BCLP At Work

BCLP At Work

Other Posts

Main Content

Sixth Circuit Holds Nonmember of Credit Union Lacks Standing to Bring ADA Claim Based on Allegedly Inaccessible Website

In Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union et al., Case Nos. 18-2326/2328 (August 8, 2019), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order dismissing an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) claim alleging that the defendant credit union’s website was not accessible to the blind.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision allowing the case to proceed, finding that Brintley had failed to allege either that she was eligible for membership in the credit union or had a present intent to make herself eligible, and therefore lacked standing.  In so doing, the Court joined two other appellate courts that have similarly held that an individual who is ineligible for membership in a credit union fails to allege an injury in fact despite alleging visits to an inaccessible website.

Read the full article here.

Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner has extensive experience defending companies against website accessibility claims and regularly offers webinars on the topic to assist our clients in assessing compliance with the ADA. If you would like to schedule a similar webinar or presentation, or for more information on website accessibility or defending against such claims, please contact any of the attorneys listed.

Website Accessibility Alert: Court Addresses Mootness Argument in Website Accessibility Case

As businesses continue to face lawsuits and demand letters alleging that their websites are inaccessible to blind and deaf patrons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), courts across the country continue to weigh in on the issue.  On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision in Diaz v. The Kroger Co. – holding that the Court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the case because the complaint had been rendered moot by modifications defendant made to the website and because the defendant did not sell goods or services in New York.  Diaz v. The Kroger Co., Case No. 18-cv-07953, Opinion and Order [Dkt. No. 35].

In Diaz, the plaintiff, a visually-impaired and legally blind individual who resides in the Bronx, New York, alleged that the website of defendant Kroger, a supermarket chain with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, denied equal access to blind customers.  Kroger moved to dismiss the complaint on two grounds:  (1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it remedied the barriers to access to its website, and (2) for lack of personal jurisdiction because it does not conduct business in New York.  The Court granted Kroger’s motion to dismiss on both grounds.

In granting Kroger’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court noted that the facts of the case were different from other cases where courts found, “on the facts of those cases, that the defendants

Oregon is First State to Pass Predictable Scheduling Law

Oregon has become the first state to enact a predictable scheduling law, S.B. 828, regulating employer scheduling practices in the food service, hospitality, and retail industries.  The new law will take effect on July 1, 2018.  Oregon is likely the first of many states to pass such legislation.  As our Retail Blog previously reported, cities such as New York, Seattle, and San Francisco have passed similar measures.

The law applies to retail establishments that operate in Oregon and employ at least 500 employees worldwide.  Separate entities may be considered an “integrated enterprise” for purposes of determining whether an employer employs at least 500 employees.  The Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries is to adopt rules to assist employers to determine whether separate entities are an integrated enterprise.

The law applies to nonexempt employees of covered employers, and does not apply to salaried, exempt employees, workers supplied by a worker leasing company, or employees of businesses that provide services to or on behalf of an employer.

The stated purpose of the law is to enhance the predictability of work schedules for nonexempt employees, and ensure at least 10 hours of rest between shifts.  Some key highlights of the law are:

  • An employer must provide a new employee with a written good faith estimate of the employee’s work schedule at the time of hire, which should include the median number of working hours per month, and an explanation of whether the employee can be on the voluntary standby
The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.