WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web

for

From: Holly Marie
Date: Oct 21, 2002 9:08PM

From: "Jim Thatcher"


| The Atlanta case is not the opposite.

I was speaking to the fact that the items judged for compliance using
ADA were found to be in support of violation on one case, and in the
other case ADA did not help the plaintiff.

| In one case the court found that the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit
| Authority (MARTA) was in violation of ADA Title II for not providing
train
| schedules to people with disabilities in a reasonable and convenient
| fashion.

And I wonder why that title could not have been used for obtaining plane
tickets and information in a reasonable fashion?

also in the text of the page... about midway down or starting with the
4th paragraph...

_Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. stated in his order that "MARTA can do a
better job of making information available in accessible formats." The
judge stated that although MARTA did provide information to people with
visual impairments over the telephone, this service was not equivalent
to that provided over the Internet to non-disabled passengers. Although
MARTA is attempting to correct accessibility issues on its Internet
site, Judge Thrash found that "MARTA must deliver on its promises".
"Until these deficiencies are corrected," the judge stated, "MARTA is
violating the ADA."_

_The judge ordered MARTA and the plaintiffs to work together to fashion
a court order to remedy the violations of the ADA, including the
accessibility of the MARTA website, but did not order MARTA to make any
specific changes to its website. The court's order can be found in Adobe
PDF at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/documents/1001cv3255TWTinj.pdf _

from: http://www.sedbtac.org/ed/whats_new/articles.cfm?id=2520

| In the Southwest Airlines case the court ruled that the website was
NOT a
| place of public accommodation and therefore not covered by ADA Title
III.
| For us in the web accessibility arena this is the interesting ruling.
I
| assume and hope that the ruling will be appealed. The eleventh circuit
| ruling against the plaintiffs in this case is the first of its kind.
Its
| appeal will be interesting.

Perhaps the plaintiff lawyers should have gone for ADA Title II
arguments like the Transportation case? I need to read the court
findings of the Southwest Air case.

No doubt this will be interesting. I do not think the judge was wrong
about the application of the ADA to public spaces/accommodations,
because ADA is all about the physical nature of surroundings. The ADA
really needs to take a look at this work and revise it , extend it, or
update it. Yet leave it open for emerging technology. Or Section 508
needs to be implemented and enforced.

I do recall 3 cases[?} were filed using ADA arugumnet, I believe,
against 3 California schools regarding distance education, and I have no
idea how those cases are going or if they were closed. Though schools
can come under fire from other areas of law, like the Assisstive
Technology Acts. I would have to look these up to see where these cases
ended up.


Southwest Airlines Links.
| Get the whole story at:
| http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962761.html?tag=fd_top_8
http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/viewer/viewer.asp?file=/cases/opinions/02CV
1734d24.pdf


It would also be very nice if both courthouses and others provided the
information in text or html format instead of just PDF.

holly



----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/