WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Thread: Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web

for

Number of posts in this thread: 7 (In chronological order)

From: Jared Smith
Date: Mon, Oct 21 2002 3:51PM
Subject: Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web
No previous message | Next message →

A federal judge ruled Friday that Southwest Airlines does not
have to revamp its Web site to make it more accessible to the
blind and dismissed the lawsuit brought by Access Now.

Get the whole story at:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962761.html?tag=fd_top_8

You can also get the entire ruling at
http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/viewer/viewer.asp?file=/cases/opinions/02CV21734d24.pdf

The Access Now case was based upon Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The basis for the dismissal was primarily that the
website is not a place of public accommodation as defined in the ADA.

I was particularly interested in this portion of the ruling about the
W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative and the WCAG Guidelines:
<snip>
Not only are these guidelines over three-years old, but there is no
indication that the Web Accessibility Initiative... is a generally
accepted authority on accessibility guidelines.
</snip>

Hmmm... if the W3C isn't a generally accepted authority, then who is?
...and because the standards are three-years old, they are no longer
viable? I guess this demonstrates the uphill battle we face.

Jared Smith
Project Coordinator
WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind)


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


From: Holly Marie
Date: Mon, Oct 21 2002 4:15PM
Subject: Re: Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web
← Previous message | Next message →

On a Web Design List however.... Someone deposited another case link
which did exactly the opposite.
So here is one that did go through, and too bad it did not go through
before the other was up for a decision, then this case could have been
used to back up the other, if argued well.

post by Todd Warfel on BabbleList not half an hour ago: [this was
posted a few hours ago]

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

Judge Rules That Inaccessible Website Violates ADA

October 15, 2002

A federal judge ruled that the Atlanta mass transit agency violated the
ADA
by constructing a website that was inaccessible for people with visual
disabilities. This is one of the first cases to decide that the ADA
requires
online access for people with disabilities...


so.... we have two cases, both citing ADA, with two different results.
I think what we will need is some clean up on the Act and maybe others,
in order to apply these well to cases?

I think the arguments for the one that failed, had some attorneys
stating that those rules and Act were put into force or written before
Internet technology was in place, so his argument may have been that
they cannot be applied concretely?
At least that was my recall of the pretrial news on this Southwest
Airlines case. In this situation, it would be up to the plaintiff side
to come up with counter cases or records that proved otherwise. Maybe
even ones that did not apply directly to Internet but cases in which ADA
was used successfully to sue other areas that were not specifically
outlined in the Act?

This is a real problem and most likely why law is written in such a
verbose way to include as much as possible or risk not covering other
areas. Openended changes on ADA may need to be written to include any
electronic technology that is developed and used by the general public
for means in accessing services for the same.

I wonder now, if ATM, Kiosks and other such devices are covered under
ADA specifically and if not, those are other areas that need to be
included.

This is all very interesting and also very important and what may happen
is items are going to need to be changed.

holly

babblelist is at http://www.babblelist.com/
ADA and discussion is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/highfivebabble/messagesearch?query=ADA
[and if that link does not go through, put ADA into the search box to
get to the thread]


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


| A federal judge ruled Friday that Southwest Airlines does not
| have to revamp its Web site to make it more accessible to the
| blind and dismissed the lawsuit brought by Access Now.
|
| Get the whole story at:
| http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962761.html?tag=fd_top_8
|
| You can also get the entire ruling at
|
http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/viewer/viewer.asp?file=/cases/opinions/02CV
21734d24.pdf
|
| The Access Now case was based upon Title III of the Americans with
| Disabilities Act. The basis for the dismissal was primarily that the
| website is not a place of public accommodation as defined in the ADA.
|
| I was particularly interested in this portion of the ruling about the
| W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative and the WCAG Guidelines:
| <snip>
| Not only are these guidelines over three-years old, but there is no
| indication that the Web Accessibility Initiative... is a generally
| accepted authority on accessibility guidelines.
| </snip>
|
| Hmmm... if the W3C isn't a generally accepted authority, then who is?
| ...and because the standards are three-years old, they are no longer
| viable? I guess this demonstrates the uphill battle we face.




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

From: Holly Marie
Date: Mon, Oct 21 2002 4:29PM
Subject: The ADA case that Won - of sorts.
← Previous message | Next message →

Irony continues. This case was settled on the 15th of October it
appears.

However it appears by quickly scanning the court orders and
documents.[which is not an easy trick with PDF], it appears that the
site must work on complying and report back to court in 30 days. If at
that time it fails to meet approval? open language about what may be
done....

There was some mention of the group hiring someone to make sure changes
are implemented properly but that may or may not have been a suggestion.

Otherwise, it looks like the outcome of this decision was work at repair
and report back to court within 30 days.


The court findings are in a 50 page PDF file from the link below, in
case anyone would like to read it.
http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/documents/1001cv3255TWTinj.pdf



holly

[I really despise using PDF and I do not have accessibility challenges]



| Judge Rules That Inaccessible Website Violates ADA
|
| October 15, 2002
|
| A federal judge ruled that the Atlanta mass transit agency violated
the
| ADA
| by constructing a website that was inaccessible for people with visual
| disabilities. This is one of the first cases to decide that the ADA
| requires
| online access for people with disabilities...

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



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


From: Jim Thatcher
Date: Mon, Oct 21 2002 7:53PM
Subject: RE: Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web
← Previous message | Next message →

The Atlanta case is not the opposite.

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.

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.

Jim
Accessibility Consulting
http://jimthatcher.com
512-306-0931
508 Web accessibility Tutorial: http://jimthatcher.com/webcourse1.htm


-----Original Message-----
From: Holly Marie [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 6:11 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web


On a Web Design List however.... Someone deposited another case link
which did exactly the opposite.
So here is one that did go through, and too bad it did not go through
before the other was up for a decision, then this case could have been
used to back up the other, if argued well.

post by Todd Warfel on BabbleList not half an hour ago: [this was
posted a few hours ago]

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

Judge Rules That Inaccessible Website Violates ADA

October 15, 2002

A federal judge ruled that the Atlanta mass transit agency violated the
ADA
by constructing a website that was inaccessible for people with visual
disabilities. This is one of the first cases to decide that the ADA
requires
online access for people with disabilities...


so.... we have two cases, both citing ADA, with two different results.
I think what we will need is some clean up on the Act and maybe others,
in order to apply these well to cases?

I think the arguments for the one that failed, had some attorneys
stating that those rules and Act were put into force or written before
Internet technology was in place, so his argument may have been that
they cannot be applied concretely?
At least that was my recall of the pretrial news on this Southwest
Airlines case. In this situation, it would be up to the plaintiff side
to come up with counter cases or records that proved otherwise. Maybe
even ones that did not apply directly to Internet but cases in which ADA
was used successfully to sue other areas that were not specifically
outlined in the Act?

This is a real problem and most likely why law is written in such a
verbose way to include as much as possible or risk not covering other
areas. Openended changes on ADA may need to be written to include any
electronic technology that is developed and used by the general public
for means in accessing services for the same.

I wonder now, if ATM, Kiosks and other such devices are covered under
ADA specifically and if not, those are other areas that need to be
included.

This is all very interesting and also very important and what may happen
is items are going to need to be changed.

holly

babblelist is at http://www.babblelist.com/
ADA and discussion is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/highfivebabble/messagesearch?query=ADA
[and if that link does not go through, put ADA into the search box to
get to the thread]


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jared Smith" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


| A federal judge ruled Friday that Southwest Airlines does not
| have to revamp its Web site to make it more accessible to the
| blind and dismissed the lawsuit brought by Access Now.
|
| Get the whole story at:
| http://news.com.com/2100-1023-962761.html?tag=fd_top_8
|
| You can also get the entire ruling at
|
http://www.flsd.uscourts.gov/viewer/viewer.asp?file=/cases/opinions/02CV
21734d24.pdf
|
| The Access Now case was based upon Title III of the Americans with
| Disabilities Act. The basis for the dismissal was primarily that the
| website is not a place of public accommodation as defined in the ADA.
|
| I was particularly interested in this portion of the ruling about the
| W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative and the WCAG Guidelines:
| <snip>
| Not only are these guidelines over three-years old, but there is no
| indication that the Web Accessibility Initiative... is a generally
| accepted authority on accessibility guidelines.
| </snip>
|
| Hmmm... if the W3C isn't a generally accepted authority, then who is?
| ...and because the standards are three-years old, they are no longer
| viable? I guess this demonstrates the uphill battle we face.




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


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

From: Holly Marie
Date: Mon, Oct 21 2002 9:08PM
Subject: Re: Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web
← Previous message | Next message →

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/


From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Mon, Oct 21 2002 10:57PM
Subject: Re: Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web
← Previous message | Next message →


On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 09:02 PM, Holly Marie wrote:
> And I wonder why [Title II] could not have been used for obtaining plane
> tickets and information in a reasonable fashion?
> [...]
> 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.
>
I'm confused. Why do you think that Title II (and not Title III) applies
to Southwest? Your question is counter to my understanding of how
the ADA works.

--Kynn


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


From: Terry Brainerd Chadwick
Date: Wed, Oct 23 2002 11:03AM
Subject: Re: Judge: Disabilities Act doesn't cover Web
← Previous message | No next message

When I sent the notice of the ruling to a colleague of mine who works for
the local regional disabilities agency, she replied:

>>>Clearly she did not understand the concept of "public
accommodation." In explanatory language by DREDF (Disability Rights
Education and Defense Fund) when it published its Implementation Guide to
use as text for original ADA training when the Act was passed, a public
accommodation can be a single person.

"It is the public accommodation (that is, private entity which owns,
operates, leases or leases to), rather than the place of public
accommodation, that is subject to the non-discrimination requirements. A
private entity may be an individual person as well as a company, business,
or other entity." [emphasis added]

There is no question that a covered entity would have to make its site
accessible, in fact, in a US Dept. of Justice "core letter" to Senator Tom
Harkin, Deval Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,
specifically stated, "Covered entities that use the Internet for
communications regarding their programs, goods, or services must be
prepared to offer those communications through accessible means as
well." And that was in 1996!! [text at www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/cltr204.txt
] <<<

Terry
Terry Brainerd Chadwick, InfoQuest! Information Services
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = http://www.tbchad.com
Making existing websites more productive.
Website Optimization for Accessibility, Content, Search & Usability


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