This week’s blog entry discusses Uber’s settlement with the National Federation of the Blind. The blog entry is divided into two categories: the terms of the settlement; and just how is Uber covered by the ADA and thoughts. The reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories, but since the blog
Remember that Law School Exam? Defenses Run Amok
For those who remember law school, the typical law school exam was a completely crazy hypothetical with thousands of issues in it. The idea was to spot all the issues and somehow mention that you knew how to deal with them within the allotted timeframe. I was reminded of that experience when I read National
ADA and the “Sports Association.”
For years, I refereed and umpired basketball and softball. The entity for managing the referees and umpires were associations whose sole purpose was to deal with the referee side of things. Referees and umpires were ostensibly independent contractors (whether they are would be the subject of a separate blog entry and will not be the
National Federation of the Blind v. Uber Technologies
Today’s case is National Federation of the Blind of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc.. This case is receiving quite a bit of press, but I thought I would offer my own take on it. As is typical for my blog entries, I have divided the blog into categories: facts; issues; holdings; court’s reasoning; and
Does a web-based business have to comply with title III of the ADA redux
Previously, I blogged on the oral argument in Earll v. eBay and Cullen v. Netflix. On March 19, 2015, the District Court in Vermont came down with this decision in National Federation of the Blind v. ScribD. That decision bears reviewing.
I
Facts:
ScribD is a California-based digital library operating reading subscription services
Roller coasters and the ADA: It’s baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!
In a previous blog entry, I discussed the issue of accessibility to amusement park rides. Well, it is back in the news again. This time from the District Court of New Jersey in an unpublished decision dated December 31, 2014, entitled Masci v. Six Flags Theme Park, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178666
A twofer: magic words and whether a battle is worth fighting (Title I and Title III)
This week’s blog entry is a twofer. In the first case, we will discuss whether magic words are necessary for getting a reasonable accommodation. In the second case, we will discuss what I believe is the long-term folly of not going the extra mile when it comes to making a place of public accommodation accessible.
Service Dogs v. Emotional Support Animals
One of the confusing issues out there is the difference between a service dog, emotional support animal, and a therapy dog and why it matters. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 (the sections of the federal regulation that apply to service animals for public entities and for places of public accommodations respectively),
All by myself (with apologies to Eric Carmen): to file suit under title III of the ADA, do you have to first exhaust administrative remedies?
Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act requires that a person seeking to file a claim for employment discrimination must first file a claim with the EEOC or a substantially equivalent state agency and receive a right to sue letter before proceeding in court. What if you wish to file a claim under title
The ADA doesn’t reach everywhere
The ADA is an extremely complex and comprehensive law. The temptation is to think that the ADA applies whenever a person with disability has their rights arguably infringed. However, that just isn’t the case. The situation may be governed by other laws. For example, if a person has an individual education plan, the law that