With regard to the intentional discrimination theory, Martinez argued that the retailer’s failure to take action in response to his demand letters complaining about the website’s accessibility barriers constituted intentional discrimination. Martinez claimed that he had alleged sufficient facts to establish a violation under both theories. There are two ways to establish a violation of the Unruh Act: prove (1) intentional discrimination or (2) a violation of Title III of the ADA. alleged that the online only retailer had engaged in disability discrimination in violation of California’s Unruh Act by having a website that he could not use with his screen reader software. It also held that creating and maintaining an inaccessible website cannot constitute intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that websites are not “public accommodations” covered by Title III of the ADA. Update: On November 9, 2022, the California Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s request that the Court review the California Court of Appeals precedent setting, 35-page opinion, that closed the door on California lawsuits brought against online only businesses, agreeing with the U.S. Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Court of Appeals decision that put an end to lawsuits against online only businesses in California and called out DOJ and Congress for inaction stays put after California Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s review request.
0 kommentar(er)
