When a Theater Got Sued Over Its Website: Accessibility Lessons for Nonprofits

A website can look perfectly fine to one visitor and still leave another unable to find a show, understand an event, or complete a task. That gap was at the heart of a 2024 website accessibility lawsuit involving Blue Springs City Theatre, a nonprofit community theater in Missouri.

The case is worth understanding, but not as a story about one villainous bit of code. The public record does not identify a specific website feature that caused the complaint, and the settlement terms are confidential. What it does show is why accessibility needs to be part of how an organization plans, builds, and maintains its website, not a last-minute sweep for a few technical errors.

What happened in the Blue Springs City Theatre case

Robert Glen Myers filed a lawsuit against Blue Springs City Theatre on September 11, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The public docket identifies the case as an Americans with Disabilities Act civil-rights action.

According to KMBC’s reporting, Myers is legally blind due to age-related macular degeneration and uses screen-access software. The complaint alleged that barriers on the theater’s website prevented him from meaningfully accessing information about its offerings. The case concerned website access, not the physical accessibility of the theater building.

The parties filed a joint stipulation stating that they had settled, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice on October 17, 2024. The public filing does not disclose the terms of their separate settlement agreement. The theater also told KMBC it could not comment on the case or settlement because of a nondisclosure agreement.

That distinction matters. We can verify that a lawsuit was filed and settled. We can’t verify the specific technical barriers alleged in the complaint from the public sources reviewed, or claim that the settlement required a particular fix, deadline, or staff-training program. A settlement is not the same as a court ruling that establishes what happened.

The problem wasn’t “one missing alt tag”

It’s tempting to turn an accessibility lawsuit into a scavenger hunt for a single defect: missing image descriptions, low contrast, an unlabeled form, or a menu that can’t be reached by keyboard. Those issues can create real barriers. But the public record in this case doesn’t identify one as the theater’s specific problem.

The more grounded lesson is about the outcome alleged: a visitor who uses screen-access technology said the website blocked meaningful access to the organization’s services. That can affect the everyday tasks a nonprofit website is there to support: finding performance details, checking dates, looking for ticket information, or contacting the organization.

A site can contain accessible-looking pages and still make an important task difficult. The event listing may be readable, for example, while the ticket link has no clear name for a screen reader. A form may be visible but fail to explain which fields need attention after an error. Accessibility is about whether people can use the site’s important features, not whether it passes one quick scan.

A policy is useful. It isn’t proof of an accessible site.

Blue Springs City Theatre’s current accessibility statement says it aims to align with WCAG 2.1 Level AA and describes features such as keyboard navigation, alternative text, readable contrast, and scalable text. The statement says it was last reviewed in January 2026.

That is useful information about the theater’s current public-facing intentions and contact process. It doesn’t tell us what the website was like when the 2024 lawsuit was filed, or what the confidential settlement required. A policy page can set expectations and invite people to report problems. It cannot, on its own, demonstrate that every page and user journey works accessibly.

The same principle applies to any nonprofit’s accessibility statement. Make it accurate. Give visitors a way to report a barrier and request information in another format. Then pair the statement with regular checks and a process for fixing issues.

What nonprofits can do now

You don’t need to solve every possible website issue in a single afternoon. Start with the parts of the site people rely on to participate in your work.

1. Test the important journeys. Try the steps a visitor would take to find a program, register, donate, buy a ticket, or contact your team. Look beyond the homepage. If an action depends on a third-party platform, include that step in the review.

2. Check with a keyboard. Use the Tab, Shift+Tab, Enter, and arrow keys to navigate. Notice whether you can reach links and controls, see where the keyboard focus is, open menus, and complete forms without getting stuck.

3. Review content and structure. Use clear headings in a logical order, descriptive link text, useful alternative text for informative images, and labels that make form fields understandable. Decorative images can usually be marked so assistive technology skips them.

4. Use automated tools as a starting point. Scanners can flag some issues, including certain contrast or missing-label problems. They don’t catch everything and can report false positives. The W3C explains that evaluation tools should support, not replace, human review.

5. Make accessibility part of routine publishing. Give staff simple guidance for adding images, writing link text, creating event pages, and checking new forms. A good handoff makes it more likely that improvements survive the next round of updates.

What does ADA website compliance mean?

The U.S. Department of Justice says Title III of the ADA applies to businesses and other public accommodations, including theaters, and addresses equal access to their goods and services. The DOJ’s guidance on web accessibility and the ADA also notes that it has not issued detailed technical website standards for Title III.

That means it’s too broad to say that one particular WCAG version is a universal technical rule expressly written into Title III. WCAG is a widely used technical benchmark for building and evaluating accessible websites, but an organization’s legal obligations depend on its circumstances. Nonprofit status alone is not a substitute for understanding which requirements apply. If you’re assessing legal risk, speak with an attorney familiar with disability rights and your organization’s work.

For public entities, a different set of obligations may apply under ADA Title II. Our overview of the Title II 2027 website compliance deadline explains that distinction.

Accessibility works best as a practice, not a patch

A one-time scan can help surface issues. It can’t tell you whether a visitor can complete every important task, and it won’t keep new content accessible by itself. A useful review combines automated checks with hands-on testing of pages, forms, menus, and key journeys. When possible, include feedback from people who use assistive technology.

This is the practical takeaway from the Blue Springs City Theatre case: the lawsuit put a spotlight on an alleged access barrier, but the public record doesn’t give other organizations a list of the theater’s precise technical mistakes to copy, or avoid. Nonprofits can still take a clear next step: review the paths visitors depend on, fix the barriers you find, and make accessibility part of ongoing content and website decisions.

At Snowberry Media, we plan for accessibility as part of building and improving websites, alongside strategy, content, and usability. You can read more about our approach to website accessibility or explore our website development services. For a broader look at common website issues, see 7 website mistakes.

Sources and further reading

• Myers v. Blue Springs City Theatre: docket and filings
• KMBC: Midwest businesses facing website ADA lawsuits
• Blue Springs City Theatre accessibility statement
• U.S. Department of Justice: Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA
• W3C: Selecting Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools