RE: undue burdon/ Hooks v. OKBridge

There is an often-cited Australian case in which Telstra (who may have then
been called Telecom Australia still) was the defendent, which discussed the
question of "undue burden". The actual case was about whether they had an
obligation tyo provide TTY phones at the same price as standard handsets -
the result was that tey did, and that the price (a large amount of mone, but
a very small proportional increase in what they would charge each client) of
doing so was not un undue burden.

cheers

Chaals is not a lawyer. Relying on his advice about legal matters is foolish
- check it with a good lawyer.



On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, Martin Sloan wrote:

  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


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2002 21:18:26 UTC