The lawsuit – tech inaccessible by those with disabilities
Eatsa (“the Defendant”) is presumably “engineered to get you in and out fast,” but not if you’re blind according to a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York, the federal court with jurisdiction over the culinary wonder world of the Big Apple. One big part of the litigation, in the opinion of this writer, centers around Eatsa having no front-of-the-house staff. Eatsa has a design concept that centers totally around technology: a customer walks in, orders and pays on a tablet, and the food is delivered in a cubby.
Business owners should have a nuanced understanding of disabilities and how they affect access and use of their services.
The American Council of the Blind, a non-profit organization with the stated mission of advocating for causes of the blind, and other potential blind customers (collectively, “the Plaintiffs”) sued Eatsa for failing to comply with, among other things, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“the Act” or “ADA”). Title III prohibits places of public accommodation, such as restaurants, from discriminating against the disabled.
The argument – its easy to comply
The Plaintiffs’ argument is that Eatsa, a restaurant and a place of public accommodation, did not make their restaurant accessible to the blind by not installing braille or phone jacks that would allow blind people access to the ordering and payment kiosks, and therefore, access to food. Under the Act and local laws, this is a potential violation because reasonable accommodations must be made for the disabled to access vital services. It is not very persuasive to argue that other dining options exist even in a place like New York City as the Defendant did.
Although one may assume there are employees who could help make orders, the Plaintiffs allege that may not always be the case, especially during the “lunch rush.” The tablets and technology being used are alleged to make it easy for the Eatsa to comply with the accessibility requirements. The Plaintiffs’ complaint states that there is “VoiceOver” technology that can be installed to provide verbal guidance. The complaint further explains text-to-speech features can be easily installed to allow access to the ordering and payment functions. The Plaintiffs state all this about the available technology because they want to make it absolutely clear: it would be easy to comply. The law only requires establishments to make accommodations that are reasonable to be ADA-compliant, nothing more. If the accommodations can be easily made, then the Plaintiffs could win.
The importance – comply with the ADA or face a lawsuit
This case demonstrates that compliance for restaurants is more imperative than traditionally thought and may be more involved than simply making the establishment itself accessible. Business owners should have a nuanced understanding of disabilities and how they affect access and use of their services. If you’re a restaurant or other public establishment, your service is a public accommodation, which is subject to the disability laws. Your front-of-the-house staff should be trained to assist also. By design, Eatsa did not have such a staff. By law, however, it complicates their compliance with important laws. Your company may be avant-garde, but that will not vitiate your responsibilities to the public. If compliance with the ADA and other laws protecting disabled people is given short shrift, the filing of a lawsuit may come as a surprise but not as a shock.
If you are unsure of how the ADA impacts your business, reach out to Jabaly Law for a consultation today. A skilled business attorney can help you navigate the changes you need to make to ensure your company is compliant.
The article was originally published in Modern Restaurant Management on April 18, 2017, available at: https://www.modernrestaurantmanagement.com/ada-compliance-in-the-automated-present/
