Some Credit Union ADA Cases Will Stay in Court, Judges Rule
Judges in at least five district courts in four states have thrown out at least nine lawsuits so far.
Judges for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Eastern District of Virginia have denied motions to dismiss cases against Casco, Michigan-based Belle River Community Credit Union; Jackson, Michigan-based Aeroquip Credit Union and Silver Spring, Maryland-based FedFinancial Federal Credit Union, meaning those disputes will likely continue to work their way through the court system.
The cases center around claims similar to those made in over 100 other lawsuits against credit unions over the several months: that the credit unions’ websites allegedly lacked text that allowed screen readers to describe the sites’ graphics verbally, contained redundant links that created navigation problems for blind users and had empty or missing form labels, which made the sites more cumbersome for blind users.
Most of the dozens of cases appear to have settled out of court, but some credit unions have chosen to fight their cases instead. But judges in at least five district courts in four states have so far thrown out at least nine lawsuits.
The judges in those suits generally found that, among other things, because the plaintiffs were not eligible to join the defendant credit unions, they did not have standing.
The reasons for these most recent motion denials shine some light on what other judges may eventually decide, however.
In the case against FedFinancial, a District Court judge for the Eastern District of Virginia — the same court district that has thrown out several other cases — denied the credit union’s motion to dismiss, stating that because the credit union’s website was offered as a service or privilege of the brick-and-mortar location, it was subject to the ADA.
“Plaintiff has alleged that the accessibility barriers on defendant’s website prevent him from acquiring full information about defendant’s services…defendant’s argument ignores the fact that plaintiff has been denied equal access to information that would enable him to visit defendant’s brick-and-mortar location,” the judge wrote.
In the cases against Aeroquip and Belle River, a District Court judge stated that membership eligibility was not required to have standing in the case and that the inability to access the credit unions’ websites did constitute injury. The credit unions’ websites were places of public accommodation and thus subject to the ADA, the judge also said.
“Defendant argues that a ruling in plaintiff’s favor would not redress her alleged injury because, as a nonmember of the credit union, plaintiff would still be prohibited from utilizing its services notwithstanding any modification to its website,” the judge wrote.
“Defendant’s argument mistakenly assumes that the harm plaintiff seeks to remedy is her inability to use defendant’s services. But, the harm for which plaintiff seeks relief is her inability to access defendant’s website. As a result of the barriers on defendant’s website, plaintiff is unable to effectively browse for defendant’s locations, services, and membership eligibility,” the judge added. “An order requiring defendant to comply with Title III [of the ADA] would provide plaintiff with the opportunity to access the website and explore defendant’s amenities – precisely the same opportunity defendant already affords to sighted individuals who are also nonmembers.”
Attorneys for the credit unions had no comment.