By Eric D. Morton
Earlier this year, I wrote an article about website accessibility. (Is Your Website Accessible?) There are a growing number of lawsuits over the accessibility of websites by persons with disabilities. Recently, a California Court of Appeals case gave some clarification on this issue. In the case of Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., the court held that a online retailer that does not have a physical location does not have to comply with certain guidelines to make its website accessible.
In the Martinez case, the plaintiff was a man who was permanently blind and used screen readers to access the internet and read website content. He sued Cot’n Wash, Inc. alleging that the Cot’n Wash’s website was not accessible to the visually impaired. Cot’n Wash sold cleaning products on its website but had no physical location at which is sold its products.
The basis of the lawsuit was that Cot’n Wash’s violated established standards for accessibility and, thus, violated the American Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. The trial court dismissed the case and the plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The court held that under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) a covered disability; (2) that the defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) the plaintiff was denied public accommodations by the defendant because of the plaintiff’s disability. Otherwise, a defendant must have intended to discriminate against persons with disabilities. In this case, the plaintiff did not show that the defendant operated a “place of public accommodation”. In the court held that since the Cot’n Wash did not have a physical location from which sold its products, it did not operate a “place of public accommodation”. The plaintiff also could not show that the Cot’n Wash intended to discriminate.
The court based its decision on a recognized loophole in the ADA. The California Court of Appeals followed the decisions of Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeal (which covers the Western United States) on this issue. The Federal Courts are split on this subject. Some of the Circuit Courts have found that the ADA applies to all commercial websites and other (including the 9th Circuit) have ruled that the ADA does not apply to websites of companies that don’t have a physical location.
Takeaways
- The Martinez case only applies in California. Some jurisdictions disagree.
- The case is a very narrow construction of the law. If a company has a physical location, then its website can be covered by the ADA and applicable state law. One unanswered question from this case is how much of physical location a company may have for its website to be subject to the ADA.
- The case might be overturned. The U.S. Supreme Court may take a case to decide the split among Federal Courts. Congress may amend the ADA to make all websites applicable.
- Despite the above caveats, if a company has no physical location, its website may not need to meet applicable standards of applicability for commercial websites.
The Martinez case will afford some relief to small companies that only sell their products online. However, business owners should exercise caution before concluding that their websites do not need to be accessible. The law may change and business owners should consult with an attorney before assuming they don’t need to comply with accessibility guidelines. Of course, making a website accessible is a good idea – if for no other reason than its good for business.
Eric D. Morton is the principal attorney of Clear Sky Law Group, P.C. He can be reached at 760-722-6582, 510-552-0367, and emorton@clearskylaw.com