- From: Cynthia Waddell <cynthia.waddell@icdri.org>
- Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 12:04:29 -0700
- To: "'Jim Tobias'" <tobias@inclusive.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <webaim-forum@list.webaim.org>, <gawds_discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Hello Jim- This particular Target argument was one of many raised on the basis of the ADA claim - not the Rehabilitation Act. In other words, there was not a claim or cause of action in the complaint based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its amendments, including Section 508. Oral arguments by both parties included a discussion on whether or not the Target.com website was a "place of public accommodation." Although the Rehabilitation Act is the grandfather of the ADA in that it paved the way for protections to be extended to the private sector, it was not used by Target for that reason. The Order states that Target argued that although Congress has amended the Rehabilitation Act to address accessible EIT, Congress did not amend the ADA. Target was arguing legislative intent. On this sub-argument, this Court concluded that it could not infer that Congress intended the ADA to apply to the Internet. The issue of whether or not a website is a "place of public accommodation" is still alive since the Court declined to dismiss the complaint on this basis. Both sides presented arguments addressing case law where some jurisdictions say it is a "place of public accommodations" while others say it is not. I discuss these cases in my chapters for the Apress publication that was released in July - Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance. I hope this answers your question. Sincerely, Cynthia Waddell -------------------------------------- Cynthia D. Waddell, JD Executive Director and Law, Policy and Technology Consultant International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI) Phone: (408) 691-6921 ICDRI is based in Raleigh, North Carolina USA www.icdri.org/CynthiaW/cynthia_waddell.htm See My New Book! Web Accessibility: Web Standards and Regulatory Compliance by Apress at www.icdri.org/WSR_Book.htm Other Publications Include: Constructing Accessible Web Sites www.icdri.org/constructing_accessible_web_site.htm Is your Site Accessible? Find out now with Cynthia Says! http://www.cynthiasays.com Endorsed by the American Council of the Blind, the Cynthia SaysTM portal is a joint Education and Outreach project of ICDRI, The Internet Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter, and HiSoftware. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Tobias [mailto:tobias@inclusive.com] Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 10:03 AM To: cynthia.waddell@icdri.org; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; webaim-forum@list.webaim.org; gawds_discuss@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Legal Precedent Set for Web Accessibility Cynthia -- thanks so much for this. I have one question, below. *********** Jim Tobias Inclusive Technologies tobias@inclusive.com +732.441.0831 v/tty www.inclusive.com > 1. In Footnote 2, the Court suggests that the legislative history of > the ADA is inconclusive on the issue of regulating private websites. > As a result, the Court declines to draw an inference since there is an > absence of congressional action. > Target argued that although Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act to > require federal government websites to be accessible, Congress has not > amended the ADA. Here's my non-lawyerly understanding: The 1998 version of Congress's 508 language is different from previous versions, but not with respect to requiring websites to be accessible. The differences have to do with the process of establishing standards, having DoJ do reports, etc. All the language about the accessibility of federal E&IT was in the previous versions. It may be that the definition of E&IT changed at some point in an update of Clinger-Cohen. Is that correct? If so, was Target's argument addressed in court?
Received on Saturday, 9 September 2006 19:04:54 UTC