[gui-talk] Fwd: Article: Legal Precedent Set for Web Accessibility

[Steve Pattison]

>From: BlindNews Mailing List BlindNews at GeoffAndWen.com
>To: BlindNews at blindprogramming.com
>
>PR Newswire
>Thursday, September 07, 2006
>
>Legal Precedent Set for Web Accessibility
>
>By SOURCE National Federation of the Blind
>
>Federal Judge Sustains Discrimination Claims Against Target; Precedent
>Establishes That Retailers Must Make Their Websites Accessible to the Blind
>Under the ADA
>
>     BERKELEY, Calif., Sept. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- A federal district court
>judge ruled yesterday 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. (Northern District of
>California Case No. C 06-01802 MHP) 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 (
>http://www.dralegal.org ), a Berkeley-based non-profit law firm that
>specializes in high-impact cases on behalf of people with disabilities;
>Brown, Goldstein & Levy ( http://www.browngold.com ), a leading civil
>rights law firm in Baltimore, Maryland; and Schneider & Wallace (
>http://www.schneiderwallace.com ), a national plaintiff's class action and
>civil rights law firm based in San Francisco, CA.
>     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.
>     The plaintiffs originally filed the complaint in Alameda superior court
>on February 7, 2006. The case was removed to federal district court and
>assigned to Judge Marilyn Hall Patel. Target responded to the suit by
>filing a motion to dismiss the case, which argued in part that no civil
>rights laws apply to the Internet.
>     "We tried to convince Target that it should do the right thing and make
>its website accessible through negotiations," said Dr. Maurer. "It is
>unfortunate that Target took the position that it does not have to take the
>rights of the blind into account. The ruling in this case puts Target and
>other companies on notice that the blind cannot be treated like second
>class citizens on the Internet or in any other sphere."
>     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."
>     About the National Federation of the Blind
>     With more than 50,000 members, the National Federation of the Blind is
>the largest and most influential membership organization of blind people in
>the United States. The NFB improves blind people's lives through advocacy,
>education, research, technology, and programs encouraging independence and
>self-confidence. It is the leading force in the blindness field today and
>the voice of the nation's blind. In January 2004 the NFB opened the
>National Federation of the Blind Jernigan Institute, the first research and
>training center in the United States for the blind led by the blind.
>
>SOURCE National Federation of the Blind

Regards Steve
Email:  srp at internode.on.net
Skype:  steve1963
MSN Messenger:  internetuser383 at hotmail.com