"In today's technology-driven society, retailers are increasingly using the Internet to provide information, goods, and services to the public. While having a website is almost a mandatory aspect of operating a retail business, it's important to ensure that the website does not also market the business to potential lawsuits. Websites have become the new hotbed of litigation brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and retailers who are increasingly relying on their Web presence need to take note.
 
What Does the ADA Require?
Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by places of public accommodation, including retail stores and shopping centers.
 
When Congress enacted the ADA in 1990, the existence of the Internet and the pervasiveness it holds in today's society was all but unfathomable. As such, the ADA does not specifically address website accessibility. However, as Congress expressly stated when passing the ADA, "the types of accommodation and services provided to individuals with disabilities, under all of the titles of this bill, should keep pace with the rapidly changing technology of the times" and technological advances "may require public accommodations to provide auxiliary aids and services in the future which today would not be required."
 
Increasingly, plaintiffs' lawyers are claiming that publicly available websites are inaccessible to users with disabilities, thereby disadvantaging individuals with disabilities in a modern society that is largely driven by an electronic marketplace. How can websites be inaccessible? Many people with disabilities use "assistive technology" to enable them to use computers and access the Internet.
 
For example, individuals who are blind or have low vision may use screen readers - devices that speak the text on a monitor - to assist them in accessing a website's content. However, such users cannot fully access a site unless it is designed to work with the screen-reading software. Another example of an accessibility barrier that needs to be addressed is ensuring your individual website pages are coded so that users can navigate by means of a keyboard or single-switch access device alone, without need of a mouse. Users who cannot use a mouse with precision could find your website unnavigable without this design. Websites that do not accommodate assistive technology can create unnecessary barriers for users with disabilities, and help fuel website accessibility claims.
 
Recent Legal Ruling Provides Warning
Recently, a California superior court judge ruled in favor of a blind plaintiff who sued luggage retailer Colorado Bag'n Baggage, claiming that he was unable to shop online for the retailer's products because its website lacked screen-reading software to assist customers with disabilities.
 
In its March 2016 ruling for the plaintiff, the court noted that the customer had "presented sufficient evidence and legal argument to conclude Title III of the ADA applies to plaintiff's use of a website." The court noted that he properly demonstrated he "sought goods and services from a place of public accommodation" because he demonstrated a sufficient connection exists between the retail store and its website that directly affects a customer's ability to access goods and services.
 
The court ordered the retailer to pay the plaintiff $4,000 as a judgment for the ADA violation, in addition to paying for the plaintiff's attorney fees and costs. Further, the court ordered the retailer to take the necessary steps to make its website "readily accessible to and usable by visually impaired individuals." If it is unable or unwilling to do so, the court said that the company would need to terminate its website, which would be a death knell to most businesses.
 
As a result of this recent decision, coupled with the remaining uncertainty in the law, many plaintiffs' lawyers are seizing on the opportunity by sending demand letters and filing lawsuits."

"It's time, St. Paul, to weigh in at a pivotal point in the months-long drive toward a city-government mandate that would require employers to give workers paid leave for their own health and safety needs or those of family members.

We consider it a bad idea, overreach by local government and a threat to jobs and job growth in the capital city.

The business community - and others in St. Paul - should say so, too, when they answer the city's call for feedback, completing an online survey by July 8. They also should speak up on Tuesday, when the city's human rights commission will hold a public hearing on findings of an appointed task force whose policy recommendations serve as framework for a proposed ordinance to be released later in the week. Some points to keep in mind:

The framework is flawed, leaving St. Paul with recommendations - starting-point provisions - that are stricter than elsewhere. St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce President Matt Kramer, a co-chair of the task force of business, labor and other community representatives, expected exemptions from the mandate to be consistent with those in use in other cities. Instead, "we ended up with fewer exemptions and a much stricter interpretation," he told us.

It's recommended that all employers, regardless of size, be covered by the ordinance and that family businesses be treated the same as any other operation. The task force also outlines provisions under which workers earn an hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked, after their initial 80 hours on the job. Sick-time earnings would be capped at 48 hours annually, though employees would be able to "bank" up to 80 hours."

Employers Group Briefing Wednesday

Say "hi" or "look at me" to Minnesota's retail leaders by donating an item to MnRA's silent auction or golfer goodie bag for our June 28 Legislative Wrap Up Golf Tournament.  Donating is easy and appreciated.  Follow one of the links below to fill out our quick web form and we'll do the rest!

Tournament links:

• Register or learn more
• Donate an item to the silent or live auction, or raffle
• Learn about sponsorship options

"Minnesota's job picture was out of focus in May, with eight of 11 sectors showing job loss. In total, state employers cut 1,900 jobs last month, while Minnesota's unemployment rate held steady at 3.8 percent. The U.S. jobless rate for the month was 4.7 percent.

The mining/logging sector was down 300 jobs in May, which added to the last 12 months' woes of that natural resources-based area that has registered an employment decline of 1,585 positions the past year. That is the largest job drop of the 11 sectors in the last year reported by the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development.

Other sectors losing jobs in May were:
* Manufacturing, 2,300.
* Construction, 1,900.
* Financial activities, 1,300.
* Leisure and hospitality, 1,000.
* Trade, transportation and utilities, 800.
* Other services, 600.
* Professional and Business Services, 500.

"Despite the decline in May, the state labor market remains healthy, with seven of the state's 11 major industrial sectors growing in the past year," said DEED Commissioner Shawntera Hardy.

However, mining/logging was not one of those seven. Mining/logging, unfortunately, led all sectors the past 12 months in job loss, with 1,585. Only three other sectors sustained losses the past year - information (1,303), other services, 506, manufacturing, 218."