Liability Insurance Can Help DC Salad Chain in Website Accessibility Suit
Time 2 Minute Read

Last week, two blind customers sued Sweetgreen, a D.C.-based salad chain, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and sections of New York’s Human Rights statute. In the Complaint, the customers claim that Sweetgreen’s online ordering system “prevents blind customers from customizing and placing their orders in the same way as sighted customers can.” Title III prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability at “places of public accommodations,” like restaurants, movie theaters, schools, and recreation facilities. Courts are split about whether “places of public accommodation” are limited to actual physical structures or include websites that are part of an integrated merchandising effort. The tide is pressing toward the broader reading of the statute, emboldened in part by the Department of Justice’s long-awaited website accessibility regulations (now set to be published in fiscal year 2018).

Title III claims are likely to be covered under commercial general liability policies, errors & omissions policies, policies where the business is an additional insured, and more. Public businesses should review their insurance policies to ensure coverage and should strive to obtain policies that address the broad range of remedies that may be awarded against them in Title III litigation, including attorney’s fees, fines and more.

Also, public businesses should not avoid insurance in favor of indemnification clauses in their web development contracts. In 2010, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that compliance with the ADA was non-delegable. Subsequent federal court decisions have extended this rationale to claims for contribution. Accordingly, public business should plan to manage Title III risk with appropriate liability insurance, even if they have outsourced their web development.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

In the case of Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (No. 24-1432), decided by the Fourth Circuit on June 25, 2025, the court addressed whether an employer had a duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate an employee who refused to provide medical documentation supporting her request for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption.

Time 4 Minute Read

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court held a disabled former employee who neither “holds” nor “desires” a job is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA and, thus, cannot sue for disability discrimination following her employer’s revocation of retiree health benefits. 

Time 4 Minute Read

In April 2025, the Eleventh Circuit reversed a judgment against a Florida lodge and held that a jury should determine whether the failure of the lodge’s insurer to initiate settlement proceedings before a claim was filed constituted bad faith. In reversing the district court, the Eleventh Circuit reinforced the key duty imposed on insurers under Florida law to diligently and carefully investigate claims and act with an appropriate degree of care to protect their insureds or face consequences such as bad faith liability.

Time 2 Minute Read

Officers and directors must constantly navigate new and emerging risks, and that trend will continue in 2025. Ever-growing use (and misuse) of artificial intelligence, increased geopolitical risk, boardroom fallout following cybersecurity incidents, a new administration in the White House, and many other factors point to another eventful year for D&O exposures. Ensuring adequate protection for company leadership is more important than ever to attract and retain top talent.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page