Two New York federal judges refuse to dismiss website accessibility cases

Two New York federal judges refuse to dismiss website accessibility cases

By Kristina M. Launey, Esq. and Minh N. Vu, Esq.

Two New York federal judges recently said that the ADA covers websites (even those not connected to a physical place) and one held that working on improving the accessibility of one’s website does not make the ADA claim moot.

The article by Ms. Launey and Ms. Vu of Seyfarth Shaw is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.adatitleiii.com/2017/08/two-new-york-federal-judges-refuse-to-dismiss-website-accessibility-cases/?utm_source=Seyfarth+Shaw+-+ADA+Title+III+News+%26+Insights&utm_campaign=87a87c35f5-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_decb46f1f5-87a87c35f5-72622305

Second Circuit Court of Appeals to again consider if discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited by Title VII

Second Circuit Court of Appeals to again consider if discrimination based on sexual orientation is prohibited by Title VII

Zarda v Altitude Express dba Skydive Long Island, USCA, Docket No. 15-3775

In Simonton v Runyon, 232 F.3d 33,* the Second Circuit said that "[w]hen interpreting a statute, the role of a court is limited to discerning and adhering to legislative meaning." The court then ruled that "[t]he law is well-settled in this circuit and in all others to have reached the question that Simonton has no cause of action under Title VII [the Civil Rights Act of 1964] because Title VII does not prohibit harassment or discrimination because of sexual orientation."

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has voted to conduct an en banc** rehearing of a three-judge panel’s decision in Zarda v Altitude Express*** declining Zarda's request that it overturn Simonton, a 2000 decision by the Second Circuit.

Following disposition of Zarda's appeal by the three judge panel, a judge of the Court requested a poll be taken on whether to rehear the case en banc. A poll was conducted and a majority of the active judges of the court voted in favor of rehearing Zarda's appeal en banc and it was so ordered.

However, rehearing Zarda's appeal en banc may present additional arguments for the Appellate Division to consider.

It has been reported that the U.S. Department of Justice will file an amicus brief contending that Title VII does not include protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation while it has been also reported that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will file an amicusbrief arguing that Title VII does prohibit discrimination based on the sexual orientation of the individual.  

* The decision in Simonton v Runyon  is posted on the Internet at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1203810.html

** A case heard by all the judges of a court rather than by a panel of judges selected from the entire court is said to heard en banc

*** This decision of the three-judge panel is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/02005163-716c-4bb0-b79e-98cea4c57069/1/doc/15-3775_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/02005163-716c-4bb0-b79e-98cea4c57069/1/hilite/

School districts and other public employers in New York State may be considering providing paid family leave pursuant to the State's Paid Family Leave Act

School districts and other public employers in New York State may be considering providing paid family leave pursuant to the State's Paid Family Leave Act

Source: Shannon K. Buffum, Esq. writing for Harris Beach, PLLC's New York Municipalities Blog

Most private employers in New York State will be required to provide benefits under the New York Paid Family Leave Act [PFLA] effective January 1, 2018. In contrast, a public employer, including a school district, is not mandated to provide PFLA benefits but may to do so if it wishes. 

Ms. Buffum notes that "In the event a public employer currently provides disability benefits, but decides to not offer paid family leave benefits,  the public employer must notify its employees and the Workers’ Compensation Board of this decision no later than December 1, 2017."

However, in her PFLA article, posted on the Internet at: https://www.harrisbeach.com/new-york-municipalities-blog/caution-warranted-school-districts-considering-paid-family-leave/, Ms. Buffum also notes that some school districts in the state may be considering providing benefits for their officers and employees under the PFLA.

Workers' Compensation Board regulations implementing the Act, 12 NYCRR 355, et. seq.*, are posted on the Internet at http://www.wcb.ny.gov/PFL/pfl-regs.jsp.

It should be remembered that a public employer's unilaterally providing or withdrawing a benefit that constitutes a negotiable term or condition of employment may have committed an improper practice within the meaning of the Taylor Law [Civil Service Law Article 14].

* The Statutory Authority for promulgating 12 NYCRR 355, et. seq., is cited as Workers' Compensation Law §§117, 205, 221 and 206.