39 Cal.App.5th 634
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Cheryl Thurston, a blind patron who uses screen‑reader software, sued Midvale Corporation (owner of The Whisper Lounge) after she could not access the restaurant’s website to read the menu or make reservations.
- Thurston alleged violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act based on a claimed violation of Title III of the ADA; her complaint noted WCAG 2.0 guidelines as benchmarks but sought relief under the ADA/Unruh Act for inaccessibility.
- The trial court granted Thurston summary judgment, finding the restaurant’s website was inaccessible, that phone/email alternatives were not equivalent (not timely, did not protect independence/privacy), and that Title III applies to websites connected to physical places of public accommodation.
- The court entered an injunction requiring the website to comply with WCAG 2.0 as an equitable remedy and awarded statutory damages under Unruh.
- Midvale appealed, arguing (1) Title III does not apply to websites; (2) the injunction and damages violated due process because DOJ hasn’t adopted technical web standards and WCAG is voluntary; (3) phone/email were adequate auxiliary aids; (4) Thurston lacked standing for injunctive relief and the injunction was overbroad/uncertain.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: Title III applies to websites that have a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation; the record showed such nexus and inaccessibility; phone/email were inadequate alternatives; injunctive relief (with WCAG 2.0 specified) did not violate due process and was not overbroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Title III of the ADA apply to Midvale’s website? | Title III covers services/advantages of a physical place; Thurston argued the website connects to a brick‑and‑mortar restaurant so ADA applies. | Midvale urged the Third Circuit’s rule (Ford) that Title III applies only to physical, on‑premises access and not to websites. | Court: Title III applies to websites that have a nexus to a physical place of public accommodation; affirmed application here. |
| Was the website inaccessible as a matter of undisputed fact? | Thurston presented declarations and expert evidence showing unreadable graphics, inaccessible menu and reservation features. | Midvale presented no evidence refuting Thurston’s proof of inaccessibility. | Court: Undisputed evidence showed the site was inaccessible to screen‑reader users; summary judgment for Thurston proper. |
| Are phone/email alternatives adequate auxiliary aids under ADA? | Thurston: phone/email are not equivalent — not 24/7, not timely, and undermine privacy and independence. | Midvale: providing telephone number and email satisfies the obligation to provide effective communication; reasonableness is a factual issue. | Court: Phone/email were not timely and did not protect independence/privacy; no triable issue — they were inadequate. |
| Did specifying WCAG 2.0 in the injunction / referencing voluntary guidelines violate due process or make injunction overbroad/uncertain? | Thurston: WCAG references provide concrete, widely used technical guidance; injunction is an equitable remedy to achieve ADA compliance. | Midvale: DOJ hasn’t adopted binding technical standards; enforcing WCAG 2.0 via injunction deprives Midvale of fair notice and is overbroad/uncertain. | Court: No due process violation; court did not equate WCAG with law but properly used it as a technical, widely adopted benchmark in an equitable injunction; injunction not overbroad or uncertain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Schering‑Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601 (3d Cir.) (held Title III applies only to physical places)
- Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir.) (ADA applies to websites/apps that connect customers to goods/services of physical restaurants)
- National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal.) (website integration with brick‑and‑mortar stores can create sufficient nexus for ADA coverage)
- White v. Square, Inc., 5 Cal.5th 1 (Cal.) (visiting a website with intent to use services can confer standing under the Unruh Act)