8 ms·

Does the ADA really apply and enforced at all publicly available businesses? Does every Chinese restaurant in Chinatown have a Braille menu? If we really start

Does the ADA really apply and enforced at all publicly available businesses? Does every Chinese restaurant in Chinatown have a Braille menu? If we really start enforcing this, only larger businesses will survive.

Retric 7y ago
Restaurants don’t need a Braille menu to accommodate blind customers, a sighted employee can walk them through the ordering process. With websites that’s not always an option, which is legally and morally an issue.
- diebeforei485 7y ago
  But you can call your local Domino's on the phone.
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    You can't get (or use) Rewards points unless you order online. They also have online coupons and discounts. They actively encourage customers to order online, pick up in person and do carry out. Most locations have minimal seating and minimal staff. Some don't even bother to have bathrooms for their customers. Their business model actively tries to reduce the amount of overhead for the business by promoting online ordering and carryout service. So, no, ordering by phone isn't the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
    - tomnipotent 7y ago
      > Some don't even bother to have bathrooms for their customers. At least in California, any business with eat-in food services is required (by law) to provide restrooms. If a Domino's franchise does not offer eat-in service, it's entirely reasonable (and legal) they don't have public restrooms.
      - DoreenMichele 7y ago
        I've eaten at a Domino's with only one or two tables and no bathroom. I don't recall what state, possibly Arizona. But I've done a fair amount of traveling and Domino's seems to position themselves as basically a carryout window. You can call and you can order in person, but most locations seem to do the vast majority of their business via the online ordering system. They print off labels, slap them on the appropriate boxes and begin making the food. Some locations do a brisk business while only having one or two employees on site, plus one or more delivery drivers. The employees sometimes clearly find it to be a hardship to take orders by phone or in person. It interrupts their workflow and they are frequently very busy just trying to fill orders coming in off the website.
      - joegahona 7y ago
        This is a state-by-state thing. In Michigan, restrooms are required if dine-in is available. In NYC and Boston, there are numerous eat-in places with no bathroom. Good luck washing your hands before eating.
    - notyourwork 7y ago
      Seems like they missed a demographic with their strategy. It shouldn’t be hard to add accessibility support to their site.
      - tylerl 7y ago
        I think that misses the point. There's a mile of difference between adding sufficient accessibility to serve a demographic vs adding new legal requirements. (Especially new requirements for which customers are financially incentivised to file suits, and for it's trivially simple to code up automated scanning to find businesses you can target.)
        DoreenMichele 7y ago
        Most handicapped people live in poverty. I'm quite convinced that a lot of privileged people are also moderately or significantly handicapped and hiding it. If you are important enough, people meet all your whackadoodle requirements without wondering why in the hell you can't do it "normally." I've been in situations where I had privilege and I've been in situations where I couldn't get adequate accommodation for my handicap. Having privilege usually beats the tar out of having handicap accommodation. If there are any genuinely blind people managing to supposedly "game the system" in the manner you describe, more power to them. Because trying to play it straight and do the right thing and earn my way and blah blah blah mostly seems to get me absolutely crapped all over.
        jakelazaroff 7y ago
        If fear of lawsuits means businesses end up making their websites accessible to disabled people, then… mission accomplished?
  - wlesieutre 7y ago
    "Sighted people only" discounts is really not a good look though. If they argue that the website doesn't need to be accessible because blind people can call, that's what all their online only coupons are.
- tylerl 7y ago
  It's curious then that they're suing Domino's. Domino's has a phone number, and every capability the company offers over the web it offers over the phone. In fact, since this business in particular was built on telephone-based ordering, the the phone option is actually the first-class experience, with the web offering only a fraction of the options otherwise available. So at least in this case, ordering pizza over the phone instead of web is precisely as suitable a substitute as speaking to a waiter instead of reading your Chinese menu in braille. The plaintiff will argue that regardless of the fact that no business services are actually unavailable, it is the website itself that is being denied. And falling back to a compatible communication medium is inherently unsuitable regardless of whether the fallback is sufficiently functional. And if that's the case, then it's functionally equivalent to say that failing to provide accessible menus in a restaurant, and falling back to having the menu spoken aloud, is a denial of rights. I'm not going to say whether it's right or wrong, but it is certainly different than how the law had been interpreted in the past.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    That's a good point, though something I see commonly is a rather sizeable discount for doing an online-only order. Yes, you lose the discount if you call in.
  - jpollock 7y ago
    I believe the lawsuit is that there were deals which were web-only - meaning the blind person could not take advantage of them.
tootie 7y ago
ADA in general has different levels of mandatory compliance based on business size and type. I can't find specific rules about website compliance though.
smnrchrds 7y ago
I am not familiar with the details of ADA. Would it not suffice if a server reads the menu out loud upon request by a blind patron?
- freeone3000 7y ago
  Yes, it would! This is actually an example used in compliance guidelines: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/smallbusiness/smallbusprimer2010.htm#whoiscovered https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/smallbusiness/smallbusprimer201...
weberc2 7y ago
I’m not usually one for more regulation, but I think this is a good thing. As far as regulations go, this is one of the cheaper ones, or at least it will be when developers are properly trained in accessibility and every serious CMS supports accessibility out of the box.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  Properly trained in accessibility is basically impossible. Freelancers are not going to be trained in it nor are people from all across the world.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    One of two scenarios will happen depending on how easy it is to retrofit an existing website for accessibility. If it is easy, some subset of developers will specialize in retrofitting. If it is not easy, all developers who want to compete for contracts that require ADA accessibility will have to do so. If some freelancers here or internationally refuse to learn for whatever reason, then they will not be eligible for those contracts, plain and simple.
tibbon 7y ago
It’s a myth that reasonable accommodations are too much of a burden for a small business to handle. Having a menu made into Braille for example isn’t going to cost a ton. On the upside, they would also now have business available that they didn’t have in the past.
- chrisco255 7y ago
  I wonder why Domino's having a phone number to call in orders isn't enough of an accommodation in this case?
  - Mathnerd314 7y ago
    It probably is sufficient; the issue here was Domino's said the website wasn't covered by the ADA at all. And there might be trouble with some of Domino's coupons being online-only.
  - Pinckney 7y ago
    My understanding, from a quick 5 minute skim, is that it may be. It's being sent back to the district court for reconsideration. Basically what seems to have happened is this: 1. Robles sued Dominoes alleging their website violated the ADA. 2. The district court dismissed the suit, saying the DOJ needs to provide guidance on the standards that websites must meet, if the court is to hold them to the ADA. They don't examine the question of the phone. 3. The appeals court steps in and says that no, the district court was wrong to dismiss it for that reasons, and sends it back to the district court. 4. Dominoes appeals to SCOTUS, saying "help, the appeals court got it wrong, please step in!" SCOTUS declines to get involved, so the case will go back to the district court, which may still find that the phone access provided is an adequate accommodation.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - mattl 7y ago
    How do you know what’s for sale at Domino’s?
toomim 7y ago
Where the ADA applies is different than where it's enforced. This ruling only permits individual blind people to sue a business-- it doesn't force anyone to sue a business.
zamadatix 7y ago
It depends what is considered "accessible enough". E.g. they may not have a braille menu but there is a person you can communicate with. In the same regard maybe a site that signals "you can call this number to have assisted service" is alright. I haven't read into what the exact ruling covered I'm just pointing out it doesn't have to be black and white to the point it runs all guy large places out of business. Edit: apparently my phone typing speed is no match for the interest in this topic :)

Retric 7y ago

Restaurants don’t need a Braille menu to accommodate blind customers, a sighted employee can walk them through the ordering process. With websites that’s not always an option, which is legally and morally an issue.

diebeforei485 7y ago
But you can call your local Domino's on the phone.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  You can't get (or use) Rewards points unless you order online. They also have online coupons and discounts. They actively encourage customers to order online, pick up in person and do carry out. Most locations have minimal seating and minimal staff. Some don't even bother to have bathrooms for their customers. Their business model actively tries to reduce the amount of overhead for the business by promoting online ordering and carryout service. So, no, ordering by phone isn't the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.
  - tomnipotent 7y ago
    > Some don't even bother to have bathrooms for their customers. At least in California, any business with eat-in food services is required (by law) to provide restrooms. If a Domino's franchise does not offer eat-in service, it's entirely reasonable (and legal) they don't have public restrooms.
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      I've eaten at a Domino's with only one or two tables and no bathroom. I don't recall what state, possibly Arizona. But I've done a fair amount of traveling and Domino's seems to position themselves as basically a carryout window. You can call and you can order in person, but most locations seem to do the vast majority of their business via the online ordering system. They print off labels, slap them on the appropriate boxes and begin making the food. Some locations do a brisk business while only having one or two employees on site, plus one or more delivery drivers. The employees sometimes clearly find it to be a hardship to take orders by phone or in person. It interrupts their workflow and they are frequently very busy just trying to fill orders coming in off the website.
    - joegahona 7y ago
      This is a state-by-state thing. In Michigan, restrooms are required if dine-in is available. In NYC and Boston, there are numerous eat-in places with no bathroom. Good luck washing your hands before eating.
  - notyourwork 7y ago
    Seems like they missed a demographic with their strategy. It shouldn’t be hard to add accessibility support to their site.
    - tylerl 7y ago
      I think that misses the point. There's a mile of difference between adding sufficient accessibility to serve a demographic vs adding new legal requirements. (Especially new requirements for which customers are financially incentivised to file suits, and for it's trivially simple to code up automated scanning to find businesses you can target.)
      - DoreenMichele 7y ago
        Most handicapped people live in poverty. I'm quite convinced that a lot of privileged people are also moderately or significantly handicapped and hiding it. If you are important enough, people meet all your whackadoodle requirements without wondering why in the hell you can't do it "normally." I've been in situations where I had privilege and I've been in situations where I couldn't get adequate accommodation for my handicap. Having privilege usually beats the tar out of having handicap accommodation. If there are any genuinely blind people managing to supposedly "game the system" in the manner you describe, more power to them. Because trying to play it straight and do the right thing and earn my way and blah blah blah mostly seems to get me absolutely crapped all over.
      - jakelazaroff 7y ago
        If fear of lawsuits means businesses end up making their websites accessible to disabled people, then… mission accomplished?
- wlesieutre 7y ago
  "Sighted people only" discounts is really not a good look though. If they argue that the website doesn't need to be accessible because blind people can call, that's what all their online only coupons are.
tylerl 7y ago
It's curious then that they're suing Domino's. Domino's has a phone number, and every capability the company offers over the web it offers over the phone. In fact, since this business in particular was built on telephone-based ordering, the the phone option is actually the first-class experience, with the web offering only a fraction of the options otherwise available. So at least in this case, ordering pizza over the phone instead of web is precisely as suitable a substitute as speaking to a waiter instead of reading your Chinese menu in braille. The plaintiff will argue that regardless of the fact that no business services are actually unavailable, it is the website itself that is being denied. And falling back to a compatible communication medium is inherently unsuitable regardless of whether the fallback is sufficiently functional. And if that's the case, then it's functionally equivalent to say that failing to provide accessible menus in a restaurant, and falling back to having the menu spoken aloud, is a denial of rights. I'm not going to say whether it's right or wrong, but it is certainly different than how the law had been interpreted in the past.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  That's a good point, though something I see commonly is a rather sizeable discount for doing an online-only order. Yes, you lose the discount if you call in.
- jpollock 7y ago
  I believe the lawsuit is that there were deals which were web-only - meaning the blind person could not take advantage of them.

tootie 7y ago

ADA in general has different levels of mandatory compliance based on business size and type. I can't find specific rules about website compliance though.

smnrchrds 7y ago

I am not familiar with the details of ADA. Would it not suffice if a server reads the menu out loud upon request by a blind patron?

freeone3000 7y ago
Yes, it would! This is actually an example used in compliance guidelines: https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/smallbusiness/smallbusprimer2010.htm#whoiscovered https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/smallbusiness/smallbusprimer201...

weberc2 7y ago

I’m not usually one for more regulation, but I think this is a good thing. As far as regulations go, this is one of the cheaper ones, or at least it will be when developers are properly trained in accessibility and every serious CMS supports accessibility out of the box.

Mirioron 7y ago
Properly trained in accessibility is basically impossible. Freelancers are not going to be trained in it nor are people from all across the world.
- weberc2 7y ago
  One of two scenarios will happen depending on how easy it is to retrofit an existing website for accessibility. If it is easy, some subset of developers will specialize in retrofitting. If it is not easy, all developers who want to compete for contracts that require ADA accessibility will have to do so. If some freelancers here or internationally refuse to learn for whatever reason, then they will not be eligible for those contracts, plain and simple.

tibbon 7y ago

It’s a myth that reasonable accommodations are too much of a burden for a small business to handle. Having a menu made into Braille for example isn’t going to cost a ton. On the upside, they would also now have business available that they didn’t have in the past.

chrisco255 7y ago
I wonder why Domino's having a phone number to call in orders isn't enough of an accommodation in this case?
- Mathnerd314 7y ago
  It probably is sufficient; the issue here was Domino's said the website wasn't covered by the ADA at all. And there might be trouble with some of Domino's coupons being online-only.
- Pinckney 7y ago
  My understanding, from a quick 5 minute skim, is that it may be. It's being sent back to the district court for reconsideration. Basically what seems to have happened is this: 1. Robles sued Dominoes alleging their website violated the ADA. 2. The district court dismissed the suit, saying the DOJ needs to provide guidance on the standards that websites must meet, if the court is to hold them to the ADA. They don't examine the question of the phone. 3. The appeals court steps in and says that no, the district court was wrong to dismiss it for that reasons, and sends it back to the district court. 4. Dominoes appeals to SCOTUS, saying "help, the appeals court got it wrong, please step in!" SCOTUS declines to get involved, so the case will go back to the district court, which may still find that the phone access provided is an adequate accommodation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- mattl 7y ago
  How do you know what’s for sale at Domino’s?

toomim 7y ago

Where the ADA applies is different than where it's enforced. This ruling only permits individual blind people to sue a business-- it doesn't force anyone to sue a business.

zamadatix 7y ago

It depends what is considered "accessible enough". E.g. they may not have a braille menu but there is a person you can communicate with. In the same regard maybe a site that signals "you can call this number to have assisted service" is alright. I haven't read into what the exact ruling covered I'm just pointing out it doesn't have to be black and white to the point it runs all guy large places out of business. Edit: apparently my phone typing speed is no match for the interest in this topic :)