dannlaw.com

Foreclosure Defense | Ohio | Chicago | New Jersey | Oregon | New York

Cleveland Office
216-373-0539
Cincinnati Office
513-951-7124
Columbus Office
877-475-8100
NY/NJ Office
201-355-3440

DannLaw files federal lawsuit alleging Homewood Suites by Hilton Mahwah and Hilton Worldwide Holdings repeatedly violated the Americans with Disabilities Act

Disability Rights

By

DannLaw today filed suit against the owners of the Homewood Suites by Hilton hotel located in Mahwah, New Jersey and Hilton Worldwide Holdings, Inc. for repeatedly violating both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws. The suit, filed on behalf of Erika Symmonds, alleges that the defendants twice failed to provide ADA-compliant accommodations after confirming that mobility accessible rooms were available at the Mahwah, NJ facility. The pleading in the case, which was filed today in the Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey may be viewed and downloaded here:0001. (09-04-2019) COMPLAINT against APPLE SEVEN HOSPITALITY OWNERSHIP INC. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC. (Filing a

According to Attorney Emily White, Managing Partner of DannLaw’s Disability Rights Practice Group, Symmonds and her family, including her grandmother who has a mobility impairment traveled to the Mahwah area to visit relatives for the winter holidays in December 2017 and again in 2018.  A few weeks before each trip, Symmonds researched accessible rooms, and made a hotel reservation at Homewood Suites in a room designated “mobility accessible”. Symmonds then followed up by phone to confirm that the room was both accessible and available so that her spouse, young daughter, and grandmother could be in close proximity in a shared suite. In both instances, however, the hotel failed to provide a mobility accessible room, resulting in humiliating and distressing experiences for her family.

In December 2017, the family arrived at Homewood Suites Mahwah and were informed that the accessible room they had reserved was not available.  The family was instead placed in an inaccessible room.  As a result, Symmonds’ then 92-year-old grandmother was not able to independently use the bathroom and had to rely upon physical and emotional support from family members.

In December 2018, Symmonds again booked a room at Homewood Suites after receiving assurances from the hotel staff that the mobility accessible room was available and would be provided.  But when Symmonds arrived with her family late on Christmas evening, she found that the room she was given was not mobility accessible.  The bathroom lacked grab bars around the toilet and the space was too small to accommodate a walker or a wheelchair.  Because the bathroom was not accessible, the family member with a disability was unable to independently access it, and the family spent the morning after Christmas laundering the grandmother’s clothing. When one of the family members alerted the hotel front desk staff about the situation, she was told that the hotel considered the room to be “mobility accessible” because the tub was large enough to fit a stool that could be requested from the engineering department.

The ADA, which includes specific technical specifications for mobility accessible rooms, requires hotels to provide equal access to people with disabilities and to ensure that rooms are available to travelers with disabilities. Since 2012, the ADA has mandated that online reservation systems describe the features of accessible rooms so that travelers can independently identify whether a room has accessible features such as a wheel-in shower or grab bars. In addition, the law requires that people with disabilities have equal opportunity to reserve an accessible room.

In 2010, Hilton entered into an agreement with the United States Department of Justice to improve its reservation system. The agreement resolved a lawsuit alleging that:

  • Hilton “Systemically, and across its various brands…fails to provide individuals with disabilities the same opportunity to reserve accessible guest rooms using its on-line … reservations systems”;
  • Hilton “Failed to provide accurate, reliable information about its accessible sleeping rooms and amenities throughout its reservations system”;
  • “…individuals with disabilities are unable to reserve, on-line, accessible sleeping accommodations with either a tub or a roll-in shower.”

“Hilton’s failure to provide the accessible rooms reserved by Symmonds represent a serious violation of the ADA,” Attorney White said.”

“At a time when so many people are caring for elderly relatives or other family members with disabilities, hotels must provide the legally-required services families need,” Symmonds said. “It is disappointing that a company like Hilton, which could be a leader in disability access, refuses to meet even the baseline requirements of the law. Hilton should know better and do better to ensure that the rooms it designates as ‘mobility-accessible’ have grab-bars near toilets and enough space to make it possible for individuals with walkers and wheelchairs to enter bathrooms,” Symmonds continued. “We are filing suit in the hope that Hilton will honor its commitment to people with disabilities and their caregivers by fully complying with the ADA at all its properties.”

Along with compensatory damages, the suit asks the court to order Homewood Suites by Hilton Mahwah and Hilton Worldwide Holdings to ensure that equal access to accessible guest rooms is provided to individuals with disabilities and their families in the future and that such compliance is to be monitored by the federal court.

For more information, please contact Attorney Emily White at 614-705-0107 or [email protected]

By

Last year, Edwardo Sanchez, a paralegal in DannLaw’s New Jersey and New York office became the first person in his family to graduate from college, an event he proudly shared on Twitter. His tweet was noticed and retweeted by none other than Bill Gates who told his 43.2 million followers that Edwardo’s story was an “amazing moment of hope and progress” in what had been a “really tough year.” I agree with Mr. Gates, Edwardo’s achievement gives us all hope that the American Dream is still alive.

Like Mr. Gates I also believe 2017 was a really rough year – and I’m afraid it may have been the first in an epoch during which it will become increasingly difficult for people to realize their dreams whether they involve graduating from college, buying a home, living in a safe neighborhood with good schools, achieving financial security, participating in the democratic process, realizing their full potential as human beings, or enjoying their retirement years. All those things are now at risk because the current administration is rolling back regulations and refusing to enforce laws that ensure Edwardo and other Americans have the opportunity to use their talents to achieve and succeed.

I’ll readily admit I was depressed about the situation until I realized that there was one group in the country that could step in and assume the responsibilities government was abdicating – lawyers. That’s right, lawyers like me, like my colleagues at DannLaw, like the thousands of lawyers across the country who do one thing in many different ways – help clients achieve their dreams.

When you think about it, we lawyers have always been in the hope and progress business. We’ve always been there when the government failed to protect its citizens. Lawyers were at the forefront of the civil rights movement, the drive to make cars safer, to rid medicine of bad doctors and dangerous drugs, to clean up our air and water, to protect consumers, and advocate for the disabled.

Armed with only JDs, knowledge, guts, and an unwavering belief in the principle of equal justice under law, lawyers made America a better place to live time and time again.

That aspect of our profession has never been more important than it is today.

With that in mind, we at DannLaw are redoubling our efforts to battle the home foreclosure crisis that is still roiling communities across Ohio by using Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Protection Act (RESPA) and Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) to hold lenders and servicers accountable when they ignore the law and abuse borrowers.

Fortunately, these powerful tools managed to escape the fate that has befallen large portions of the nation’s regulatory regime over the past year. Indeed, I’m both happy and astonished to report that Reg. X is stronger than ever thanks to the enactment of additional amendments that became effective in October. Readers can learn more about the new provisions by visiting DannLaw.com or by contacting Dan Solar, leader of our RESPA practice group.

We also plan to do more to help borrowers deal with student loan debt which now exceeds $1.31 trillion and is turning the dream of obtaining a college degree into a nightmare for American families. According to Emily White, director of our student loan practice group, the Department of Education’s decision to relax oversight of the industry has freed lenders to use increasingly aggressive tactics against borrowers. Although people who took out loans backed by the government have few options, we can help students who borrowed from National Collegiate and other private lenders because those companies, like their counterparts in the mortgage industry, often commit sloppy mistakes and paperwork errors that make it difficult if not impossible for them to collect. Emily and I will have more to report during 2018.

Which is a great segue into an area in which we made great progress during 2017 – disability rights law. I’m extremely proud of the work we’ve done to convince companies to bring their digital platforms into compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and similar state statutes.

Here’s a special note to my friends who practice corporate defense law and their clients – complying with the ADA is a win/ win. Enabling people with disabilities to purchase goods via your websites and apps will create millions of new customers and generate billions in profits. Don’t take my word for it, just ask Target, the company’s reaped huge profits since becoming a leader in accessibility.

Those are just a few areas where we have and will continue to step in and use the law to do what government won’t – protect and enhance our clients’ ability to achieve their dreams.

Knowing we have the power to do it has made me prouder than ever to be a lawyer.

By

McDonalds

Lawsuit claims restaurant chain’s website and mobile app are not fully accessible to and independently usable by the blind or visually-impaired.

CHICAGO, April 25, 2017 —The Manning Law Firm of Newport Beach California has joined with former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann of the Dann Law Firm to file suit in federal court alleging that the McDonald’s restaurant chain is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act (UCRA). The suit was filed because the company’s website and mobile app are not fully accessible to or independently usable by people who are blind or visually impaired. The action was filed on behalf of Sean Gorecki, a legally blind California resident who, despite numerous attempts, has been unable to access goods and services regularly offered on McDonald’s website and/or mobile app that are readily available to the non-visually impaired.

The Case, Sean Gorecki vs. McDonald’s Corporation, Case No. 1:17-cv-03036, was filed in The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division because McDonald’s is headquartered in Oak Brook, Illinois. Among other remedies, the suit seeks a permanent injunction ordering McDonald’s to make its website and mobile app readily accessible to and usable by blind and visually-impaired individuals.

“McDonald’s could easily make the legally-required accommodations called for in the suit,” Atty. Dann said. “Every day thousands of blind and visually impaired people, including Mr. Gorecki, use screen reader software programs like Job Access With Speech (JAWS) for Windows devices or Apple’s VoiceOver to access websites and apps. But in order to function properly, the information on a website or app must be formatted so the screen reader can render it into meaningful text. Numerous companies have built that capability into their sites and apps. McDonald’s has chosen not to do so. That’s an unfortunate business decision and, we contend, a clear violation of the ADA and the UCRA.”

“The Department of Justice and case law, including National Federation of the Blind v Target Corp., establish that websites and apps belonging to private companies fall within the ADA’s accessibility requirements,” Atty. Manning noted. “The NFB v Target case is compelling because after denying wrongdoing, Target began working with the NFB to ensure that blind and visually impaired consumers had equal access to products and information on Target.com. As a result, the case was settled, Target received Gold Level NFB-NVA Certification and the company is now recognized as a leader in web accessibility.”

“The settlement was a win for the blind and visually impaired and for Target,” Manning commented. “Mr. Gorecki, I, and the other members of his legal team believe we can achieve a similar outcome in our case.”

The numerous problems Mr. Gorecki encountered when attempting to access McDonalds.com and the company’s mobile app to purchase goods and services include:

  • The home page has graphics, links, and buttons that are not labeled or are incorrectly labeled, or lack alternative text (“Alt-text”).
  • The Nutrition Calculator does not add items to the meal when a screen-reader user selects “add”, and the values for the Nutrition Calculator are not clear.
  • There are several links throughout the website that say “void (0).”
  • The menus and sub menus have redundant coding that causes screen-readers to repeatedly state “menu sub-menu.”
  • Finding a location is not fully accessible due to the structure of the headings and the constant pop-up to urge the screen-reader user to enter e-mail and zip code to sign up for the mailing list.
  • The website is structured in a confusing manner for screen-readers

“McDonald’s knows these deficiencies exist, but they’ve elected not to address them so Mr. Gorecki was left with no other recourse than to assert his rights under the ADA and the UCRA,” Dann said.

In order to address the issues and bring the company into compliance with the law, the suit asks the court to order McDonald’s to make its website and app accessible to the blind and visually impaired, regularly check the performance of both platforms, conduct end-user accessibility tests, and develop an accessibility policy as well as a process for reporting and resolving accessibility-related issues.

By

Bath & Body Works

On April 26 I announced that the Dann Law Firm and California-based Manning Law Firm of Newport Beach had filed suit in federal court alleging that the McDonald’s restaurant chain is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act because the company’s website and mobile app are not fully accessible to or independently usable by people who are blind or visually impaired. Since then Dann Law Firm has filed similar actions against GrubHub, the online food delivery service, as well as Bath and Body Works and DSW.

I’d like to take credit for being the one who recognized the need to bring these suits on behalf of the blind and the visually impaired, but I can’t. The credit goes to Emily White, the managing partner of our Columbus office and director of our disability law department who made the following observations:

  • People with disabilities aren’t just people with disabilities, they’re also consumers who have billions of dollars to spend;
  • The explosive growth in e-commerce—224 million Americans are expected to spend nearly $400 billion online this year–is generating a concurrent increase in the number of people with disabilities who are finding it difficult if not impossible to buy goods and services online.
  • Those difficulties may represent violations of the ADA and other laws designed to protect the rights of persons with disabilities;
  • The companies violating those laws should have the hell sued out of them;
  • Our firm should do the suing.

Not only was she right, she changed my entire perspective on persons with disability and the law. Before she educated me I had always viewed disability law as a critically important area of practice—but one that was totally separate and removed from consumer law which has always been the primary focus of our firm. Once she explained the nexus between the two I was convinced that we should begin holding companies that refuse to make their e-commerce platforms accessible accountable for their actions.

So we sued McDonald’s, GrubHub, Bath and Body Works, and DSW–and we’re prepared to take action against other companies that ignore the law and make it difficult if not impossible for the blind and visually impaired to engage in e-commerce.

I’m extremely proud of and energized by the work we’re doing in this field and I’m pleased that the media, including Chicago’s Channel 5, is paying attention to this rapidly expanding area of the law. I was happy to help them put the story together because media scrutiny will raise awareness about the critically important issue of disability rights and that, in turn, may motivate companies to do the right thing and break down the virtual barriers they’ve erected on their e-commerce platforms. But until they do so, we’ll continue to use the law and the courts to ensure that persons with disabilities have the opportunity to do what millions of Americans do every day: shop online.