The lawsuit is being taken in the California Supreme Court for
Alameda County and claims that Hotels.com breaks the state's civil
rights laws, its Disabled Persons Act and its Unfair Competition
Law. The case does not rely on the nationwide Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The suit claims that disabled-access rooms are treated by the
site as an optional 'amenity', a selection which it cannot
guarantee is available ahead of the person's arrival and check in
at the hotel.
“I want to be able to reserve hotel accommodations online at
hotels.com just like anyone else,” said one of the claimants,
Bonnie Lewkowicz. “It would be unwise and potentially dangerous for
me to rely on a hotel reservation service that does not guarantee
the hotel room I am booking is accessible to someone in a
wheelchair. Accessibility isn’t a preference for me – it’s a
necessity.”
The suit is being taken by two individuals, two non-profit legal
groups and a law firm specialising in class actions. It will seek
others who have been affected by the issue to join the law
suit.
“Disabled travellers are effectively denied access to
hotel.com’s discounted rates and convenient side-by-side
comparisons of available rooms,” said Victoria Ni of Public
Justice, a non-profit public interest law organisation. “As a
result, disabled travellers have to spend extra time and money just
to secure a workable hotel reservation.”
Accessible hotel rooms generally have wide doorways and halls
and grab bars in bathrooms to make them usable for people in
wheelchairs.
"Although hotels.com represents on its website that it offers
the lowest rates available as well as “the information travellers
need to book the perfect trip,” a traveller with a mobility
disability, in fact, cannot use hotels.com’s travel reservation
services," says the suit. "Hotels.com does not provide information
about accessibility features, and it will not guarantee
reservations for accessible rooms."
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act demands that any business
establishment be accessible if it is conducting business in
California. It also depends on the California Disabled Persons Act,
which requires any public place to be accessible.
The suit does not rely on the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). Attempts have been made to apply the ADA to websites with
limited success. The Act states that places of public accommodation
must be accessible to the disabled. A Florida court ruled in 2002
that websites do not count as places of public accommodation
although the issue has been raised again in a lawsuit over the
accessibility of retailer Target's website.
