Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. ” 12181-12189 (ADA or Title III) prohibits retailers and other businesses that transact business with the public from “discriminating” against individuals with disabilities. The statute is broadly worded to prohibit a wide range of discriminatory practices, and has been the subject of literally thousands of individual and class action lawsuits seeking to change how the business community deals with individuals with disabilities. The salutary effect of the ADA cannot be understated. However, many business owners and operators might, at the same time, rightly ask whether there are any limits to the Act's reach. Jancik v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67223 (May 14, 2014) explores one such limit ' the so-called “special products exception.”
Overview of Title III of the ADA
We begin with first principles. As is relevant here, Title III prohibits discrimination by public accommodations generally, by providing that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. ' 12182(a). The term “public accommodation” is defined to include most retail and service establishments and other businesses that are open or provide services to the public. 42 U.S.C. ' 12182(7)(A)-(L).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.