Alerts

Class Action Complaints Against Banks Under ADA

08.07.12

In a recent spate of putative federal class action lawsuits, plaintiffs have claimed that Texas financial institutions have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar state laws by operating and maintaining automated teller machines that are not fully accessible to – and independently useable by – persons who are visually impaired. These suits are based on the revised accessibility standards of the ADA that became effective on March 15, 2012. Among the requirements of these revised standards are that the ATMs must provide voice guidance, Braille instruction, and tactile input controls to allow independent use by the visually impaired. Importantly, because these standards were not included in the previous version of the law, there is no safe harbor to protect banks that installed the ATM machines prior to the compliance date.

The recently filed suits have much in common. The gravamen of these suits is that the defendants' ATMs lack voice guidance features and/or tactile function key symbols that make them accessible to the visually impaired without the assistance of others. In some cases, the same named plaintiffs have filed multiple suits, each with substantially the same allegations but directed in each instance against a different bank. Banks should look carefully at these suits because it appears that the plaintiffs may meet the initial threshold burdens to sue on these issues.

When a visually impaired person complains that the ATMs are not compliant with the regulations governing accessibility, he or she need not reach out the to the bank to seek an accommodation or provide the bank with notice prior to filing suit. As a result, the first notice a bank may receive that its machines are non-compliant can be service of a lawsuit.

Suits claiming violations of these regulations may be brought by private individuals or by the government. Injunctive relief mandating compliance with the design standards will likely be awarded if the ATM is not in strict compliance with the requirements, regardless of who files the suit. Where the suit is brought by the Attorney General, significant fines may be levied, including a fine of up to $55,000 for the first offense and $110,000 for subsequent offenses. Finally, a complainant need not file a lawsuit – a private individual may instead make complaints to the U.S. Department of Justice – the government agency charged with enforcing the ADA accessibility laws. The DOJ can also obtain penalties for non-compliance as well as mandate that the machines be brought into compliance.

Any entity that owns or operates an ATM should carefully examine the machines to determine whether the ATMs are in compliance with the technical requirements of the design standards. We have the expertise to both assist owners and operators in analyzing whether the machines are compliant with the new law as well as to provide assistance in remedying non-compliant aspects.

For additional information or to discuss any issues regarding statutory and regulatory compliance for ATMs under state and federal law, please contact Trial Partners Barry M. Golden (bgolden@gardere.com or 214.999.4746) and Peter L. Loh (ploh@gardere.com or 214.999.4391) or Labor and Employment Attorney Jessica Glatzer Mason (jmason@gardere.com or 713.276.5793).

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top