[nfbwatlk] Fw: Article: Companies, Courts Debate Whether ADA Applies to Web Sites
Mike Freeman
k7uij at panix.com
Wed Sep 12 22:51:05 CDT 2007
----- Original Message -----
From: Sue Ammeter
To: wcb-l at wcbinfo.org
Cc: dcolley at esd.wa.gov
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:37 PM
Subject: [Wcb-l] Article: Companies,Courts Debate Whether ADA Applies to
Web Sites
-----Original Message-----
From: Region V ADA Information [mailto:GREATLAKES at LISTSERV.UIC.EDU] On
Behalf Of Robin Jones
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:32 PM
To: GREATLAKES at LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Subject: Article: Companies, Courts Debate Whether ADA Applies to Web
Sites
The following article is forwarded to you by the DBTAC-Great Lakes ADA
Center (www.adagreatlakes.org) for your information.
For more articles across the country regarding the ADA go to our "ADA In
the
Headlines" page at: http://www.adagreatlakes.org/Headlines/
LAW.COM
September 6, 2007
Companies, Courts Debate Whether ADA Applies to Web Sites Advocates for
the
disabled are pressing companies to make their Web sites more accessible
Sherry Karabin, Corporate Counsel
Does the Americans with Disabilities Act apply in cyberspace? Without
clear
guidance from the courts, companies are deciding for themselves.
Pressured
by advocacy groups, some businesses have already taken steps to make
their
Web sites more accessible to the disabled. But other companies have said
that while they'll voluntarily alter their sites, they aren't required
to do
so by the ADA.
RadioShack Corp. is the latest company to reach an agreement with
advocates
for the disabled. On June 13, the Fort Worth, Texas-based electronics
retailer announced that it would make several improvements to its Web
site
for users who are visually impaired. The agreement grew out of
negotiations
between RadioShack and the American Council of the Blind and the
American
Foundation for the Blind.
"RadioShack believes that its products and services should be accessible
to
individuals with disabilities," says Mickey Clark, a senior litigation
attorney at the company. "It was apparent that RadioShack and the
[blindness
organizations] shared a common goal, and we decided to work together to
come
up with a sensible solution."
By contrast, Target Corp. and the National Federation of the Blind are
still
fighting in court. The Minneapolis-based big-box retailer says that it
made
sufficient changes to its Web site after being sued by the NFB and blind
individuals last year. The plaintiffs, however, maintain that Target has
to
do more. The company is now arguing that its Web site isn't covered by
disability access laws, while the NFB says that it is. A hearing was
held on
July 31 on Target's motion to dismiss the suit and the plaintiffs'
motion
for class certification, with a ruling expected later this year.
According to Target spokesperson Carolyn Brookter, the company "believes
our
Web site is fully accessible, and complies with all applicable laws."
When Congress passed the ADA in 1990, it required that all "places of
public
accommodation" -- stores, offices, and the like -- be fully accessible
to
the disabled. But lawmakers failed to anticipate the wide range of
technological innovations that have been adopted in the business world
since
then. The question that several disabled advocates have raised is
whether a
corporate Web site should be considered a "service" of a place of public
accommodation. If it is, then Title III of the ADA would require the
site to
be fully accessible.
So far, challenges have largely come from groups representing the
visually
impaired. Many of these people use software that reads the text on a
computer screen and then vocalizes it. Some of the words on a Web page,
however, may not appear as plain text, but may be contained in a graphic
or
pop-up box. In order for the screen-reading software to pick up the
information in these elements, a Web page must be designed with hidden
features.
RadioShack agreed to do just this in its recent agreement with the
blindness
groups. Other companies have previously pledged to do the same. In
March,
Amazon.com Inc., promised to work with the NFB to make its site more
accessible for the visually impaired. Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc.,
and
Priceline.com, Inc. also agreed to alter their sites after reaching
settlements with the New York state attorney general's office in 2004.
Not all businesses settle, however. Several years ago, Southwest
Airlines
Co. decided to let the courts rule on the merits of a challenge to its
Web
site. The suit, filed by Access Now Inc., another advocacy group for the
blind, was dismissed by a federal district court judge in 2002. The
dismissal was upheld two years later by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Target appears to be making the same argument as Southwest -- laws
prohibiting discrimination against the disabled don't apply to Web
sites.
The retailer's defense may be a little tougher, however, since it's been
sued not just under the ADA, but also under California state civil
rights
laws. In an answer filed last September, Target said that the changes to
its
Web site that the NFB is demanding "are not required under California or
federal law, and any requirement to make those changes would impose an
undue
burden upon Target and would not be readily achievable."
Still, Target has made some changes to its site. In a brief filed March
8,
the company said, "Since this action was filed, Target.com has been
substantially modified, and the issues identified by the plaintiffs have
been eliminated."
Daniel Goldstein, a partner at Baltimore's Brown, Goldstein & Levy who
is
representing the plaintiffs in the case, isn't persuaded. "Target's
claims
of accessibility are greatly exaggerated," Goldstein says. "[The
company]
confuses having done some things that need to be done, with doing
everything
that needs to be done."
The case is being heard by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in San Francisco
federal
district court. Last year she dismissed some of the suit's claims, but
allowed others to proceed. Perhaps most important, Patel has yet to rule
on
whether California law applies. She's expected to make this
determination
after the July 31 class certification hearing. Observers expect Patel to
take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months to make her decision.
Given that the certification stage is such a risky point in a class
action
suit, why has Target let the litigation get this far? The company won't
say.
But law professor David Moss speculates that the retailer may be
thinking
about the bigger picture. According to Moss, who supervises the
Disability
Law Clinic at Wayne State University, "Target may be taking a stand on
behalf of industry generally, which wants to leave the Web unregulated."
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1188982951454
************************************************************
Join the Monthly Monetary Support program (MMS) and help improve
tomorrow
today in ACB.
For details, contact Dr. Ron Milliman, MMS Program Committee Chair, by
e-mail:
rmilliman at insightbb.com or by phone at 270-782-9325 and get started
making
tomorrow look brighter today in ACB!
* ACB-L is maintained and brought to you as a service *
* of the American Council of the Blind. *
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: acb-l-unsubscribe at acb.org
For additional commands, e-mail: acb-l-help at acb.org
_______________________________________________
Wcb-l mailing list
Wcb-l at wcbinfo.org
http://wcbinfo.org/mailman/listinfo/wcb-l_wcbinfo.org
-------------- next part --------------
----- Original Message -----
From:
mailto:sue.ammeter at cablespeed.com Sue Ammeter
To:
mailto:wcb-l at wcbinfo.org wcb-l at wcbinfo.org
Cc:
mailto:dcolley at esd.wa.gov dcolley at esd.wa.gov
Sent:
Tuesday, September 11, 2007 1:37 PM
Subject:
[Wcb-l] Article: Companies,Courts Debate Whether ADA Applies to Web Sites
-----Original Message-----
From: Region V ADA Information [mailto:GREATLAKES at LISTSERV.UIC.EDU] On
Behalf Of Robin Jones
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 8:32 PM
To: mailto:GREATLAKES at LISTSERV.UIC.EDU GREATLAKES at LISTSERV.UIC.EDU
Subject: Article: Companies, Courts Debate Whether ADA Applies to Web Sites
The following article is forwarded to you by the DBTAC-Great Lakes ADA
Center ( http://www.adagreatlakes.org www.adagreatlakes.org
) for your information.
For more articles across the country regarding the ADA go to our "ADA In the
Headlines" page at: http://www.adagreatlakes.org/Headlines/ http://www.adagreatlakes.org/Headlines/
LAW.COM
September 6, 2007
Companies, Courts Debate Whether ADA Applies to Web Sites Advocates for the
disabled are pressing companies to make their Web sites more accessible
Sherry Karabin, Corporate Counsel
Does the Americans with Disabilities Act apply in cyberspace? Without clear
guidance from the courts, companies are deciding for themselves. Pressured
by advocacy groups, some businesses have already taken steps to make their
Web sites more accessible to the disabled. But other companies have said
that while they'll voluntarily alter their sites, they aren't required to do
so by the ADA.
RadioShack Corp. is the latest company to reach an agreement with advocates
for the disabled. On June 13, the Fort Worth, Texas-based electronics
retailer announced that it would make several improvements to its Web site
for users who are visually impaired. The agreement grew out of negotiations
between RadioShack and the American Council of the Blind and the American
Foundation for the Blind.
"RadioShack believes that its products and services should be accessible to
individuals with disabilities," says Mickey Clark, a senior litigation
attorney at the company. "It was apparent that RadioShack and the [blindness
organizations] shared a common goal, and we decided to work together to come
up with a sensible solution."
By contrast, Target Corp. and the National Federation of the Blind are still
fighting in court. The Minneapolis-based big-box retailer says that it made
sufficient changes to its Web site after being sued by the NFB and blind
individuals last year. The plaintiffs, however, maintain that Target has to
do more. The company is now arguing that its Web site isn't covered by
disability access laws, while the NFB says that it is. A hearing was held on
July 31 on Target's motion to dismiss the suit and the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, with a ruling expected later this year.
According to Target spokesperson Carolyn Brookter, the company "believes our
Web site is fully accessible, and complies with all applicable laws."
When Congress passed the ADA in 1990, it required that all "places of public
accommodation" -- stores, offices, and the like -- be fully accessible to
the disabled. But lawmakers failed to anticipate the wide range of
technological innovations that have been adopted in the business world since
then. The question that several disabled advocates have raised is whether a
corporate Web site should be considered a "service" of a place of public
accommodation. If it is, then Title III of the ADA would require the site to
be fully accessible.
So far, challenges have largely come from groups representing the visually
impaired. Many of these people use software that reads the text on a
computer screen and then vocalizes it. Some of the words on a Web page,
however, may not appear as plain text, but may be contained in a graphic or
pop-up box. In order for the screen-reading software to pick up the
information in these elements, a Web page must be designed with hidden
features.
RadioShack agreed to do just this in its recent agreement with the blindness
groups. Other companies have previously pledged to do the same. In March,
Amazon.com Inc., promised to work with the NFB to make its site more
accessible for the visually impaired. Ramada Franchise Systems, Inc., and
Priceline.com, Inc. also agreed to alter their sites after reaching
settlements with the New York state attorney general's office in 2004.
Not all businesses settle, however. Several years ago, Southwest Airlines
Co. decided to let the courts rule on the merits of a challenge to its Web
site. The suit, filed by Access Now Inc., another advocacy group for the
blind, was dismissed by a federal district court judge in 2002. The
dismissal was upheld two years later by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Target appears to be making the same argument as Southwest -- laws
prohibiting discrimination against the disabled don't apply to Web sites.
The retailer's defense may be a little tougher, however, since it's been
sued not just under the ADA, but also under California state civil rights
laws. In an answer filed last September, Target said that the changes to its
Web site that the NFB is demanding "are not required under California or
federal law, and any requirement to make those changes would impose an undue
burden upon Target and would not be readily achievable."
Still, Target has made some changes to its site. In a brief filed March 8,
the company said, "Since this action was filed, Target.com has been
substantially modified, and the issues identified by the plaintiffs have
been eliminated."
Daniel Goldstein, a partner at Baltimore's Brown, Goldstein & Levy who is
representing the plaintiffs in the case, isn't persuaded. "Target's claims
of accessibility are greatly exaggerated," Goldstein says. "[The company]
confuses having done some things that need to be done, with doing everything
that needs to be done."
The case is being heard by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in San Francisco federal
district court. Last year she dismissed some of the suit's claims, but
allowed others to proceed. Perhaps most important, Patel has yet to rule on
whether California law applies. She's expected to make this determination
after the July 31 class certification hearing. Observers expect Patel to
take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months to make her decision.
Given that the certification stage is such a risky point in a class action
suit, why has Target let the litigation get this far? The company won't say.
But law professor David Moss speculates that the retailer may be thinking
about the bigger picture. According to Moss, who supervises the Disability
Law Clinic at Wayne State University, "Target may be taking a stand on
behalf of industry generally, which wants to leave the Web unregulated."
Source: http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1188982951454 http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticleIHC.jsp?id=1188982951454
************************************************************
Join the Monthly Monetary Support program (MMS) and help improve tomorrow
today in ACB.
For details, contact Dr. Ron Milliman, MMS Program Committee Chair, by
e-mail:
mailto:rmilliman at insightbb.com rmilliman at insightbb.com
or by phone at 270-782-9325 and get started making
tomorrow look brighter today in ACB!
* ACB-L is maintained and brought to you as a service *
* of the American Council of the Blind. *
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mailto:acb-l-unsubscribe at acb.org acb-l-unsubscribe at acb.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mailto:acb-l-help at acb.org acb-l-help at acb.org
_______________________________________________
Wcb-l mailing list
mailto:Wcb-l at wcbinfo.org Wcb-l at wcbinfo.org
http://wcbinfo.org/mailman/listinfo/wcb-l_wcbinfo.org http://wcbinfo.org/mailman/listinfo/wcb-l_wcbinfo.org
More information about the nfbwatlk
mailing list