[blindlaw] Court rules Target must make website accessible to theblind

[Kathleen Hagen]

Hello,  The judge's ruling is a great victory, but the ruling is a denial of 
the Respondent's summary judgment motion, as I understand it.  That means 
that Target tried to get the case dismissed and didn't succeed.  As I 
understand it, the judge ruled that, insofar as Target used its web site to 
promote business interests and to sell products in the same way as in their 
store, then the site might be found to constitute a public accommodation,  a 
definite win.  But apparently it's a fact issue yet as to whether or not the 
web is inaccessible as Target allegedly found blind people to say it is 
accessible "with few problems."  So we're not at the end of the case yet, 
but we've made a great start.  I also understand that the judge denied NFB's 
injunction to immediately make the web site accessible until the fact issues 
are sorted out.
Kathy hagen
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Andrews" <dandrews at visi.com>
To: <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>; <nfb-talk at nfbnet.org>; <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>; 
<nfb-announce at nfbnet.org>; <nfb-web at nfbnet.org>; <nfbcs at nfbnet.org>; 
<gui-talk at nfbnet.org>; <promotion-technology at nfbnet.org>; 
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>; <rehab at nfbnet.org>; <nfb-science at nfbnet.org>; 
<journalists at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 11:32 PM
Subject: [blindlaw] Court rules Target must make website accessible to 
theblind


>
>>>> KARE11 TV, Minnesota USA
>>>> Thursday, September 07, 2006
>>>>
>>>> Court rules Target must make website accessible to the blind
>>>>
>>>> A federal district court judge ruled Wednesday that a retailer may be
>>>> sued
>>>> if its website is inaccessible to the blind. The ruling was issued in a
>>>> case brought by the National Federation of the Blind against Target 
>>>> Corp.
>>>>
>>>> The suit charges that Target's website ( http://www.target.com ) is
>>>> inaccessible to the blind, and therefore violates the Americans with
>>>> Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the
>>>> California Disabled Persons Act. Target asked the court to dismiss the
>>>> action by arguing that no law requires Target to make its website
>>>> accessible. The Court denied Target's motion to dismiss and held that 
>>>> the
>>>> federal and state civil rights laws do apply to a website such as
>>>> target.com.
>>>>
>>>> The suit, NFB v. Target, was filed as a class action on behalf of all
>>>> blind Americans who are being denied access to target.com. The named
>>>> plaintiffs are the NFB, the NFB of California, and a blind college
>>>> student, Bruce "BJ" Sexton.
>>>>
>>>> The plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, a
>>>> Berkeley-based non-profit law firm that specializes in high-impact 
>>>> cases
>>>> on behalf of people with disabilities;
>>>>
>>>> The court held: "the 'ordinary meaning' of the ADA's prohibition 
>>>> against
>>>> discrimination in the enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or
>>>> privileges, is that whatever goods or services the place provides, it
>>>> cannot discriminate on the basis of disability in providing enjoyment 
>>>> of
>>>> those goods and services." The court thus rejected Target's argument 
>>>> that
>>>> only its physical store locations were covered by the civil rights 
>>>> laws,
>>>> ruling instead that all services provided by Target, including its Web
>>>> site, must be accessible to persons with disabilities.
>>>>
>>>> "This ruling is a great victory for blind people throughout the 
>>>> country,"
>>>> said NFB President Dr. Marc Maurer. "We are pleased that the court
>>>> recognized that the blind are entitled to equal access to retail
>>>> websites."
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Maurer explained that blind persons access websites by using
>>>> keyboards
>>>> in conjunction with screen-reading software, which vocalizes visual
>>>> information on a computer screen.
>>>>
>>>> Target's website contains significant access barriers that prevent 
>>>> blind
>>>> customers from browsing among and purchasing products online, as well 
>>>> as
>>>> from finding important corporate information such as employment
>>>> opportunities, investor news, and company policies.
>>>>
>>>> The plaintiffs charge that target.com fails to meet the minimum 
>>>> standard
>>>> of web accessibility. It lacks compliant alt-text, an invisible code
>>>> embedded beneath graphic images that allows screen readers to detect 
>>>> and
>>>> vocalize a description of the image to a blind computer user. It also
>>>> contains inaccessible image maps and other graphical features, 
>>>> preventing
>>>> blind users from navigating and making use of all of the functions of 
>>>> the
>>>> website. And because the website requires the use of a mouse to 
>>>> complete
>>>> a
>>>> transaction, blind Target customers are unable to make purchases on
>>>> target.com independently.
>>>>
>>>> Explaining the ramification of the ruling, Mazen M. Basrawi, Equal
>>>> Justice
>>>> Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates, noted that: "the court
>>>> clarified that the law requires that any place of public accommodation 
>>>> is
>>>> required to ensure that it does not discriminate when it uses the
>>>> internet
>>>> as a means to enhance the services it offers at a physical location."
>>>>
>>>> "I hope that I can soon shop online at Target.com just like anyone 
>>>> else,"
>>>> said UC Berkeley student BJ Sexton, who is a named plaintiff in the
>>>> lawsuit. "I believe that millions of blind people like me can use the
>>>> Internet just as easily as do the sighted, if websites are accessible."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.kare11.com/money/business_article.aspx?storyid=134062
>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw
>