Website Accessibility: Industry Litigation Ramping Up Under ADA

In 2008, target paid Six Million dollars because a blind person could not read their website. In an Industry which has no idea how to follow the law let alone self regulate, the reality is that the bullheaded attitudes are nearly identical to that which Target parrotted back in 2008.  The Headlines read that they had settled litigation --- to the tune of Six Million Dollars --- based upon the inability of visually challenged people to meaningfully interact with their website. National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation, 452 F.Supp.2d 946 (2006).

The announcement that Target have finally agreed that they are obligated to accommodated blind visitors is basically a good one, despite concerns that visitors with other disabilities might not be taken into consideration, or that the settlement is too low a figure. The fact is that this settlement puts accessibility on the agenda for corporations who might otherwise think that ignoring disabled visitors to their web site is acceptable.

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.

The harbingers of the Mortgage Field Services Industry appear to be the gathering storm of litigation. With respect to the Independent Contractor vs Employee litigation rolling through the federal judiciary right now --- Bennett Vinson, et al., v Asset Management Specialists INC, et al.,  5:14-cv-00369-DDP-AGR --- the AMS Cronies are playing hardball. As opposed to even pretending to be honest people, AMS and DOES 1-25 are refusing to turn over documents demanded during Discovery. So recalcitrant is the former owner of AMS and his C Level Henchmen, that the Plaintiffs had to file a Motion to Compel which generally pisses off judges and sets the tone. The case itself

The information you wish to view is restricted to Industry Insiders. Please consider Registering Here, and selecting Industry Insider, to gain access.

 

Search

Click To Advertise

Click To Apply

Credible Application