W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

RE: undue burdon/ Hooks v. OKBridge

From: Martin Sloan <martin.sloan@orange.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:14:27 -0000
Message-ID: <01C1D032.C4E579C0.martin.sloan@orange.net>
To: "'Jason Megginson'" <jason@bartsite.com>, RUST Randal <RRust@COVANSYS.com>, "WAI (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Hi Jason,

I don't know of many cases which discuss the definition of 'undue burden' 
except for SOCOG (see 
http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/ddadec/0/2000/0/DD000120.htm). But for 
more general advice the UK the Code of Practice is an excellent resource 
and is designed to give service providers guidance and advice on what is 
likely to be held to be reasonable and what is not - see chapters four and 
five.

The Code is available at 
http://www.drc-gb.org/drc/InformationAndLegislation/Page331.asp.

Hope that helps,

martin.
--
martin.sloan@orange.net

On Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:44 PM, Jason Megginson 
[SMTP:jason@bartsite.com] wrote:
> Hello,
> I am interested in cases such as Hooks v. OkBridge and any other cases
> involving section 508.  More so, a client is asking for any cases or
> instances where the court declared an undue burdon on the business.  If
> anyone knows of a site or resource that covers 508 and undue burdon 
issues
> that would be very helpful.
> Thanks
> J
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of RUST Randal
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 7:46 AM
> To: WAI (E-mail)
> Subject: Hooks v. OKBridge
>
>
> I need some clarification on this.  I have read the Court of Appeals
> decision in Hooks v. OKBridge, and it is my understanding the the opinion
> applies the Americans with Disabilities Act to the web sites of covered
> entities.
>
> However, I was reading some information on Jim Thatcher's web site 
yesterday
> that says "...there has not yet been a court ruling supporting or denying
> the concept that the Web, like a store or sidewalk or bus, is a place 
where
> discrimination against people with disabilities would not be permitted."
>
> The following excerpts from the Hooks v. OKBridge decsions lead me to
> believe that web sites fall under the ADA:
>
> "There is no reasonable explanation of why Congress would have intended 
to
> draw such a boundary or why it would have chosen such an indirect way of
> expressing its intent to do so."
>
> "A commerical business providing services solely over the internet is
> subject to the ADA's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of
> disability."
>
> "OKBridge is no different than any other commercial business."
>
> "The absence of specific mention of services provided over the Internet 
does
> not restrict the statute's coverage."
>
> "This Court should reverse the District Court's holding that Title III of
> the ADA does not apply to commercial business providing services on the
> Internet and its holding that OKBridge is exempt from the Act as a 
private
> club."
>
> Randal Rust
> Covansys, Inc.
> Columbus, OH
Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 12:19:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:01 GMT