In any given week, dozens of lawsuits are filed in federal courts across the United States alleging that businesses violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which governs the accessibility of places of public accommodation. While many of these lawsuits now focus on website accessibility, a significant number of them continue to focus on the alleged inaccessibility of brick-and-mortar business establishments, particularly restaurants and hotels. These “drive by” ADA lawsuits often focus on the inaccessibility of architectural elements that can be easily assessed by “testers” without even frequenting the establishment in question—e.g., parking spaces, sidewalks, entrances, public restrooms, host/check-in stations, and pools—sometimes even relying on online images. Moreover, the allegations asserted are often highly technical in nature—living and dying by a matter of centimeters—known only to those who specialize in accessibility. Notably, the vast majority of these claims are brought by a relatively small community of serial plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel for whom achieving compliance is secondary to quickly obtaining a settlement payment and attorneys’ fees.

On February 15, 2018, in an effort to curb such drive-by ADA lawsuits, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation—the ADA Education and Reform Act (H.R. 620) (“ADAERA”)—that would require that would-be plaintiffs first provide written notice of alleged architectural barriers and a period to cure before being able to commence a Title III litigation in federal court. Under ADAERA, before plaintiffs could file a Title III claim alleging architectural barriers in federal court, they would first have to provide written notice of the existence of barriers to accessibility (containing sufficient specificity, and citations to the relevant sections of the ADA, to allow the barriers to be identified by the business). The business would then have 60 days from receipt of the notice to provide a plan for the remediation of the existing barriers and an additional 120 days to eliminate the barriers or make substantial progress in doing so. If the business does not respond to the initial letter within 60 days or does not make substantial progress in eliminating the barriers within the following 120 days, then the plaintiff can commence a federal Title III litigation. ADAERA also seeks to create a model program for the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in the resolution of federal Title III claims (e.g., a mediation program that stays discovery while the mediation proceeds). Of course, before it can become law, ADAERA still needs to be passed by the Senate (given the Senate’s current composition, there is no guarantee that it will pass) and then signed by President Trump.

It should come as no surprise that ADAERA has been met with a wide range of reactions. Proponents of the bill argue that ADAERA would preserve the intended purpose of Title III—removing barriers to accessibility—but eliminate the existing incentives for plaintiffs’ counsel to flood the courts with lawsuits premised on minute technical architectural violations with the primary goal of churning up and quickly collecting fees via a settlement. Opponents argue that, as the ADA has been law for more than 25 years, businesses that are not currently in compliance with Title III should not get the benefit of notice and additional time to comply with the long-established law. They fear that ADAERA would encourage businesses to ignore their Title III obligations until receiving a notice of deficiency.

Even if ADAERA, as currently constituted, ultimately becomes law, it could very well have unintended consequences that could create even less desirable circumstances for businesses. First, ADAERA would not prevent plaintiffs from bringing similar cases in state court under state and local accessibility laws, which often are even broader and more liberally interpreted than their federal counterpart. Indeed, plaintiffs often already include such claims as part of their federal actions because, unlike under the ADA, many state and local accessibility statutes allow plaintiffs to seek the recovery of damages and/or civil penalties. Second, as ADAERA does not impose notice requirements for claims under Title III relating to businesses’ obligations to (i) make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures, or (ii) provide auxiliary aids and services to enable effective communication, plaintiffs might simply turn their focus to a different type of federal Title III claim. In both of these instances, the result could very well be more protracted litigations under less favorable conditions (e.g., a less efficient forum or less clarity regarding requirements for compliance).

While ADAERA still has a way to go before becoming law, this is the furthest a legislative effort to reform Title III to prevent the rampant proliferation of drive-by filings has progressed, and it is worth tracking.

UPDATE: On March 28, 2018, forty-three Democratic senators united to protest the proposed H.R. 620. The filibuster-proof bloc sent a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warning that the proposal “will never receive a vote in the United States Senate during the 115th Congress.” The letter also points out the H.R. 620, as contemplated, would do nothing to curb plaintiffs from pursuing damages claims under state/local laws. The senators instead favor investing in greater education about Title III’s requirements and the development of a mediation program.

A version of this article originally appeared in the Take 5 newsletter An Assortment of Legal Issues Hospitality Employers Should Be Considering This Year.”

While the ADA finished celebrating its 27th anniversary at the end of July, for plaintiffs looking to bring website accessibility complaints in New York the party is still ongoing.  Following on the heels of last month’s decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Five Guys, Judge Jack B. Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in Andrews vs. Blick Art Materials, LLC, recently denied a motion to dismiss a website accessibility action, holding that Title III of the ADA (“Title III”), the NYS Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law all apply to websites – not only those with a nexus to brick and mortar places of public accommodation but also to cyber-only websites offering goods and services for sale to the public.

The Court’s decision in Blick was comprehensive – spanning nearly 40 pages – addressing the major theories and defenses website accessibility decisions have been considering with increasing frequency for more than a decade, through lenses that were extremely sympathetic to plaintiff’s claims.  Relying upon the Second Circuit’s decision in Pallozzi v. Allstate., 198 F.3d (2d Cir. 1999), recognizing the need to apply Title III broadly to match the expansive remedial and protective purposes of the ADA (albeit in the context of insurance policies), along with other district court decisions within the Second Circuit expressly applying that same theory to website accessibility (NFB v. Scribd and Five Guys), Judge Weinstein rejected the decisions of other circuits and district courts concluding that Title III only applies to a website when there is a connection to a physical place of public accommodation.  Adopting what it deemed to be a “sensible approach to the ADA”, the Court held that, “Blick is prohibited from discriminating against the blind by failing to take the steps necessary to ensure that the blind have ‘full and equal enjoyment’ of the goods, services, privileges, advantages, facilities, or accommodations of its website – provided that taking such steps would not impose an undue burden on Blick or fundamentally alter the website.”  This conclusion was deemed to embody the broad remedial mandate of the ADA, protecting individuals with disabilities from discrimination and allowing them to fully and equally participate in society – one that in 2017 places significant value on the ability to utilize websites – with accommodations needing to evolve alongside technology.  (The Court postponed a decision on whether such an action is appropriate for a class action.)

In reaching its conclusion, the Blick decision was also the latest to reject defenses based upon primary jurisdiction and due process (joining other decisions such as Hobby Lobby and Harvard/MIT.  First, the Court rejected the primary jurisdiction argument because:  (i) the question at issue was legal in nature and within traditional judicial competence (e.g., courts regularly decide similar issues under Title III involving “full and equal enjoyment” and “effective communication”/“auxiliary aids and services”); and (ii) plaintiff is entitled to a prompt adjudication of his claims (and the U.S. Department of Justice’s failure to promulgate regulations seven years after suggesting it would do so cannot be a reason to delay that process).  To alleviate defendant’s concern that the Court might lack the technical background necessary to rule on the issue, the Court ordered a “Science Day”, during which experts will testify and provide demonstrations about website design and assistive technology.  Second, the Court rejected any claims that plaintiff’s claim would violate concepts of due process, finding that the ADA, which requires a contextual assessment of specific facts against a “gray” backdrop of various defined terms (e.g., “reasonable modification”, “full and equal enjoyment”, “auxiliary aides and services”, “fundamental alteration”, and “undue burden”) is merely providing necessary flexibility.  (Moreover, any challenges by defendant regarding whether specific modifications or remedies might be improper was not ripe at the current stage of the litigation.)

While it is still possible the other cases with different facts decided in the EDNY and SDNY may not follow Blick and Five Guys, for now businesses in New York City must take these decisions seriously.  With DOJ no longer expected to issue clarifying regulations in the near future (if at all) and in light of the recent pro-plaintiff decisions in this case, Five Guys, Winn-Dixie, and Hobby Lobby, the plaintiffs’ bar is further escalating its efforts to blanket most major industries with website accessibility demand letters and lawsuits.  Not only are new players emerging every day, but the well-known plaintiff’s attorneys in this area – emboldened by these recent decisions – are becoming increasingly aggressive.  The Blick decision underscores what we’ve been cautioning clients about for some time – businesses with websites that are either connected to a brick and mortar place of public accommodation or use a website to directly sell goods and services to the public who are looking to avoid website accessibility lawsuits should promptly take the steps necessary to make their websites accessible that we have addressed in our previously website accessibility blogs.

In the latest of an increasing number of recent website accessibility decisions, in Gorecki v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (Case No.: 2:17-cv-01131-JFW-SK), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied Hobby Lobby’s motion to dismiss a website accessibility lawsuit on due process and primary jurisdiction grounds.  In doing so, the Hobby Lobby decision further calls into question the precedential value of the Central District of California’s recent outlier holding in Robles v. Dominos Pizza LLC (Case No.: 2:16-cv-06599-SJO-FFM) which provided businesses with hope that the tide of recent decisions might turn in their favor.

The Hobby Lobby website provides a variety of services which are closely related to Hobby Lobby’s brick and mortar stores, including:  purchasing products online; searching for store locations; viewing special price offers; and purchasing gift cards.  Plaintiff alleged that Hobby lobby violated Title III of the ADA, as well as California’s Unruh Act, by not providing full and equal access to its website for individuals with disabilities (as the website was inaccessible to individuals who are blind and make use of a screen-reading program).  In the complaint, Plaintiff sought injunctive relief requiring Hobby Lobby to ensure that individuals with disabilities have as full and equal enjoyment of the website as individuals without disabilities.  However, importantly, Plaintiff did not seek the imposition of a specific technical rule or standard for Hobby Lobby to provide full and equal enjoyment.

Hobby Lobby made a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint on two grounds – due process and the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  In short, Hobby Lobby argued that because the U.S. Department of Justice had not promulgated final website accessibility regulations under Title III setting forth specific accessibility standards, it would violate due process to provide Plaintiff with injunctive relief imposing website accessibility obligations as Hobby Lobby lacked sufficient notice of its obligation.  Additionally, Hobby Lobby argued the action should be dismissed under the primary jurisdiction doctrine which, if applied, would hold that the court should not rule on website accessibility issues until DOJ – the expert regulator in this area – first speaks on the issue by promulgating and adopting regulations.  While these arguments have generally failed in the context of website accessibility, their potential viability was recently revisited following the Dominos decision which dismissed a website accessibility action based on these very grounds (noting that businesses might be able to provide access to a website’s services via alternative means than making the website itself accessible – e.g., a 24/7 toll-free, sufficiently staffed, hotline).

Here, in denying the motion to dismiss, the court rejected each of Hobby Lobby’s arguments.  First, the court took great exception with the contention that Hobby Lobby did not have sufficient notice of the need to make its website accessible.  The court stressed that DOJ had articulated its position that Title III requires website accessibility for over 20 years – including in speeches, congressional hearings, amicus briefs and statements of interest, rulemaking efforts, and enforcement actions and related settlement agreements.  Moreover, at a broader level, the court noted that from its inception, Title III has always required “full and equal enjoyment” and the provision of “auxiliary aids and services” for “effective communication” and further explained that these overarching civil rights concepts could (and should) easily apply to websites and screen-readers.  Second, following up on this reasoning and underscoring other comparable times when courts have interpreted similar issues under Title III’s civil rights provisions, the court disagreed that it would be appropriate to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine.  The court saw no reason the issue of website accessibility could not be adjudicated in the same way countless other Title III matters had been handled in the past.  Moreover, the court expressed concern that – given that seven years has already passed since DOJ first expressed an intent to promulgate website accessibility regulations under Title III with little progress – invoking the doctrine could needlessly delay potentially meritorious claims.

The Court also rejected Hobby Lobby’s efforts to rely upon the Dominos decision – which was reached in the very same court – to support its arguments.  In Dominos – contrary to the law that had come before it in website accessibility matters decided in other jurisdictions – citing due process concerns, the court did invoke the primary jurisdiction doctrine to dismiss a website accessibility claim.  However, the court in Hobby Lobby, readily distinguished the Dominos decision in concluding it did not dictate the same ruling in this case.  Specifically, in Dominos the plaintiff sought injunctive relief that required Dominos comply with the WCAG 2.0, a specific standard that has not been officially adopted by DOJ in Title III regulations (though it has been officially adopted in other government regulations and is readily used by DOJ in its settlement agreements).  In Hobby Lobby plaintiff merely sought “full and equal” enjoyment of the website’s services without specifying how that would have to be accomplished – a pivotal distinction.

The Hobby Lobby decision underscores the likelihood that the Dominos decision remains, for now, an outlier.  Taken in tandem with last week’s post-trial verdict in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., this most recent decision should be viewed as another reason why businesses should seriously consider prophylactic efforts to make their websites (at least when linked to places of public accommodation) accessible.  (For now, the most commonly accepted path to accessibility remains compliance with WCAG 2.0 at Levels A and AA).

Internet Connectivity and Web Browser - AbstractOn April 28, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, withdrew its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities.  This original initiative, which was commenced at the 20th Anniversary of the ADA in 2010, was expected to result in a final NPRM setting forth website accessibility regulations for state and local government entities later this year.  Instead, citing a need to address the evolution and enhancement of technology (both with respect to web design and assistive technology for individuals with disabilities) and to collect more information on the costs and benefits associated with making websites accessible, DOJ “refreshed” its regulatory process and, instead, on May 9, 2016, published a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) in the federal register.

By August 8, 2016, the SNPRM seeks comments on a variety of issues, including, among others:

  • The appropriate technical standards for providing an accessible website (e.g., WCAG 2.0?);
  • The time period covered entities should be given for compliance once the regulations are effective (e.g., two years?)  and whether additional time should be granted for any specific requirements (e.g., narrative description?);
  • Whether exemptions should be granted for a variety of reasons (e.g., smaller entities; archived materials; existing pdf/Word documents; third-party content/links);
  • Should alternative formats ever be an acceptable alternative to an accessible website? and
  • Should mobile applications be covered by the regulations?

While this development does not directly impact businesses covered by Title III, it does suggest a few relevant considerations.  The questions posed in the SNPRM indicate that DOJ is considering many of the issues that Title III businesses have been forced to grapple with on their own in the face of the recent wave of website accessibility demand letters and lawsuits commenced on behalf of private plaintiffs and advocacy groups.  It would be a positive development for any eventual government regulations to clearly speak to these issues.  Conversely, it may be even longer before we see final regulations for Title III entities.  DOJ has long indicated its intent to first promulgate Title II regulations and then draw upon them in developing subsequent Title III regulations.  While the final Title II regulations were expected in 2016, the Title III regulations were already not expected until any earlier than 2018.  Therefore, this unexpected development could result in even further delays in the issuance of final Title III regulations (something which could also be impacted by any developments relating to this being an election year) resulting in businesses continuing to have to draw teachings from a variety of indirect/analogous resources when assessing how to best address accessible technology issues.

One Industry Takes Action

In the face of mounting frustration stemming from DOJ’s ongoing delays in promulgating website accessibility regulations while plaintiff’s counsel are allowed to continue to aggressively pursue claims some in the real estate industry recently decided to take action.  Citing “the growing confusion around web site accessibility,” on April 29, 2016, the National Association of Realtors wrote a letter to DOJ’s Civil Rights Division imploring DOJ to take actions to regulate the issue of website accessibility for Title III entities as soon as possible.  The letter highlighted the unfortunate dynamic that currently exists as DOJ and plaintiffs’ counsel seek to enforce broad overarching civil rights provisions in the absence of any uniform federal regulations.  (This is similar to the December 2015 efforts of Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and a group of eight other Senators who wrote to the Obama administration calling for the prompt release of rules that would clarify and support access to information and communications technology ADA.)

Another Possible Approach to Mobile Accessibility?

While most current settlement agreements regarding website accessibility focus on desktop websites, many businesses are anticipating that the next target for plaintiffs and advocacy groups will be their mobile websites and applications.  Such concern is well founded as recent DOJ settlement agreements addressing accessible technology have included modifications to both desktop websites and mobile applications.

To date, those settlements have referenced the same compliance standard for both desktop and mobile websites and applications; WCAG 2.0 at Levels A and AA.  This is notwithstanding the fact that as currently written WCAG 2.0 does not directly incorporate mobile applications.  While the W3C has stated that a large number of existing WCAG 2.0 techniques can be applied to mobile content, a separate list of mobile-related guidelines is not currently available (though the W3C’s Mobile Accessibility Task Force is working to develop WCAG 2.0 Techniques that directly address emerging mobile accessibility challenges such as small screens, touch and gesture interface, and changing screen orientation for use with the WCAG).   In the interim, the W3C has published a working draft document titled “Mobile Accessibility:  How WCAG 2.0 and Other W3C/WAI Guidelines Apply to Mobile” that is intended to help mobile app developers apply the current WCAG 2.0 requirements to mobile applications.

However, a recent settlement between Netflix Inc. and the American Council of the Blind and Bay State Council of the Blind took a somewhat different approach.  While relying upon WCAG 2.0 Levels A and AA for the desktop website obligations, for mobile applicable devices, the agreement instead referenced the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Mobile Accessibility Standards and Guidelines version 1.0 (the “BBC Mobile Requirements”).

The BBC Mobile Requirements are a set of best practices for mobile web content and applications.  Instead of attempting to apply the desktop website requirements of the WCAG 2.0 to mobile applications, the BBC Mobile Requirements provide mobile application developers with a list of accessibility requirements for 11 topics that are specifically geared to enhance the accessibility of mobile applications.  The BBC Mobile Requirements were developed to:  (i) more accurately reflect the technology used by mobile applications; (ii) provide testing criteria that can be specifically applied to mobile devices; and (iii) provide developers of the two most pervasive mobile application platforms – iOS (Apple) and Android – with specific guidance for providing accessibility where one technique may not be applicable to both platforms.  They are categorized as:  (i) “Standards,” which are identified by the words, “Must” or “Must Not”; and (ii) “Guidelines,” which are identified by the words, “Should” or “Should Not.”  Per the BBC Mobile Requirements website, “In general, standards are best practices that can easily be tested with specific criteria that is not subjective and is technologically possible to achieve with current assistive technology on mobile devices.  Guidelines are less testable but considered core to accessible mobile website and apps.”

For the most part, the BBC Mobile Requirements reflect existing WCAG 2.0 requirements.  For example, the BBC Mobile Requirements state that mobile application content requiring user input (e.g., forms to sign up for email alerts) should have explicit labels describing the type of user input that is required.  This is similar to WCAG 2.0 Level A Guideline 3.3.2 – Labels or Instructions, requiring that, “Labels or instructions are provided when content requires user input.”  Additionally, in some instances, the BBC Mobile Requirements directly reference the WCAG 2.0.  For example, the BBC Mobile Requirements’ Standard for color contrast states that developers should “… use the WCAG 2.0 Level AA contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1.”  However, there are some BBC Mobile Requirements, such as “Touch target size” (requiring mobile application content to be structured so that it is large enough for a user to tap the target area comfortable with one finger), that do not have an equivalent WCAG 2.0 requirement at this time.

Given the challenges some businesses have cited in directly applying all WCAG 2.0 guidelines to certain aspects of mobile applications, the BBC Mobile Requirements offer another possible consideration.  However, the lack of clarity with respect to this issue only underscores why DOJ’s most recent additional regulatory delay is the sources of considerable frustration for most businesses.

As always, keep following EBG’s blogs for updates regarding ongoing developments in accessible technology.

My colleague Joshua A. Stein at Epstein Becker Green has a Hospitality Labor and Employment Law blog post that will be of interest to many of our readers: “DOJ Further Delays Release of Highly Anticipated Proposed Website Accessibility Regulations for Public Accommodations.”

Following is an excerpt:

For those who have been eagerly anticipating the release of the U.S. Department of Justice’s proposed website accessibility regulations for public keyboard-4x3_jpgaccommodations under Title III of the ADA (the “Public Accommodation Website Regulations”), the wait just got even longer.  The recently released Spring 2015 Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions reveals that DOJ’s Public Accommodation Website Regulations are now not expected until April 2016.  This delay moves back the release date nearly a year from what most had previously anticipated; this summer in advance of July’s 25th Anniversary of the ADA.  While there was no public statement explaining the release, most insiders believe it has to do with the difficulty of appropriately quantifying the costs and benefits of complying with any promulgated regulations – a necessary step by DOJ for such a rulemaking.

Read the full original post here.

On March 5, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 2015 WL 925586 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2015) that provides retailers with useful insight into how to manage the issue of “temporary obstructions” to accessible routes under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“Title III”).

Title III’s overarching obligations that retailers provide individuals with disabilities with full and equal enjoyment of their goods and services and engage in ongoing barrier removal include the requirement to provide and maintain accessible routes (generally, a minimum of 36 inches in width) into the store, to merchandise, and to locations such as check-out and service counters, restrooms, fitting rooms, and other amenities.  Title III’s implementing regulations and related Technical Assistance Manuals clarify that isolated and temporary obstructions to the accessible route do not violate the ADA, if infrequent and promptly removed.

Here, Chapman alleged that Pier 1 violated Title III and related state accessibility laws, by, among other things, repeatedly obstructing its aisles with merchandise, furniture, display racks, and ladders.  Chapman encountered such obstructions on eleven separate visits to a Pier 1 store.  In upholding the district court’s finding of summary judgment for Chapman on the obstructed aisle issue, the Ninth Circuit rejected Pier 1’s argument that these allegations should be excused as mere temporary obstructions and thus, did not violate the law.

The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning suggests helpful guidance for retailers looking to avoid similar lawsuits:

  • Adopting policies governing the placement of merchandise to maintain accessible routes, and practices and procedures to help implement those policies (g., regular walks of the store with a tape measure) do not insulate a retailer from liability if, the policies, practices, and procedures are – as in Chapman – ineffective;
  • An obstruction is unlikely to be deemed temporary, if retailers place the onus upon the customer to request its removal;
  • An obstruction will not necessarily be deemed temporary just because it was created by another patron and not the retailer itself – the retailer has an obligation to maintain its accessible routes;
  • Even if individual instances of obstruction when viewed separately might be temporary, a volume of “temporary obstructions” can become sufficiently prevalent to constitute repeated and persistent failures that were not promptly remedied and, thus constitute a violation of Title III; and
  • True temporary obstructions – those that are isolated and transitory in nature – g., maintenance equipment being actively used to make repairs or items currently involved in re-stocking merchandise – remain subject to Title III’s exemption to the accessible route requirements.

For additional information please contact Joshua A. Stein.

By Andrea R. Calem

Noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act just became costlier. Pursuant to an inflation-adjustment formula, on March 28, 2014 the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued a final rule raising the civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Civil Rights Division, including those assessed under Title III of the ADA (“Title III”).

Title III prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against disabled individuals with respect to access to goods, services, programs and facilities, and (with limited exceptions) requires public accommodations to make reasonable accommodations so that disabled individuals may equally access these goods and opportunities. Accommodations may include modification of physical space in order to remove physical barriers, the provision of auxiliary aids for communication (such as sign language interpreters, closed captioning, written materials in Braille), and a wide variety of other, context-specific adjustments to the way business is conducted or services are offered.

With the upward adjustment, the maximum civil penalty for a first violation of Title III rises from $55,000 to $75,000, and the maximum civil penalty for a second violation rises from $110,000 to $150,000. The new maximums apply to violations that occur on or after April 28, 2014. The last time these penalties were adjusted for inflation was in 1999.

These penalties can be consequential for small businesses or those with thin profit margins, and can accrue to significant levels for businesses of all sizes if the DOJ finds evidence of repeated violations of Title III. The DOJ’s current ADA enforcement environment is an aggressive one, consistent with the aggressive positions recently taken by many other federal agencies which protect workers’ and civil rights, such as the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and Programs. The retail and hospitality industries continue to provide inviting targets for the DOJ, particularly high-profile businesses such as top restaurants with celebrity chefs.

The increased penalties are one more reminder that the costs associated with ADA compliance should not be postponed until enforcement – in the form of a civil lawsuit or the DOJ – is knocking at your (hopefully accessible) door.