allege that they were a member of a protected class, suffered relevant adverse treatment, and can sustain a minimal burden of showing facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation. Under the ADA Title III, it is discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability, the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. The court found that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under both the FHA and ADA Title III.

Hanyzkiewicz v. Allegiance Retail Servs., LLC involved a plaintiff who alleged ADA Title III and NYCHRL violations based on an inaccessible website. The defendant was subject to a consent decree from a prior case and had remediated its website, but the plaintiff claimed that accessibility issues remained. The court found that the plaintiff's suit must be enjoined because it could upset the consent decree, which includes a proposed class that is absent from the consent decree and seeks materially different remedies. The court also found that the defendant's voluntary cessation of discriminatory conduct did not moot the case.

In conclusion, these recent court decisions highlight the importance of understanding the rules and requirements of the ADA and FHA when bringing forward claims. Plaintiffs must allege the necessary facts to state a claim under these acts, and the courts must ensure that consent decrees are respected and enforced. For individuals with disabilities, these decisions offer insight into their legal protections and avenues for seeking justice when their rights have been violated.

The cases of Avila v. Sun River Health, Inc. and A.O. v. Fairfield-Suisun Unified Sch. Dist. teach us an important lesson about the importance of following proper legal procedures and requirements.

In Avila v. Sun River Health, Inc., a person with a disability filed a lawsuit alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Rehabilitation Act. However, the court found that the plaintiff did not provide enough evidence to support his claims and did not explain the nature of his disability. The court also noted that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that he was denied the opportunity to participate in the defendant's programs or services due to his disability. Despite this, the court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to provide more evidence to support his claims.
In A.O. v. Fairfield-Suisun Unified Sch. Dist., the court dismissed a case brought by a person with disabilities because the parties did not follow the court's standing order, which requires attorneys to discuss the substance of any potential motions before filing them.

These cases demonstrate the importance of following proper legal procedures and requirements, including providing sufficient evidence to support claims and following court orders. It is also important to seek legal advice when bringing a lawsuit, especially when it involves complex laws like the ADA or state rehabilitation acts.

In the realm of American jurisprudence, the case of Adams v. 336 Knickerbocker Realty, LLC stands as a significant juncture in upholding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This case, filled with nuanced legal implications, sheds light on the fundamental rights of disabled individuals and the vital role of ADA in safeguarding those rights. This blog post aims to dissect this landmark case in a reader-friendly manner, making the complexities of law accessible to all.

The Second Circuit's Stand on Default Judgments

The Second Circuit, within its judicial purview, has persistently cautioned against resorting to default judgments as a primary means of resolving disputes. The court has always emphasized that a default judgment, an extreme remedy, must be used sparingly and as a "weapon of last, rather than first, resort." This viewpoint upholds the importance of providing every litigant with a fair chance of being heard, and echoes the preferential treatment towards resolving disputes on the merits, rather than default.

Key Factors in Granting Default Judgments

The Court possesses considerable discretion when deciding whether to grant a default judgment. It takes into account several factors, including whether the grounds for default are well established, if the allegations were included in the original complaint, and the potential amount of money involved. Essentially, the larger the sum of money, the more scrutinized the justification for a default judgment.

Case Analysis: Adams v. 336 Knickerbocker Realty, LLC

In this specific case, the defendants were indisputably in default as they failed to respond to the complaint or appear in court. Despite receiving proper service, they did not file an answer, nor did they react to the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment or the Court's order regarding attorney's fees.

The plaintiff, a person with cerebral palsy and reliant on a wheelchair, alleged violation of his rights under the ADA by the defendants, the owners of a public accommodation facility. The plaintiff faced numerous ADA violations, including architectural barriers that impeded his access to the property.

Based on the defendants' alleged ADA violations, the Court recommended a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This case serves as a potent reminder of the critical importance of the ADA in ensuring accessibility and fair treatment for all individuals, irrespective of their physical abilities.

In Askins v. Santos, a pro se plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against his sister for her role as a caretaker of their mother. The plaintiff claimed that his Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights, Human Rights, and ADA Rights had been violated. However, the court found that the plaintiff did not identify any federal law under which his claim arose and that his factual allegations did not suggest a federal cause of action.

It is important to note that ADA public accommodations play a crucial role in ensuring that people with disabilities have equal access to goods and services. However, it is equally important to understand the legal framework surrounding ADA claims. Pro se plaintiffs can file complaints that will be construed liberally, but if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, if the claim is frivolous or malicious, or if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be based, the case may be dismissed.

Askins v. Santos serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding ADA public accommodations claims. Pro se plaintiffs may file complaints that will be construed liberally, but they must still meet the legal requirements for a federal cause of action. By familiarizing themselves with the relevant legal rules, people with disabilities can better protect their rights and access the goods and services they need.

Woods v. Kasztl Walsh, LLC is a recent case that highlights the importance of establishing standing to seek injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff in this case sued an inaccessible apartment complex for ADA Title III, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL violations. However, the court dismissed the ADA claim, citing the plaintiff's vague and conclusory allegations of wanting to return to the subject location.

The court explained that to establish standing, a plaintiff must show a past injury under the ADA, a reasonable inference that the discriminatory treatment will continue, and a real and immediate threat of future injury based on concrete plans to return to the subject location. The plaintiff's "someday intentions" of wanting to return are not sufficient to establish standing.

In conclusion, Woods v. Kasztl Walsh, LLC highlights the importance of understanding and meeting the ADA standing requirements when filing a claim. Plaintiffs must provide specific and concrete plans to return to the subject location to establish a real and immediate threat of future injury. This case serves as a reminder that vague and conclusory allegations are not enough to establish standing under the ADA.

The SDNY in a recent decision entitled Gannon v. Hua Da, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53172 (SDNY 2023), reinforced the importance of establishing standing under the ADA. To show standing, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they have suffered an injury under the ADA, that there is a real and immediate threat of future injury, and that they intend to return to the subject location. Failure to establish any of these elements can result in a case being dismissed, as it was in this case. It also highlights the need for courts to consider the broader context of cases to ensure that litigants are not abusing the ADA to pursue frivolous litigation. 

In this case, the plaintiff sued the defendant under Title III of the ADA, alleging that he was unable to access a deli/grocery due to barriers that violated the ADA. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of standing, arguing that the plaintiff failed to show that he had the intent to return to the subject location, which is an essential requirement for standing under the ADA. The court granted the motion to dismiss.

The court relied on the three-prong test laid out in Calcano v. Swarovski N. Am. Ltd. to determine whether the plaintiff had standing. The plaintiff must show (1) past injury under the ADA, (2) it is reasonable to infer that the discriminatory treatment would continue, and (3) it is reasonable to infer that the plaintiff intended to return to the subject location. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to show the third prong, i.e., he lacked the intent to return.

The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to establish that he intended to return to the subject location. The court noted that the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that he had visited the premises in the past, and he did not explain why he wanted to visit the specific deli/grocery urgently. Additionally, the plaintiff did not allege that he resided in close proximity to the property, which would have suggested that he would return to the location.

The court also considered the "broader context" of the case. It noted that the plaintiff had filed 26 identical ADA lawsuits within two months, which suggested that the plaintiff was not genuinely interested in accessing the deli/grocery but instead was using the ADA to pursue litigation.

On October 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the case of Acheson v. Laufer, a pivotal case addressing the concept of ADA tester standing. At the heart of this case is the question of whether individuals who conduct tests to uncover violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have standing to bring lawsuits for alleged violations. This blog post explores the key arguments and implications of this case, which could significantly impact ADA litigation.

Understanding ADA Tester Standing:

ADA tester standing refers to the legal right of individuals or organizations to file ADA lawsuits based on their status as "testers." Testers are individuals who purposely visit public accommodations, such as restaurants, hotels, or retail establishments, to evaluate whether they comply with the ADA's accessibility requirements. These testers may or may not have a disability themselves but are conducting tests to uncover potential violations.

Key Arguments in Acheson v. Laufer:

1. Standing and Injury : The central issue in Acheson v. Laufer is whether ADA testers have suffered a legally recognizable injury that grants them standing to sue. The plaintiffs argue that they have experienced harm, such as emotional distress or frustration, when they encounter ADA violations during their tests.

2. Third-Party Standing : The case also raises questions about third-party standing. Third-party standing allows individuals to assert the rights of others who may be directly affected by ADA violations. The argument here is whether testers can assert the rights of disabled individuals who may visit these places in the future.

3. Deterrence vs. Exploitation : Advocates for ADA tester standing argue that it is essential to deter ADA violations by allowing testers to bring lawsuits. They believe that testers play a crucial role in ensuring compliance with the ADA. On the other hand, opponents argue that permitting testers to sue could lead to exploitation and frivolous lawsuits.

4. Preventing Discrimination : The ADA was enacted to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Supporters of tester standing argue that it helps identify and rectify discriminatory practices, ultimately serving the ADA's purpose. Opponents argue that it may open the floodgates to litigation and abuse.

The Supreme Court's decision in Acheson v. Laufer could have significant implications for ADA litigation and enforcement. If the Court rules in favor of ADA tester standing, it may encourage more individuals or organizations to conduct accessibility tests and file lawsuits. This could lead to increased pressure on businesses to comply with ADA requirements.

Conversely, if the Court limits tester standing, it may make it more challenging for ADA violations to be exposed and addressed. This could affect the ability of individuals with disabilities to enjoy equal access to public accommodations.

The Supreme Court's decision in Acheson v. Laufer will undoubtedly shape the landscape of ADA litigation and enforcement. It will be essential to monitor the Court's ruling and consider how it may impact both businesses and individuals with disabilities seeking to ensure equal access to public spaces. Regardless of the outcome, this case highlights the ongoing debate about the balance between preventing discrimination and deterring potential abuses of the ADA's enforcement mechanisms.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of an individual’s disability. Discrimination under the ADA occurs when a place of public accommodation (a business open to the public) treats individuals with disabilities less favorably than others. Title III of the ADA requires a business to meet certain architectural and regulations that ensure a place of public accommodation is accessible to a person with disabilities. This may include accessible parking, ingress and egress to a facility, washrooms and seating.

If you are an individual with a disability, you may already be aware of the ADA and local regulations that are designed to ensure that places of public accommodation are accessible and in compliance with the ADA. You may also be aware of the overwhelming lack of compliance by certain businesses with respect to such regulations and laws.

No matter the reason, individuals with disabilities have the same rights as those without disabilities to fully use and enjoy businesses open to the public. If you believe your rights are being impaired or limited by a non-compliant business then please contact our team of ADA discrimination attorneys today.

The landscape of digital accessibility is complex and continually evolving, with a recent case — Toro v. Black Sheep Enter., Inc. — underscoring the importance of ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliance for websites. U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni dismissed the case without prejudice due to two key reasons: the plaintiff's failure to allege standing and the court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Alleging Standing in ADA Cases

Standing is a legal term that refers to a plaintiff's right to bring a lawsuit because they have been directly affected by the issue at hand. In ADA cases, this typically involves demonstrating a concrete, actual or imminent, and particularized injury due to an inaccessible business or service.

In Toro v. Black Sheep Enter., Inc., the court found that the plaintiff failed to allege standing. Although the visually impaired plaintiff claimed that the defendant's website lacked accessibility, the court determined that the plaintiff's assertions didn't sufficiently establish a direct and particularized injury. This demonstrates the importance of concrete evidence of injury in ADA litigation.

Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Digital Accessibility

Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a court's ability to hear a particular kind of case. In the Toro v. Black Sheep Enter., Inc. case, the court concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, which presents another layer of complexity in ADA website cases.

Interestingly, the court ordered the plaintiff to move for leave to amend the complaint due to the standing issue. However, this step was bypassed when the plaintiff filed a notice of settlement, seeking a stay of all deadlines. Consequently, the court opted for a dismissal without prejudice.

Navigating ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL

This case was not solely about federal law - it also invoked the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the Garden City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), illustrating the multi-layered nature of accessibility legislation. Ensuring compliance with these intersecting legal requirements can be a daunting task for businesses, particularly for those operating in the digital space.

Moving Forward

The dismissal of Toro v. Black Sheep Enter., Inc. serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL compliance. Businesses must be proactive in ensuring their digital platforms are accessible to all, preventing potential legal disputes. This is not just a matter of compliance, but a testament to a company's commitment to inclusivity.

Introduction

For anyone interested in the complex legal field of website accessibility, and particularly how it intersects with both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Garden City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), we've got an intriguing case to analyze: Velazquez v. Nextphase, Inc., No. 22 Civ 07967 (CM), 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105152, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 16, 2023).

In this case, the defendant, Nextphase, Inc., made a motion to dismiss under rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), alleging the plaintiff lacked standing and that their website was not a "place of public accommodation" under Title III of the ADA or the NYCHRL.

Understanding the Legal Jargon

To make sense of this, let's first understand a couple of crucial legal terminologies. Standing refers to the right of a party to bring a legal claim. Subject matter jurisdiction relates to a court's authority to adjudicate a particular type of dispute. Title III of the ADA mandates that all places of public accommodation (like a website) should be accessible to individuals with disabilities. NYCHRL is a set of laws that protect individuals from discrimination in Garden City.

The Issue of Standing

In this case, the court ruled that the plaintiff, Mr. Velazquez, did not have standing. That's a key term in the realm of civil litigation and website accessibility. It means that the court did not find Mr. Velazquez had suffered an 'injury in fact', there was no causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and that there wasn't a likelihood that a favorable decision would redress the injury.

An Important Precedent

In the case of website accessibility, a plaintiff must make non-conclusory, plausible factual allegations to prove they intend to return to the website - something that Mr. Velazquez failed to do. This was significant because the Second Circuit Court has established that vague claims about intending to visit a website "in the near future if it is made accessible" are insufficient to demonstrate intent to return.

Takeaways

This case highlights some key considerations in the realm of ADA and website accessibility litigation. First, it reminds us of the importance of standing, and how crucial it is for plaintiffs to demonstrate concrete and imminent injury to establish it. Secondly, it underscores the intricacy of website accessibility law and the nuanced understanding required to navigate it successfully.

Effected by the unavailability of generic Adderall XR due to the shortage?

Were you forced to purchase Adderall XR brand product because drug manufacturers failed to manufacturer generic versions of the drug?

Have you paid inflated prices for the Adderall XR brand product and deprived of the benefits from less expensive generic versions of the medicine?

Do you suffer from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”)?

Have you been unable to fill your generic Adderall XR prescription due to its unavailability?

Are you considering an Adderall shortage lawsuit?

Shire LLC and Shire U.S., Inc. (“Shire”) are pharmaceutical drug manufacturers that are alleged to have unlawfully excluded, impeded and restrained competition for a certain generic mixture of amphetamine salts that are sold as Adderall XR, which are commonly used in treating ADHD.   It is being claimed that Shire monopolized the market for Adderall XR  by falsely promising to provide generic manufacturers with the active pharmaceutical ingredients of Adderall XR  for purposes of inducing the settlement of patent litigation and enabling them to sell competing Adderall XR  products, while continuing to receive a royalty on such sales.   

As of late 2010, it has been published that Shire deliberately defaulted on such agreements for the anti-competitive purpose of impeding generic rivals so that users of the medication would be forced to purchase the Adderall XR brand product at inflated prices.   Thereby keeping cheaper generic versions of Adderall XR out of the market, decreasing competition and resulting in drastic increased in the price of prescription Adderall XR.  It has been reported that generic Adderall XR is in such short supply that users of the medication are unable to fill their prescriptions.  Many believe that an Adderall shortage lawsuit is impending.

The Adderall XR Shortage attorneys of Bashian & Papantoniou are currently investigating whether Shire has violated the laws by eliminating generic versions of Adderall XR from the marketplace. For more information or a free case evaluation on the Adderall shortage lawsuit, please contact our Adderall XR Shortage attorneys of Bashian & Papantoniou, P.C., by mail at 500 Old Country Road, Suite 302, Garden City, New York 11530 or by telephone at (516) 279-1554, or by email at  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. , or visit our website at  www.bashpaplaw.com