Texas Court Rules CU Website Not Place of Public Accommodation Under ADA
NAFCU says this is another example of why clarity is needed for CUs as "different courts continue to come to different conclusions."
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas has dismissed a case against Houston, Texas-based Smart Financial Credit Union, adding to a growing list of dismissed cases against credit unions around the country over allegations that their websites don’t comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Unlike many of those other dismissals, however, the court in this case found that the plaintiff, who is blind, did have standing to sue the credit union. But it also ruled that Smart Financial’s website was not a place of public accommodation, and therefore did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
“The court concludes that plaintiff has demonstrated that he is injured by the inaccessibility of SFCU’s website because he continues to be deterred from accessing SFCU’s online resources,” the ruling noted.
“Plaintiff’s past attempts to access SFCU’s website, coupled with SFCU’s website’s continued inaccessibility and plaintiff’s plan to use SFCU’s website in the future once it is accessible, are sufficient to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. The court therefore concludes that plaintiff has standing to pursue this action,” it added.
Smart Financial has $694 million in assets and about 76,000 members.
The court also said SFCU’s website did not have a distinct physical place of business.
“While websites may be affiliated with brick-and-mortar businesses that are places of public accommodation, that does not render the businesses’ websites themselves places of public accommodation,” the court wrote. “Because a website is not a place of public accommodation under the ADA, SFCU cannot be liable for its website’s alleged failure to comply with the ADA. Therefore, SFCU’s motion to dismiss will be granted.”
NAFCU lauded the ruling.
“This decision reinforces the need for the Department of Justice to provide clarity on ADA website requirements as different courts continue to come to different conclusions,” EVP of Government Affairs and General Counsel Carrie Hunt said in a statement. “NAFCU will continue to press the department for guidance to ensure credit unions feel confident in their website offerings.”
The SFCU decision is the latest in a string of similar ADA cases that District Courts in various parts of the country have dismissed. Plaintiffs have appealed a few of those decisions; most are still working their way through court. About three weeks ago, though, in a case against Washington, D.C.-based Department of Labor Federal Credit Union the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the plaintiff wasn’t eligible to join the credit union and thus couldn’t sue. DOLFCU has $90 million in assets and about 7,000 members.
The debate doesn’t appear over, however. Notably different from the decision in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is a recent decision in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which involved an ADA case against Domino’s Pizza. On Jan. 15, that court found that the Americans with Disabilities Act did in fact apply to the Domino’s website and app.
“The panel stated that the ADA applies to the services of a public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation. The panel stated that the website and app connected customers to the goods and services of Domino’s physical restaurants,” the court said.
The appeals court sent the case back down to the district court, noting that requiring the pizza chain’s website to comply with WCAG 2.0 was “a possible equitable remedy.” WCAG stands for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, which are private industry standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium.
“The lack of specific regulations, not yet promulgated by the Department of Justice, did not eliminate Domino’s statutory duty,” the court noted.
“Domino’s argues it ‘needs consistent standards when it designs its website.’ While we understand why Domino’s wants DOJ to issue specific guidelines for website and app accessibility, the Constitution only requires that Domino’s receive fair notice of its legal duties, not a blueprint for compliance with its statutory obligations,” it said.