SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) – A lawsuit alleging a credit union’s website is inaccessible to blind people has been given new life by a California appeals court.
The Fourth Appellate District ruled June 19 against San Diego County Credit Union, finding it was too early for the San Diego trial court to dismiss the case. Abelardo Martinez’s lawsuit is similar to thousands of others filed in federal courts that say websites are places of “public accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Martinez’s state court lawsuit also makes a claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. It was dismissed by the trial judge the day a trial was to start.
“Although the courts have not yet articulated a single clear standard on this issue, most of the federal circuits and one California court of appeal have held a disabled plaintiff can state a viable ADA claim for alleged unequal access to a private entity’s website if there is a sufficient nexus between the claimed barriers and the plaintiff’s ability to use or enjoy the goods and services offered at the defendant’s physical facilities,” Justice Judith Haller wrote.
Companies have been waiting on guidance from the Department of Justice for eight years now as to how to make their websites compliant with the ADA. In the meantime, plaintiffs lawyers have signed up visually impaired clients to file bundles of cases.
In 2019, there were more than 2,000 of these cases filed in federal court, according to figures gathered by Seyfarth Shaw.
Winn-Dixie was one of many companies sued by a blind plaintiff but was the first to take this type of lawsuit to trial. In 2017, it was hit with a verdict that required it to make upgrades estimated at $37,000. For their role in bringing the litigation, attorneys at Entin & Della Fera of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Scott Dinin of Miami were awarded more than $100,000.
Winn-Dixie's appeal is still pending, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit weighs arguments it heard in 2018. The plaintiff, Juan Carlos Gil, has filed close to 200 lawsuits, court records show.
Domino’s Pizza also tried to fight a case against it, but its pleas were rejected last year by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Domino's argued in its appeal that the ADA's accommodation provisions, specifically Title III, cover only brick-and-mortar facilities and not those that operate in the virtual world. Domino's claimed that the ADA does not requires companies to provide accessibility options on their websites and in mobile phone apps so long as customers with disabilities were offered other means of access, such as through a telephone hotline.
As for the plaintiff in the San Diego County Credit Union case, Martinez is involved in close to 30 ADA lawsuits in federal court against defendants like 1-800-Flowers.com, Abercrombie & Fitch and The Children’s Place.
He is represented by Pacific Trial Attorneys.