other accessibility cases

This page looks at some overseas online accessibility cases.

It covers -

• NFB v AOL, Ramada and other US cases
• Target

     NFB v AOL, Ramada and other US cases

During October 2000 a provision of the Workforce Investment Act 1998 mandated use of the W3C accessibility standards by US federal government agencies. In July 2001 the National Federation for the Blind (NFB) - the largest US consumer advocacy group for the visually disabled - claimed victory in a dispute with AOL, the largest US internet service provider.

The NFB announced that it had withdrawn litigation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). AOL formally agreed to recognise the needs of the disabled. In particular, it will ensure its next generation of software is compatible with screen reader technology.

The litigation commenced in 1998. The NFB argued that AOL, like many ISPs, had breached the anti-discrimination legislation by failing to provide appropriate access for the blind. AOL services were not compatible with devices that translate on-screen text into sound.

AOL marked the agreement by publishing an accessibility policy statement (better late than never) on its corporate site. The change is flowing through to other ISPs. 

The outcomes of litigation in the US have been mixed.

In 2002 a US Federal District Court in Georgia held in Martin v. Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Authority (PDF) that an agency had violated regulations under the ADA because its "web page was not formatted in such a way that it can be read by persons who are blind" using screen reader software.

However, in the same year a US Federal District Court in Florida dismissed action by advocacy group Access Now, finding that the Southwest Airlines web site was not a "place of public accommodation" in relation to the ADA.  The decision was subsequently upheld on procedural grounds by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Access Now had sued the airline under the ADA, claiming that the web site was incompatible with screen-reading software.

The judge refused to expand the ADA's definition of "public accommodation" beyond physical facilities - ramps are appropriate outside offices but not, it seems, in cyberspace - and instead suggested changes to the legislation.

That did not deter the New York State Attorney-General, who in 2004 announced that hotel operator Ramada and travel company Priceline had agreed to make changes to enable users of assistive technology such as screen readers to more easily navigate their web sites. He had argued that the companies were in violation of the ADA. The companies agreed to undertake remedial action and pay up to US$40,000 to cover the costs of the investigation.

     Target

During 2006 the US District Court for the Northern District of California in National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation considered a lawsuit brought against retailer Target by the NFB advocacy group over alleged breach of the ADA, the Californian Unruh Civil Rights Act and California Disabled Persons Act.

The NFB argued that the retailer's site (Target.com) was inaccessible to the blind and accordingly sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. That argument centred on the claim that the site allows customers to perform functions related to Target stores: because the site is not fully accessible, those customers are denied full and equal access and enjoyment of the stores.

Target responded that the ADA only prohibits discrimination in physical spaces, that any online discrimination must deny access to a physical space and that the site provides "auxiliary aid" that conforms to ADA requirements.

In September 2006 Judge Patel ruled that a retailer may be sued if its site is inaccessible, noting that the ADA prohibits discrimination in "enjoyment of goods, services, facilities or privileges". In October 2007 Judge Patel granted class-action status to the lawsuit.

In August 2008 as part of a class action settlement Target agreed to pay US$6 million in damages to plaintiffs in California. The settlement requires Target to implement internal guidelines to make its site more accessible to the blind by 28 February 2009, with assistance from the NFB.

One point of entry to literature about ADA litigation is the 2004 When the Americans with Disabilities Act Goes Online: Application of the ADA to the Internet and the World Wide Web (PDF) by Steven Mendelsohn & Martin Gould.

A perspective on governments putting their money where their mouth is came in the May 2008 decision by a US federal appeals court upholding the 2006 ruling that US paper money discriminates against the blind, with the judges finding that the design of the currency (unlike that in Australia) denies blind people "meaningful access" and rejecting the argument that making "facially reasonable accommodations that are feasible and efficacious" would involve an undue burden on the government.

The ruling - in American Council of the Blind et al v Henry M Paulson Jr Secretary of the Treasury (Decided 20 May 20 2008, No. 07-5063 in the District of Columbia) - provoked strong disagreement among advocacy groups, with endorsement by the American Foundation for the Blind and the American Council of the Blind but denunciation by the National Federation of the Blind as "profoundly misguided".

     jump  to Web Design Guide