Recently, the California Court of Appeals affirmed that a court had erred in sustaining a demurrer against a complaint alleging a violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act based upon maintaining a retail site that was not accessible to the visually impaired due to a lack of compatibility for screen reading software. The California Supreme Court has ruled that intentional discrimination can be inferred from the discriminatory effect of any facially neutral policy or act.
Background
In Martinez v. Cot’n Wash, Inc., 81 Cal. App. 5th 1026 (Cal. App. App. The Unruh Civil Rights Act was alleged by CW. It was alleged that CW intentionally maintained a website that was not compatible with screen-reading software, making it inaccessible for the visually impaired. Martinez argued on appeal that the trial court erred by concluding that the alleged inaccessibility to CW’s website did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. His complaint also failed to allege sufficient facts that CW’s discriminatory intent was established, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act requires if there is no ADA violation.
The trial court granted CW’s demurrer of the complaint leave to amend in June 2021 and entered a judgment for dismissal. The plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals’ Decision
The Unruh Civil Rights Act’s Presiding Judge Rothschild stated that: “All persons in the jurisdiction of this State… regardless of their… disability… are entitled the full and equal accommodations. advantages, facilities, privileges or services in any business establishments of any kind whatsoever.” There are two alternative theories for a plaintiff who can seek damages under the Unruh Civil Rights Act:
- Violation of the ADA (Civ. Code, SS 51 (f); or
- Intentional discrimination is used to deny access to a business establishment.
The plaintiff appealed, arguing that his complaint contained sufficient facts to support both theories of Unruh Civil Rights Act claims.
No Intentional Discrimination
- However, Judge Rothschild found that the complaint didn’t allege facts establishing intentional bias. The judge stated that unless a claim under the Unruh Civil Rights Act is based upon ADA violations, a claimant must prove intentional discrimination. A claimant cannot rely solely on the effects of a face-to-face neutral policy on a specific group to prove discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Unruh Civil Rights Act does not require allegations of “willful, affirmative misconduct” that is not ADA-related. However, disparate evidence may be sufficient to prove intentional discrimination in certain cases, but it cannot establish such intent.
- Plaintiff argued that the complaint contained sufficient allegations of “willful, affirmative conduct” to constitute intentional discrimination. Accordingly, he could bring an action under the Unruh Civil Rights Act. He argued that the complaint alleges that CW failed to adequately correct accessibility barriers on its website despite being notified by his counsel, demonstrates that CW did not take appropriate actions. The judge explained that CW cannot be shown to have discriminatory intent if it doesn’t show that its website does not allow visually impaired people the same access as those without visual impairments.
No ADA Violation
- The Court of Appeals ruled that the complaint did not allege facts establishing a violation of ADA. CW’s website was not a ” place of public accommodation.” In order to establish a Title III violation, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) a covered disability; 2) that the defendant is a private entity that operates, owns, leases or manages a place of accommodation; (3) that the plaintiff was denied public accommodations because of the disability.
- Judge Rothschild acknowledged the fact that different courts reached different conclusions regarding whether a website was a public accommodation. Two main points have been made by federal courts. The First is that websites can be considered “public accommodations” within the meanings of the ADA. This view has been adopted by courts in all three circuits. Websites are not “public accommodations” as defined by the ADA. However, a denial to equal access can be used to support an ADA claim if it prevents or impedes a disabled plaintiff from equal enjoyment of the goods or services offered at the defendant’s physical facilities. This view was adopted by the courts of the Third, Sixth and Ninth Circuits.
Summarized from an article by Eanet.
