The Short-Term And Long-Term Consequences Of The United States Supreme Court’s Decision Not To Review Robles V. Domino’s Pizza

With the United States Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the appeal in the matter of Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, the landscape with respect to website accessibility lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act remains both somewhat murky and probably daunting to those who defend such claims.  This decision will, in all likelihood, have both short-term and long-term consequences.

The initial victory gained by Domino’s at the trial court level in Robles, where the court had dismissed the complaint and concluded that it would be violation of Domino’s due process rights to have the ADA applied to its website and mobile application in the absence of Department of Justice regulations, was then wiped out by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.  The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case back down for further proceedings.  Thus, the most direct short-term consequence of the Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the Robles appeal is very specific to that case—the case lives on in the federal district court where it will, presumably, either proceed to trial or be resolved by the parties.  This is no small consequence in that, to date, only one known ADA website accessibility case, Gil v. Winn Dixie, has actually gone to trial.  And the result there was not good for defendants and those who defend these cases.

There are additional short and long-term consequences, however, associated with the Supreme Court passing on a review of Robles that extend far, far beyond the four corners of that particular case.  Perhaps, most importantly, had the Supreme Court accepted review, finally, years after these cases first exploded, for lack of a better term, onto the litigation scene, we would or at least could have had  a good deal more clarity—good, bad or indifferent—with respect to these claims in that the nation’s highest court would have spoken on such lawsuits.  As it is now, what we instead have are a number of federal trial and appellate court decisions, some of which are consistent and some of which are not.

In addition,  in light of the Supreme Court’s decision not to review the Robles appeal, plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel will, in all likelihood and probably most certainly, be emboldened  to continue to file website accessibility lawsuits.  Indeed, by all accounts, it looks like these lawsuits are on the rise again in 2019.  They have continued to rise each year.

As the law continues to evolve on these matters, please note that this article is current as of date and time of publication and may not reflect subsequent developments. The content and interpretation of the issues addressed herein is subject to change. Cole Schotz P.C. disclaims any and all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this publication to the fullest extent permitted by law. This is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Do not act or refrain from acting upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining legal, financial and tax advice. For further information, please do not hesitate to reach out to your firm contact or to any of the attorneys listed in this publication.

Join Our Mailing List

Stay up to date with the latest insights, events, and more
Check all areas of law you are interested in receiving e-newsletters and alerts about:(Required)
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Our Practices

EACH REPRESENTATION IS A FRESH CANVAS

Practices

Our Industries

EXPERIENCE THAT GOES WHERE OUR CLIENTS GO

Industries