On February 12, 2015, the National Association of the Deaf (NAD), on behalf of its members (including three named in the complaint) and a proposed class filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs sued under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act against Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from the Disability Law Center, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, the National Association of the Deaf Law and Advocacy Center, and private counsel. The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction that would require MIT to provide accurate captioning on its online content. The plaintiffs claimed that MIT willfully violated the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act by not providing captioned video and audio content on its platforms and therefore excluding deaf and hard of hearing individuals from benefiting from said content.
The plaintiffs alleged that based on information and belief, MIT did not have administrative procedures or policies in place to ensure that its online content had accurate captioning, whether or not that content had been created or produced by MIT itself. This issue extended back to 2010, when the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education issued a joint letter to university colleges and presidents to make clear that the requirements of § 504 and ADA include technological devices when used by places of public accommodation. The following year, the Department of Education released an FAQ explaining that letter, indicating that its contents were predicated on legal precedents and that the letter would apply to all forms of emerging technology, including online content. Additionally, MIT has stated on its website how important captioning is to deaf and hard of hearing individuals. Despite all this and repeated requests from the NAD, MIT has yet to accurately caption much of its online content.
After the initial filing of the complaint on February 12, 2015, MIT filed a motion to dismiss on May 11, 2015, citing issues of jurisdiction and a failure to state a cause of action. There were a number of responses on MIT's motion, including the filing of an Amicus Brief by a representative from the U.S. Department of Justice. While not directly involved in the case, the DOJ was an interested party and appeared to agree with the plaintiffs on this issue. On September 10, 2015, there was a hearing on the motion to dismiss held before the Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. On February 9, 2016, Judge Robertson issued a report and recommended that the motion be dismissed in its entirety, for reasons identical to those in the related case the NAD filed at the same time against Harvard University.
National Association of the Deaf v. Harvard University. Judge Mark Mastroianni adopted Judge Robertson’s reasoning and denied the motion to dismiss on November 4, 2016. On May 10, 2017, the parties agreed to try to settle the dispute using a private mediator. The parties met with a mediator over the course of several months, but were ultimately unable to reach an agreement, and initial pretrial deadlines were set on July 23, 2018.
On August 24, 2018, MIT filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to all claims. On March 28, 2019, Judge Katherine A. Robertson denied the motion in part, but granted it in part, for the same reasons under which a similar motion was granted in part in the lawsuit involving Harvard, that is, under the argument that MIT was entitled to immunity under the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (477 U.S.C. §230) when publishing third-party's content, and not content created in whole or in part by MIT or by someone associated with it. The case is ongoing.
Carolyn Weltman - 10/05/2015
Rachel Carpman - 11/19/2018
Daniele de Oliveira Nunes - 04/21/2019
compress summary
