An Illinois federal court has dismissed a lawsuit alleging Wendy's International discriminates against disabled customers who cannot independently access 24-hour Wendy's locations during night hours when the stores only accept drive-through orders. Davis v. Wendy's Int'l LLC, No. 19-4003 (N.D. Ill., E. Div., entered December 12, 2019). The court held that the Wendy's policy applied to all pedestrians regardless of their disabled status. "[A]s with any other non-drivers, [the plaintiff] could access the drive-through if she were a passenger in a car sharing service, a taxi, or a friend's car," the court noted. "Therefore, the fact that [the plaintiff] cannot drive because of her visual impairment does not establish that Wendy's drive-through policies are the but-for cause for her inability to obtain food. [] Instead, it is her status as a pedestrian that is the but-for cause of her injury." The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim with prejudice.
Tag Archives ADA
The Eleventh Circuit has reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit against Dunkin’ Donuts LLC, ruling that a blind plaintiff who alleged the company’s website was not compatible with screen-reading software showed a plausible claim for relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Haynes v. Dunkin’ Donuts LLC, No. 18-10373 (11th Cir., entered July 31, 2018). The Southern District of Florida previously dismissed the complaint, reasoning that the plaintiff had "failed to allege a nexus between the barriers to access that he faced on the website and his inability to access goods and services at Dunkin’ Donuts’ physical store." The appellate panel found that “the prohibition on discrimination is not limited to tangible barriers that disabled persons face but can extend to intangible barriers as well. ... It appears that the website is a service that facilitates the use of Dunkin’ Donuts’ shops, which are places of public accommodation. And…
Two grocery chains face similar lawsuits filed by a New York plaintiff who argues the stores’ websites are inaccessible to the blind or visually impaired, allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Jorge v. Key Food Mkt., Inc., No. 17-9306 (S.D.N.Y., filed November 28, 2017); Jorge v. Fairway Grp. Holdings Corp., No. 17-9309 (S.D.N.Y., filed November 28, 2017). The complaints assert that Key Food and Fairway Market stores have failed to make their websites accessible to screen-reading software, denying the plaintiff equal access to their facilities, goods and services. Alleging violations of the ADA as well as New York state and municipal human rights laws, the plaintiff seeks class certification, injunctive relief, damages and attorney’s fees.
A New York federal court has denied Five Guys Enterprises' motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging a blind woman’s inability to access the restaurant chain’s website violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), ruling “the text and purposes of the ADA, as well as the breadth of federal appellate decisions, suggest that defendant’s website is covered under the ADA, either as its own place of public accommodation or as a result of its close relationship as a service of defendant’s restaurants, which indisputably are public accommodations under the statute.” Marett v. Five Guys Enters., No. 17-0788 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2017). The court rejected Five Guys’ argument that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the ADA, finding the law’s purpose is to prevent discrimination against disabled individuals in major areas of public life. “The statute explicitly covers twelve categories of entities, which includes establishments that ‘serv[e] food or drink (e.g.,…
Food and beverage companies offering retail sales on the web are facing a wave of lawsuits filed by visually impaired plaintiffs alleging that the companies’ failure to design websites that work with adaptive screen-reading software violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In “Because of ‘Winn-Dixie’?: Uncertainty over ADA’s Applicability to Websites Deepens,” Shook Partner Frank Cruz-Alvarez and Associate Rachel Canfield examine a recent ruling in the Southern District of Florida holding that a grocery chain violated Title III of the ADA because its website was inaccessible. Cruz-Alvarez and Canfield summarize Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, No. 16-23020 (S.D. Fla. June 12, 2017), and explain that federal courts are split on the issue of whether the ADA applies to non-physical spaces, leaving “a whole new host of legal challenges. . . . There is very little structure, and even less clarity, in this emerging area of the law.” In the interim, the authors say,…
A federal court has given preliminary approval to a class action settlement in which Cracker Barrel restaurants will develop a disability-access compliance policy for parking facilities at its locations. Heinzl v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, No. 14-1455 (W.D. Pa., order entered May 15, 2017). The settlement agreement requires Cracker Barrel to develop a survey form to assess whether the parking facilities at all of its locations comply with the 2010 Americans with Disabilities Act Standards For Accessible Design. The company will then assess and ensure that parking at the 107 locations identified by the plaintiff are brought into compliance. The agreement also includes annual reporting and monitoring provisions. The court will accept objections to the settlement from members of the class until July 13, 2017, and hold a fairness hearing in August. Issue 635
Five Guys has moved to dismiss an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complaint from a blind plaintiff allegedly unable to use the burger chain’s website, arguing that the plaintiff cannot prove she was denied access to a “place of public accommodation” because the statute is limited to physical facilities. Marett v. Five Guys Enters, No. 17-0788 (S.D.N.Y., memorandum filed May 15, 2017). The plaintiff points to a federal circuit split on the issue and has asked a New York federal court to follow the Second Circuit, which has held that the ADA guarantees “more than mere physical access” and that the “website is a service of the physical location.” The plaintiff claims that Five Guys’ website, which allows online ordering in addition to general restaurant and menu information, is inaccessible to blind patrons despite the existence of “readily available technological solutions.” Issue 635
Eatsa, a fast-food chain featuring high-tech ordering and automated service, faces a putative class action alleging its restaurants are inaccessible to the blind. Am. Council for the Blind, v. Keenwawa, Inc., No. 17-2096 (S.D.N.Y., filed March 23, 2017). Eatsa customers place orders through mobile apps or kiosks in the restaurants, then swipe a credit card to pay; the customer name then appears on a screen next to a wall of food-delivery “cubbies.” When an order is ready, an LCD screen lights up and displays the customer’s name, and the customer must tap a particular corner of the cubby to open it and retrieve the order. The complaint alleges that Eatsa failed to configure either its mobile app or kiosks to use audio technology, rendering the restaurant inaccessible to the blind or those with low vision. Although Eatsa staffs each restaurant with one or two human “hosts” to help customers, the…
A deaf consumer has filed a lawsuit against Taco Bell Corp. and two franchisees alleging the company discriminated against her by refusing to allow her to order from the drive-through window. Cirrincione v. Taco Bell Corp., No. 33-0001 (D.N.J., filed July 13, 2016). At one location, the plaintiff alleges she wrote her order on a piece of paper and handed it to a Taco Bell employee at the drive-through window, and a manager then “berated Plaintiff for utilizing the drive through and for placing her order at the ‘pick-up’ window” because it “interfered with the desired flow of business.” At another location, the plaintiff asserts she again wrote her order and handed it to an employee, then “the note was slipped back through the drive-through window,” the window was shut and the order was not processed, “and no Taco Bell employee communicated with Plaintiff in any way, leaving Plaintiff humiliated,…
Two consumers have filed a putative class action against Panera LLC involving the restaurant chain’s “2.0” ordering system using touchscreen kiosks and a “fast lane” pick-up shelf, which they allege fails to accommodate the visually impaired. Gomez v. Panera LLC, No. 16-21421 (S.D. Fla., filed April 20, 2016). The plaintiffs argue that they each visited a Florida location of Panera and found themselves “unable to enjoy the same ordering and dining experience as sighted patrons” because they were “denied the ability to independently select and purchase lunch.” The kiosks “were not designed and programmed to interface with commercially available screen reader software and further were not equipped with auxiliary aids (such as an audio interface system) for disabled individuals who are visually impaired,” the complaint alleges. The plaintiffs further argue that Panera’s website is unusable to them because it does not integrate with their screen reader programs. They seek orders…
