Rocco E. Cozza • July 14, 2020

An ADA Compliant Website?  You are probably wondering what that means and how it applies to you?  Well, if you own a website that offers products or services, you need to keep reading.  In recent years, many companies have faced a new reality.  When it comes to their website, they have exposure to potential lawsuits!  Yes, if their websites are not accessible to people with disabilities, lawsuits have been brought.  These suits claim that the sites violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)or one of the many state laws prohibiting disability discrimination. Yes, regardless of the size of your business, the exposure is there and it is something you should take seriously.

Unfortunately, this surge of threatened and filed lawsuits has posed a challenge to businesses large and small. Most businesses and business owners don’t think of the accessibility of their websites to those with disabilities, but they should. Along with various state laws, Title III of the ADA mandates that businesses must make their physical locations accessible to those with disabilities since they are considered “public accommodations.” This law, which was written before the internet became widely used, does not mention websites specifically. However, these suits alleging website accessibility are popping up quite a bit and unfortunately, causing a lot of pain to businesses.

There are many valid claims made by individuals with disabilities who cannot access websites that are essential for them to access. They should be afforded this opportunity. On the other hand, a lot of plaintiff’s attorneys see these lawsuits as a way to use an aggressive allege or file suit and settle strategy.  They understand that using the threat of fee-shifting under the ADA can force a company to payout instead of engaging in long, fact-intensive trials. These are payouts where the attorneys collect a decent fee for minimal work.

ADA Compliant Website Claims Tend to Settle

Interestingly, if you look at the data, more than 93% of website accessibility cases filed in 2018 settled, and of the cases filed in 2019, 55% settled within 60 days.  These facts are according to Usablenet’s Midyear ADA Web & App Accessibility Lawsuit Report.  As you can see, these cases are a hot area for quick payouts.

Despite this being a hot button issue, the Supreme Court has rejected the invitation to take up the ADA website issue. And with no federal standard for website accessibility in place for businesses to follow and conflicting judicial opinions all over the board, the reality of compliance is determined by many factors.

ADA Compliant Website Standards

Until standards are set forth by Congress or the DOJ, one obvious path to successfully defend these claims is to remediate the website to conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level AA. This is a great strategy to avoid potential cases.  In fact, this strategy has helped businesses even “moot” a case in the early stages by making changes to the website that make it accessible. A case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.

Let’s be clear, fixing your website is not an easy or guaranteed route to a quick victory. A few courts have been hesitant to dismiss cases based on mootness in the early stages of the litigation.  The reasoning is they view whether a business has complied with WCAG as a question of remedy, not liability.  Despite that reasoning, businesses should continue to set forth these arguments if they are sued prior to making their site accessible.

Looking at the landscape of these cases, many rulings and settlements typically point to WCAG 2.0, Level AA, as a universally accepted standard of web accessibility. Any company that is proactively striving for online accessibility should be complying with this standard.

So, if you have a business with an online presence, you need to contact your site provider or developer and make sure it is accessible. Doing so can save you plenty of time, energy, and money in the long run. If you are interested in learning more about this compliance requirement, please contact our office.   We are here to help and can connect you with resources to help you make your site compliant.

Cozza Law Group Business Law Blog

How Restrictive Covenants And Non-Compete Agreements Are Enforced

By Rocco Cozza • August 22, 2026
The enforceability of restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements depends on various factors, including how and when the employee/contractor initially signed the document. A company or employer may find it easier to enforce these agreements if they work with business law attorneys in Pittsburgh during the initial drafting and signing processes. If a company can steer clear of common mistakes from the very beginning, it can protect its competitiveness and avoid issues caused by former employees/contractors. Pennsylvania Only Enforces Non-Compete Agreements That Meet Five Requirements While Pennsylvania does not have a clear statute governing non-compete agreements, past cases have established a three-part test for their enforceability. First, a non-compete agreement must clearly define a timeframe in order to be enforceable. In other words, it must have an expiry date. You cannot stop an employee or contractor from competing indefinitely. Case law also suggests that non-compete agreements with the strongest enforceability are only valid for a few years (and not decades). A Pennsylvania court is also likely to reject a non-compete agreement with an ill-defined scope. In other words, the contract must describe exactly what the employee or contractor is prohibited from doing. The scope must also be reasonable, meaning you can only prevent employees from joining clear competitors. If a company is only distantly related to your industry or field, a non-compete probably can’t prevent your former employee from joining that organization. Scope also encompasses the type of company information that the employee uses to compete in the future. You cannot stop a former employee from using their own inherent skills and knowledge to set up a competing business. The only way you can legitimately curb competition from a former employee is by limiting the way they use your company’s “confidential information.” You might be surprised to learn that your former employees have every right to use company information that you consider to be confidential. As long as that information is publicly available, your employees can use it freely. This includes price lists, your suppliers' contact information, and general business practices well-known in your industry. One example of “confidential information” in this context is a list of your customers, complete with their email addresses and telephone numbers. Although this information might be publicly available, a normal person would not be able to recreate the finished list without spending years building a business (as you have). Intellectual property is another example of protected, confidential business information. If you have gone through the trouble of obtaining a patent or a copyright, your employee has no right to steal this information and use it to set up a competing business. The same logic applies to “trade secrets,” which may include confidential formulas or recipes. That said, it is important to remember that these violations are governed by intellectual property law, and not necessarily non-compete agreements. Non-compete agreements in Pennsylvania must also clearly define their geographical “reach.” You can only prevent an employee from competing with you in your geographical area, such as the City of Pittsburgh or Allegheny County. Even if your employee signs a non-compete agreement, they could theoretically travel to another state or country before starting a competing business. Finally, companies in Pennsylvania generally need to offer employees or contractors something in return for signing non-compete agreements. If the penalties for violating the agreement represent the “stick,” then the reward represents the “carrot.” In business law, this reward is called “consideration.” A common type of consideration is a job offer. With the job offer on the table, there is a clear reward for signing the non-compete agreement. On the other hand, the potential employee could always walk away from the job offer without excessive penalties. Another type of consideration is career advancement. This might be a raise or a promotion. An employee may decide to sign a non-compete agreement in order to access these career benefits. If they reject the offer, they would presumably keep their current position in the company without any other consequences. Pennsylvania courts may deem unenforceable a non-compete agreement that lacks these promised rewards. In the eyes of the court, an employee faces a difficult situation if they could lose their job by not signing a non-compete agreement. As with all contracts, duress or undue influence can make non-compete agreements unenforceable. Penalties Help Enforce Valid Non-Compete Agreements Assuming a non-compete agreement is valid, what exactly stops an employee from violating it? Without effective penalties, a non-compete agreement is useless. You can enforce your non-compete agreements with “injunctions.” These are court orders that require your former employee or contractor to immediately stop working for the competing business. If they have set up their own business, a court order could force them to shut down operations. Penalties may also include damages. The court can order the competing employee or contractor to pay compensation for your losses. For example, an employee might have stolen all of your customers by offering the same services for a lower price. In this situation, you could recover all of the profit you would have earned if those customers had remained loyal. Negotiation Is Often the First Step of Enforcement While taking your former employee or contractor to court can lead to positive results, most parties attempt to resolve their disputes through negotiation first. Indeed, mandatory “arbitration clauses” are often built into non-compete agreements. A business law attorney can represent your best interests during these negotiations, ensuring positive outcomes without an expensive, time-consuming trial. Can a Business Law Attorney in Pittsburgh Help Me? A b usiness law attorney in Pittsburgh may be able to help if you are serious about making your restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements as enforceable as possible. Legal assistance with drafting and negotiating these agreements from the outset may improve their enforceability if a dispute arises later. That said, lawyers can also help resolve disputes over restrictive covenants signed long in the past. To explore this topic further, consider contacting Cozza Law Group, PLLC at (412) 790-2789. You can also find us online .

Understanding Shareholder Disputes and How They are Resolved

By Rocco Cozza • June 8, 2026
Shareholders set corporations apart from other types of businesses, and they often help companies achieve considerable levels of success. On the other hand, executives and directors often forget that each shareholder is a part owner. With so many owners, it is easy to see how complex shareholder disputes can become. The first step is to understand why and how these shareholder disputes arise. The second step is to resolve the dispute, potentially with guidance from an experienced business litigation attorney in Pennsylvania . Shareholder Disputes Arise Because of Shareholder Rights To understand shareholder disputes, you first have to understand shareholder rights. Common shareholders have voting privileges, which means they can control the trajectory of the company. Although some shareholders never bother to vote, others take these rights very seriously. The more shares you have, the more power you have to control major decisions. Shareholders also have the right to profit from the success of a company. Because of this, they have a financial incentive to oversee the company’s trajectory. If the company leadership starts to make mistakes or intentionally act against the interests of the shareholders, disputes naturally arise. Finally, shareholders rely on the accuracy of records and corporate books to make their investment decisions. For example, they might choose to sell or hold their stocks depending on the published earnings of a company. If these records are inaccurate or intentionally altered, the shareholders may make poor investment choices as a result. Now that you understand shareholder rights, it is easy to see how shareholder disputes might arise. Shareholders might sue if they feel that the company is making major decisions without bothering to hold votes. They might also sue if they feel that the leadership is acting against their best interests. Another type of lawsuit might involve shareholders suing a company for inflating their earnings and releasing inaccurate data. Shareholder Disputes Often Begin With Alternative Dispute Resolution Most lawsuits, including shareholder disputes, go through a process of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) before parties actually proceed to the courtroom. ADR may involve mediation or arbitration, and it takes the form of private negotiations. The shareholders may select legal counsel to negotiate on their behalf, as it would be impractical for thousands of individuals to sit at the negotiation table. In other situations, an individual shareholder might file a lawsuit on their own. In this situation, that individual might be present at the negotiation table alongside their legal counsel. ADR often serves everyone’s best interests, helping to resolve disputes without resorting to expensive and time-consuming litigation. Public trials are not good for business, and shareholders might be just as willing to resolve these issues in private as the executive suite. Arbitration clauses are often “built in” to the corporate bylaws or charter. In other words, parties may have no choice but to attempt mediation/arbitration before proceeding to a trial. That said, parties are under no obligation to successfully complete the arbitration process. One party could refuse to negotiate, and a trial would subsequently become inevitable. What are Some Common Types of Shareholder Disputes? Shareholder disputes may take various forms. All of these lawsuits fall into four main categories, however. An individual shareholder might file a direct lawsuit against the company. Another type of lawsuit might be a “derivative suit,” which involves the shareholders suing on behalf of the corporation. This type of lawsuit often targets a specific bad actor within the company, such as a self-dealing CEO. Class actions are also relatively common. In this type of lawsuit, numerous shareholders join forces to file a single lawsuit against the corporation, often under federal securities law. Finally, a dispute might take the form of an “appraisal proceeding,” which focuses on whether the company has received a fair valuation before a merger. How Does Pennsylvania Law Affect Shareholder Disputes? Pennsylvania law is quite deferential to the board of directors, granting it considerable control and authority. A common source of conflict in a corporation is the contrast between the “democracy” of the shareholders and the authority of the board of directors. Pennsylvania tilts the scales in favor of the board. First, Pennsylvania requires a shareholder to make a written demand to the board before they can file a derivative lawsuit. The board can then appoint a “Special Litigation Committee” to investigate the shareholders' claims and demands. If the committee determines that a lawsuit would go against the best interests of the company, courts in Pennsylvania may not allow it to continue. It is difficult to circumvent these requirements for derivative lawsuits in the Keystone State because of strict limits on direct lawsuits. Finally, Pennsylvania has no rule that states a board must place its shareholders’ interests above those of other relevant parties. These parties might include employees, customers, suppliers, and even the greater community or environment. This is not the same in other jurisdictions, making the Keystone State a “board-friendly” state that repels takeovers. In fact, it is considered by many to be the most management-friendly state in the country and one of the toughest places for shareholder plaintiffs to sue. While this is good news for boards facing shareholder lawsuits, the Keystone State’s protections are not infinite. Effective legal representation is necessary to take advantage of the jurisdiction’s legal safeguards. On the other hand, plaintiff shareholders can still achieve success in Pennsylvania, but they may need to rely on innovative, experienced business litigation lawyers in the face of strong regulatory barriers. Contact Cozza Law Group PLLC to Learn More About Shareholder Disputes While online research can provide plenty of insights into shareholder disputes, each case is slightly different. Given the varied nature of shareholder disputes, it may help to discuss your specific circumstances with a business litigation attorney in Pennsylvania . Cozza Law Group PLLC serves enterprises of all sizes, offering a fractional counsel model that provides legal guidance that fits your company’s unique needs. Continue this dialogue by contacting us at 412-453-8673 or visiting us online .