![]() James Otero, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted OctoPasadena, California Filed JanuBefore: Paul J. 2:16-cv-06599SJO-FFM OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. DOMINO’S PIZZA, LLC, a limited liability corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Further, the plaintiff did not seek to impose liability on Domino’s for failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, private industryįOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GUILLERMO ROBLES, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The panel held that the statute was not impermissibly vague, and Domino’s had received fair notice that its website and app must comply with the ADA. The panel held that imposing liability on Domino’s under the ADA would not violate the company’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. The panel stated that the website and app connected customers to the goods and services of Domino’s physical restaurants. Even though customers primarily accessed the website and app away from Domino’s physical restaurants, the panel stated that the ADA applies to the services of a public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation. ![]() The panel held that the ADA applied to Domino’s website and app because the Act mandates that places of public accommodation, like Domino’s, provide auxiliary aids and services to make visual materials available to individuals who are blind. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.Ĭourt Description: Americans with Disabilities Act The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of an action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, alleging that Domino’s Pizza’s website and mobile application were not fully accessible to a blind or visually impaired person. You already receive new opinion summaries from Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals. Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals? Finally, the panel held that the district court erred by applying the prudential doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the district court's ruling unduly delayed the resolution of an issue that could be decided by the court. Furthermore, the lack of specific regulations did not eliminate Domino's statutory duty. The panel also held that imposing liability on Domino's under the ADA would not violate the company's Fourth Amendment right to due process where the statute was not impermissibly vague, Domino's had received fair notice of compliance, and plaintiff did not seek to impose liability on Domino's for failure to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, private industry standards for website accessibility. The panel held that the ADA applied to Domino's website and app, a place of public accommodation, which connected customers to the goods and services of Domino's physical restaurants. 18-1539.The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's action alleging that Domino's Pizza's website and mobile application were not fully accessible to a blind or visually impaired person, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. Last year, more than 2,200 such suits were filed in federal courts, according to the accessible technology firm UsableNet, nearly tripling the number a year before. The lawsuit is one of an increasing number filed over website accessibility in recent years. "We also remain steadfast in our belief in the need for federal standards for everyone to follow in making their websites and mobile apps accessible," the company said. "This outcome furthers that critical objective for them and is a credit to our society."ĭomino's said in a statement that it was disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision, but "we look forward to presenting our case at the trial court." "The blind and visually impaired must have access to websites and apps to fully and equally participate in modern society - something nobody disputes," he said. Robles' attorney, Joe Manning, said in a statement Monday that the decision was "the right call on every level." And, they said, no clear rules exist for how to make their platforms properly accessible. By declining to do so, the court's decision on Monday will leave the ruling in place, meaning Domino's will have to fight Robles' accessibility claims in court.Īttorneys for Domino's, backed by a range of business groups, had argued that the ADA does not apply to online platforms that were not envisioned when the law was passed in 1990. Personal Loans for 670 Credit Score or Lowerĭomino's urged the Supreme Court to review the decision. Personal Loans for 580 Credit Score or Lower ![]() Best Debt Consolidation Loans for Bad Credit
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |