In a case of first impression at the circuit level, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed dismissal of a disability discrimination complaint because the plaintiff had plausibly alleged a condition covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) based on a genetic mutation causing abnormal cell development.
On March 18, 2020, Governor Andrew Cuomo enacted Executive Order 202.6, temporarily closing all nonessential businesses in response to the coronavirus outbreak. In late April, Governor Cuomo issued guidance announcing a phased approach to reopening businesses that requires regions across New York State to satisfy seven criteria involving a drop in the infection rate, increased capacity in healthcare systems, increased ability to administer diagnostic tests and isolate new cases, and a capacity to implement contact tracing. With eight out of the state’s ten regions satisfying Governor Cuomo’s criteria, municipalities and businesses around the state prepare to return to work.
As government authorities look to implement business reopening measures, employers are now planning to move employees back into the workplace as state and local stay-at-home orders expire and other COVID-19 business restrictions expire or are modified. What are the various considerations employers must keep in mind when reopening their physical work locations?
This Question and Answer Guide describes a number of COVID-19 employment and return-to-work considerations. Because the COVID-19 pandemic is a fluid situation and highly dependent on jurisdiction- and sector-specific considerations, we anticipate that additional guidance will be coming from the federal, state and local governments as plans to allow businesses to open are developed in the coming days and weeks.
In Robles v. Domino’s Pizza LLC, No. 17-55504 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2019), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s ADA claim pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine due to the lack of website accessibility regulations from the Department of Justice. In doing so, the Court issued three important rulings.
First, to the extent there was any doubt, the Court held that the ADA applies to websites of places of public accommodations if there is a sufficient nexus between the website and a physical brick and mortar location. Second, the Court held that applying the ADA to websites does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment right to due process merely because DOJ has not implemented specific regulations setting forth a technical standard for website accessibility. Third, the Court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine because DOJ has expressed no interest in promulgating regulations governing website accessibility and, therefore, deferring to the DOJ would delay the resolution of the plaintiff’s claims.
Retailers and other companies have been besieged by lawsuits alleging that their websites are not accessible to visually impaired users in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and similar state laws. Some companies have been sued multiple times by different plaintiffs represented by different lawyers, even though the companies had previously agreed in earlier settlements to ensure that their websites are accessible to the visually impaired.
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires “places of public accommodation,” such as retail businesses and restaurants, to be accessible to persons with disabilities. Common architectural features that permit access include handicap parking, curb cuts, wheelchair ramps and other design modifications. The ADA provides a private right of action to force a non-compliant establishment to make the necessary physical alterations to allow access. If the lawsuit is successful, the ADA provides for reasonable attorneys’ fees—a prospect that has fueled the proliferation of ADA lawsuits.