DRS wants to share important information from the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services' employee newsletter Breaking Barriers about a web accessibility lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza. DRS ADA Coordinator Charles Watt is the article author. Brett Jones is the newsletter editor.

Domino’s asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth District.

The Supreme Court declined to review the case. They did not issue any reasons for their denial. The case of Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC simply appeared on the list of cases that were denied. So, where does this leave things? The Supreme Court did not give definitive answers to the contentious issues brought up by this particular case. Allowing a lower court decision to stand is tacit approval and implies they would have ruled similarly. Other federal courts will be looking at this case and likely will make rulings that agree with its findings.

Three questions are at the heart of Robles v. Domino’s. First, does the ADA requirement against nondiscrimination apply to the websites or mobile applications of a place of public accommodation? The Ninth Circuit ruled it did. They ruled the requirements applied to “the services of a place of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation.”

Second, are the due process rights of a business violated if they are held accountable for adhering to standards such as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, for which no guidance has been issued by a federal enforcement agency? Domino’s claimed the plaintiff, Robles, was seeking to “impose liability on Domino’s for failing to comply with WCAG 2.0, which are private, unenforceable guidelines.” The court disagreed, stating Robles was not seeking to impose liability, merely citing WCAG as an effective remedy. The court also cited one of their previous rulings where they stated, “as a general matter, the lack of specific regulations cannot eliminate a statutory obligation.”

Finally, the last question concerned the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Using this doctrine, Domino’s was trying to convince the court they should defer any rulings on the issue of web accessibility until the DOJ issued regulations, lending their “expert advice” on the matter. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument.

Unsurprisingly, the judges hearing this case asserted they did not necessarily need the advice of the DOJ to be able to competently make a ruling in the matter. The three questions of law discussed above are probably now going to be decided in other federal jurisdictions in accordance with the ruling of the appeals court.

One question about web accessibility was not answered in the case and will continue to be handled differently in different circuit courts. That question is whether a business must have a physical, brick-and-mortar location to be considered a place of public accommodation as defined in the ADA. Some courts have said they must, while others reject that argument. As far as I know, the Tenth Circuit, which includes Oklahoma, has not issued an opinion on the matter. But there are several cases filed by the National Federation of the Blind that are in the queue.

Article written by Charles Watt DRS ADA Coordinatoor