Ugh. I'm probably one of the only people who hates autumn in the Pacific Northwest. Sure, the colors are beautiful, but I think the colors were even more vibrant where I grew up (Berkshire County in Massachusetts). But autumn in Seattle also signals the arrival of the "dark times" that will stick around for the next six months. I'd still take this over 95% of North America because our weather is never too hot or too cold (e.g. I don't think we got even a single snowflake last winter).
This month's issue is all about New York-- and specifically about the Southern District of New York. This isn't by choice-- Lexis ONLY reported cases from there this month.
Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Shuts Door on Web Accessibiilty Cases Against Online-Only Businesses
The big news this month has to be the new opinion from the Southern District of New York in Mejia v. High Brew Coffee, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180006 (S.D.N.Y. 2024). Chief Judge Laura Swain wrote the opinion, which was issued just after last month’s legal update came out (actually, it was decided later on the same day as last month’s legal update!). Seyfarth Shaw broke the news and their blog post does a fine job summarizing the opinion. In a nutshell, Judge Swain gives a pretty straightforward analysis stating that everything in the definition and examples of “place of public accommodation” suggests the need for a physical place of business—therefore, purely online companies can’t be covered by the ADA. If you’d like to read the opinion, here is a link to the Mejia opinion from Pacer.
I disagree with Judge Swain’s opinion but I respect it. From a practical perspective, I do not believe that online businesses should be given a free ride under ADA Title III when brick-and-mortar businesses are not. Plus, I don’t like the impact that her opinion has on people with disabilities. These are more like public policy reasons not to like her opinion, however. While I’m a fierce critic of the nexus standard, her opinion doesn’t go into those dangerous waters.
What’s the final effect of Judge Swain’s opinion? Until she issued her opinion, a clear split was developing between the Eastern and Southern Districts over the coverage of purely online companies under Title III. Now all bets are off.
Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads – A More Careful Version of High Brew Coffee
On October 16, Judge Gregory Woods from the Southern District of New York issued a lengthy and more thoughtful version of the Mejia opinion in Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189169 (S.D.N.Y. 2024). This opinion goes into a lot more depth than the Mejia opinion but ultimately rests on the same grounds—the statute’s language of “place of public accommodation” and the examples used in the ADA definitions. Here is a link to the Sookul opinion from Pacer. While the opinion is more careful, however, it isn’t any more convincing; reasonable minds can disagree about the outcome even if they agree on the strength of their opponent’s arguments.
Sookul does make interesting reading, however, for a completely different reason. Sanjay Sookul is a serial plaintiff yet Judge Woods seems to have gone out of his way to make clear that Mr. Sookul met the Calcano test and demonstrated a clear intent to return. Serial plaintiffs in New York would do well to read this opinion.
Politics, SDNY, Mejia, and Calcano
On the eve of the most polarized election of our generation, it’s hard not to imagine that the sudden rightward shift in the Southern District’s web accessibility opinions is a takeover by the hidden conservative factions. The reality is that Judge Swain is a Clinton appointee and Judge Woods is an Obama appointee. Another reality is that the Southern District has become an overwhelmingly popular district for serial plaintiffs in web accessibility lawsuits. I don’t like the outcome in either the Mejia or Sookul opinions, but I also don’t have a docket of hundreds of cases. If I did, I might also take a dimmer view of how broadly to read the words, “place of public accommodation.”
Disclaimer
Nothing in this post should be interpreted as legal advice or as forming an attorney-client relationship. It is offered for educational purposes only. You should always contact a qualified attorney in your area to discuss your legal rights and responsibilities.
Want to See More Content Like This?
Want the latest blog posts, videos, white papers, and announcements? Sign up for our mailing list and stay in the loop!
We're Here to Help When You're Ready
Take a deep breath. Then feel free to reach out to our team when you're ready to discuss your accessibility needs.
0 comments on “Legal Update: October 2024”