You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union

Citation: 321 F. Supp. 3d 785Docket: Case No. 17-13912

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan; July 20, 2018; Federal District Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case, a visually impaired plaintiff filed suit against a credit union, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act due to accessibility barriers on the credit union's website. The plaintiff, who uses screen-reading software, claimed these barriers prevented effective access to the credit union's services. The defendant moved to dismiss the case, asserting lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The court, however, denied the motion, affirming that the plaintiff had standing by demonstrating a concrete injury in fact. The court applied the 'nexus theory,' recognizing that the ADA can extend to websites if there is a connection to a physical place of public accommodation. Despite the defendant's arguments referencing Sixth Circuit limitations, the court found a sufficient nexus between the website and the credit union's physical locations. The plaintiff was granted leave to amend her complaint to pursue injunctive relief and compensatory damages. The decision underscores the ADA's objective of eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities and the necessity of broad access to public accommodations, including websites, where a connection to physical locations is established.

Legal Issues Addressed

ADA Compliance and Website Accessibility

Application: The court acknowledged the plaintiff's claim that the website contained accessibility barriers, which impeded her use of the services.

Reasoning: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's website is inaccessible due to cursor traps, unlabeled links, and unintelligible forms, which prevented her from shopping for craft supplies and locating a store.

Application of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Application: The court held that Title III can apply to websites if there is a sufficient nexus between the website and a physical place of public accommodation.

Reasoning: The Sixth Circuit has not definitively ruled that physical entry is necessary. Courts have adopted a 'nexus theory,' indicating that discrimination occurs under Title III if the discriminatory act is connected to the goods and services of a physical location.

Injunctive Relief and Future Harm

Application: The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint to seek injunctive relief and damages, emphasizing the need for demonstrating an imminent threat of future harm.

Reasoning: For a plaintiff seeking injunctive relief after experiencing a concrete injury, it is necessary to demonstrate an imminent threat of future harm.

Public Accommodations under the ADA

Application: The court recognized that a credit union qualifies as a public accommodation and examined the implications for website accessibility under the ADA.

Reasoning: Public accommodations are broadly defined to ensure equal access for individuals with disabilities. While it is acknowledged that a credit union qualifies as a public accommodation, there is a split among circuits regarding the applicability of Title III to websites.

Standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution

Application: The court concluded that the plaintiff demonstrated standing by showing a concrete injury in fact due to access barriers on the defendant's website.

Reasoning: The barriers encountered by the Plaintiff when attempting to access the Defendant's website constitute a concrete injury sufficient to establish standing.