Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Harvard Univ.
Decision Date | 28 March 2019 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:15-cv-30023-KAR |
Citation | 377 F.Supp.3d 49 |
Parties | NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THE DEAF, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARVARD UNIVERSITY, and the President and Fellows of Harvard College, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Amy F. Robertson, Pro Hac Vice, Timothy P. Fox, Pro Hac Vice, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Denver, CO, Arlene B. Mayerson, Pro Hac Vice, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc., Bill Lann Lee, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Berkeley, CA, Caroline Jackson, Pro Hac Vice, Marc P. Charmatz, The National Association of the Deaf Law and Advocacy Center, Silver Spring, MD, Joseph M. Sellers, Pro Hac Vice, Shaylyn Cochran, Pro Hac Vice, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, DC, Namita Gupta, Pro Hac Vice, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Berkely, CA, Thomas P. Murphy, Disability Law Center, Inc., Northampton, MA, for Plaintiffs.
Andrew Kim, Pro Hac Vice, William M. Jay, Pro Hac Vice, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC, Janet Grumer, Pro Hac Vice, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Roberto M. Braceras, Jennifer B. Luz, Timothy Kistner, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
KATHERINE A. ROBERTSON, United States Magistrate JudgeThe National Association of the Deaf ("NAD"), on behalf of its members, and three individually named plaintiffs, C. Wayne Dore, Christy Smith, and Lee Nettles (collectively, "Plaintiffs"),1 brought this putative class action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Section 504"), and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 29 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 ("Title III" or "ADA"), against Harvard University and the President and Fellows of Harvard College ("Harvard").2 Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief requiring Harvard to provide timely, accurate captioning of the audio and audiovisual content that Harvard makes available online to the general public for free. On November 3, 2016, the Honorable Mark G. Mastroianni adopted a report and recommendation denying Harvard’s Motion to Stay or Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23), which argued for dismissal on the basis of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or, alternatively, that Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim (Dkt. No. 77). The parties have since consented to this court’s jurisdiction for all purposes (Dkt. No. 125). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. On June 29, 2018, Harvard filed its Motion for Judgement on the Pleadings ("Defendant’s Motion") (Dkt. No. 140), which Plaintiffs oppose. For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny Harvard’s Motion in part and grant it in part.
Because "any new facts contained in the answer, to which no responsive pleading by the plaintiff is required, are deemed denied," the principle relevant facts remain those asserted in the complaint. Kando v. Rhode Island State Bd. of Elections , 880 F.3d 53, 58 (1st Cir. 2018).
Harvard, an undergraduate and postgraduate school and a recipient of federal funding, controls, maintains, and administers webpages, websites, and other internet locations on which it makes available to the general public, free of charge, a vast array of content, consisting of courses and other educational and general interest materials (Compl. at pp. 1, 7, 8, ¶¶ 1, 24, 25-28). Included within the online content are thousands of audio and audiovisual files, which communicate information aurally (Compl. at p. 1, ¶ 1).3 Harvard creates and produces some, but not all, of the content (Compl. at p. 8, ¶ 28). Millions of people around the world have accessed the online audiovisual content that Harvard makes freely available (Compl. at pp. 1, 8, 12, ¶¶ 1, 28, 41-42).
Plaintiffs allege that some audiovisual content appears on websites and platforms maintained and controlled by Harvard, such as Harvard Extension School and Open Learning Initiative, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Institute of Politics John F. Kennedy Jr.’s Forum, and the Woodberry Poetry Room, while some audiovisual content is presented on third party platforms such as YouTube, iTunes U, and SoundCloud (Compl. at pp. 8-9, ¶¶ 28-29). Only a fraction of the online content that Harvard makes available has timely, accurate captioning (Compl. at p. 4, ¶ 8). Some captioning is so inaccurate as to make the content inaccessible (Compl. at p. 10, ¶ 31).
On February 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed this two-count lawsuit against Harvard. Plaintiffs claim that Harvard’s failure to provide the captioning necessary to ensure effective communication and an equal opportunity for deaf and hard of hearing individuals to benefit from its online audiovisual content violates the prohibitions against disability-based discrimination codified in Section 504 and Title III (Compl. at pp. 25-29, ¶¶ 88-102). On November 3, 2016, the court denied Harvard’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Plaintiffs had made out plausible claims for relief under Section 504 and Title III (Dkt. Nos. 50, 77). After Harvard answered Plaintiffs' complaint (Dkt. No. 82), the parties spent approximately a year in settlement talks and mediation to resolve or narrow the issues. When no agreement could be reached, Harvard filed this motion.
The court previously set out the statutory and regulatory background that governs this case, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martinez v. Cot'N Wash, Inc.
...of the ADA. This approach has been adopted by courts in the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits. ( National Assn. of the Deaf v. Harvard University (D.Mass. 2019) 377 F.Supp.3d 49, 57–59 ...; Gil [v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. (S.D.Fla. 2017)] 242 F.Supp.3d [1315,] 1318–1319 [( Gil )]; see Car......
-
Martinez v. San Diego Cnty. Credit Union
...ADA. This approach has been adopted by courts in the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits. ( National Ass'n of the Deaf v. Harvard University (D.Mass. 2019) 377 F.Supp.3d 49, 57-59 ( Harvard ); Gil, supra , 242 F.Supp.3d at pp. 1318-1319 ; see Carparts Distrib. Ctr. v. Automotive Wholesaler'......
-
Teatotaller, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.
...(D.C. Cir. 2019) (affirming dismissal of claims at pleading stage based on CDA immunity); see also National Ass'n of the Deaf v. Harvard University, 377 F. Supp. 3d 49, 68 (D. Mass. 2019) (observing that "[a] plaintiff is not required to anticipate and plead around affirmative defenses rais......
-
Martinez v. Cot'n Wash, Inc.
...1318-1319 [(Gil)]; see Carparts Distribution Center v. Automotive Wholesaler's Assn. (1st Cir. 1994) 37 F.3d 12, 19-20 (Carparts); [National Assn. of the Deaf v.] Inc. [(D.Mass. 2012)] 869 F.Supp.2d [196,] 201-203 [(Netflix)]; Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. (7th Cir. 1999) 179 F.3d 557, 55......
-
Website Accessibility Considerations For Private Institutions Of Higher Education
...Some courts have found that online content is subject to Title III of the ADA. See, e.g. Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Harvard Univ., 377 F. Supp. 3d 49 (D. Mass. 2019); Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898, 910-11 (9th Cir. 2019). Such courts frequently have accepted the Web Content Ac......
-
Website Accessibility Considerations For Private Institutions Of Higher Education
...Some courts have found that online content is subject to Title III of the ADA. See, e.g. Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Harvard Univ., 377 F. Supp. 3d 49 (D. Mass. 2019); Robles v. Domino's Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898, 910-11 (9th Cir. 2019). Such courts frequently have accepted the Web Content Ac......
-
Online-Only Businesses Are Not a Place of Public Accommodation: California State Appellate Court Follows the Ninth Circuit in ADA-Related Ruling
...within the meaning of the ADA’s definition of place of public accommodation. See, e.g., Nat’l Ass’n of the Deaf v. Harvard Univ., 377 F. Supp. 3d 49 (D. Mass. 2019). To conclude otherwise would lead to absurd results, according to the First Circuit, especially because Congress clearly state......
-
Clicks, Bricks, and Politics: Website Accessibility Under Title Ii and Title Iii of the Americans With Disabilities Act
...Doe, 179 F.3d at 559.110. See supra note 75.111. See supra Part VI, Section A.112. See e.g., Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. Harvard Univ., 377 F. Supp. 3d 49, 60-61 (D. Mass. 2019).113. See supra Part VI, Section A.114. Weyer, 198 F.3d at 1115; Parker, 121 F.3d at 1010-11; Gil, 993 F.3d at 1277......