It would be equally “absurd” and “irrational” to hold that the entertainment delivered to customers by Netflix over the internet is not covered by Title III. Congress could not have intended such an absurd result.” (emphasis added). It would be irrational to conclude that persons who enter an office to purchase services are protected by the ADA, but persons who purchase the same services over the telephone or by mail are not. As the First Circuit stated in Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19: All of the areas of daily community life, including entertainment, that Congress intended to be equally accessible to people with disabilities in Title III increasingly moved to the internet in the decades since the ADA was deliberated and passed. This is especially true of businesses that sell their goods and services on the internet. As recognized by the First Circuit, it would undermine Congressional purpose to hold that the activities listed in Title III are covered only when they occur in buildings. Plaintiffs have alleged that Netflix is a public accommodation within the enumerated list: “place of exhibition and entertainment,” “place of recreation,” “sales or rental establishment,” and “service establishment.” 42 U.S.C § 12181(7) (FAC ¶ 48.) The narrow question is whether Netflix is exempt from ADA coverage because it sells entertainment services over the internet instead of out of a physical structure. Contrary to Netflix’s assertion, Plaintiffs are not arguing that the list of public accommodations needs to be expanded. First, Netflix’s argument that it is not a public accommodation under Title III is based on a faulty analysis of Title III and discredits First Circuit case law in Carparts Distrib. Netflix’s arguments are all fatally flawed. Netflix argues that Plaintiffs are precluded from seeking redress under the ADA, despite the direct application of ADA principles and provisions to this case. Congress intended judicial review of enforcement actions by private citizens, like this action, to be a primary mechanism for implementing the anti-discrimination rights guaranteed by the ADA, along with oversight by the Department of Justice (“Doj”).

In keeping with this purpose, Title III of the ADA requires that individuals with disabilities have “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 Usc§ 12101(b)(1). 11-30168-Map Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendant’S Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings Date: June 11, 2012 National Association Of The Deaf, Western Massachusetts Association Of The Deaf And Hearing Impaired And Lee Nettles,Ĭivil Action No. California Sterilization Compensation Program.

Opposition to motion to dismiss