What is unique about this lawsuit is that it is the first against a bricks 
and mortar entity that is obligated to comply with the ADA.  For the most 
part, airlines are exempt from the ADA, so the Southwest airlines case 
really isn't applicable to commercial businesses.  similarly, the suits 
against some online retailers that were settled can't really be pointed to 
as it can be argued that the ADA applies to a "place of public 
accommodation," and Congress meant physical spaces.  by the same token, the 
lawsuit against the Georgia transit agency really isn't relevant to 
commercial businesses either because the ADA requires explicitly that all 
government services be accessible, no matter how they are provided.  Now, we 
have a website linked to a physical store so the opportunity exists to 
seriously decide some key issues.

Kelly

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Cassell" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Fw: Article: Target Corporation sued for 
discriminating against persons who are blind


> Good point.  What this suit is striving to do, is to have the courts
> establish a precedent that others can point to as a basis for what is
> considered to be accessible under the law.  Once such a standard is
> established, then society will know where the bar has been set, and what 
> the
> minimum must be, when creating web pages.
>
> -- George
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tim Elder" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 6:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Fw: Article: Target Corporation sued for
> discriminating against persons who are blind
>
>
> I believe the individuals in this case are seeking to fix a much larger
> problem and not just the inconsiderate practices of the Target 
> corporation.
> Target is being made an example and the damages sought will hopefully send 
> a
> message to other businesses to comply with the disability laws in
> California. Unless you want to file a new lawsuit asking a business to fix 
> a
> problem every time they set up an inaccessible website, damages are
> necessary to give businesses an incentive to comply with the law.
> No one wants to see a bunch of frivolous litigation that makes blind
> plaintiffs look like ungrateful whiney burdens on society. This case, as 
> far
> as I can tell from speaking to Mr. Sexton isn't about convenience or get
> rich quick settlement chasing. My impression is that they're making Target
> an example because the laws in California require equal service to all
> disabled individuals and a reading of the law could imply that online
> services in California are tied to the services of the physical stores.
> Target took no  action prior to the suit to comply with this law and so I
> hope the damages sought will encourage them to change their website and 
> that
> other businesses in similar circumstances will do so as well.
> Tim Elder
>
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Sherry Wells
>  To: [log in to unmask]
>  Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 4:39 PM
>  Subject: Re: [VICUG-L] Fw: Article: Target Corporation sued for
> discriminating against persons who are blind
>
>
>
>  Yes, I would agree with you there.  I thought it was interesting but
> certainly didn't intend to imply that Target was necessarily guilty of any
> blatant discrimination.  I also have a problem with people seeking damages
> for inconvenience.  If these sorts of suits are brought at all I would 
> like
> to see them just seek correction of the problem.
>
>  Sherry Wells
>
>
>
>        David Poehlman <[log in to unmask]>
>        03/30/2006 02:45 PM
>       To Sherry Wells/Chicago/IBM@IBMUS
>              cc
>              Subject Re: [VICUG-L] Fw: Article:  Target Corporation sued
> for discriminating against persons who are blind
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  there are more than one side to every story.  This is one side of
>  this story.
>
>  On Mar 30, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Sherry Wells wrote:
>
>  I found this kind of interesting for a couple of reasons, one that
>  Target
>  wouldn't just fix their web site and two that there must be thousands of
>  web sites that are not accessible for shopping.
>
>  Sherry Wells
>
>  The following article is forwarded to you by the Great Lakes and
>  Accessible
>  IT Center (www.adagreatlakes.org) for your information:
>
>  CCH Business Law and Compliance
>  March 30, 2006
>
>  Target Corporation sued for discriminating against persons who are blind
>
>  The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) has filed a class action
>  lawsuit
>  in California's Alameda County Courthouse against Target Corporation,
>  the
>  nationwide discount retailer which operates more than 1,300 stores in 47
>  states. The suit --brought by the NFB, the NFB of California and Bruce
>  "BJ"
>  Sexton, a blind student going to school at the University of California
>  Berkeley --alleges that Target's website violates the California Unruh
>  Civil
>  Rights Act and the California Disabled Persons Act because it is
>  inaccessible to persons who are blind.
>
>  The plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, a
>  Berkeley-based non-profit law firm that specializes in high-impact cases
>  on
>  behalf of people with disabilities, Schneider & Wallace, a plaintiff's
>  class
>  action and civil rights law firm in San Francisco, California and Brown,
>  Goldstein & Levy a leading civil rights law firm in Baltimore, Maryland.
>
>  Online services at issue. "Blind customers should have the same
>  access to
>  Target's online services that Target offers its sighted customers,"
>  stated
>  NFB President Dr. Marc Maurer. Dr. Maurer explained that persons who are
>  blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with
>  screen-reading
>  software which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen.
>  However,
>  Target's website --which according to its home page is "powered by
>  Amazon.com" --contains significant access barriers that prevent
>  customers
>  who are blind from: (1) browsing and purchasing products online; and (2)
>  finding important corporate information, such as employment
>  opportunities,
>  investor news and company policies.
>
>  The plaintiffs contend that Target's website fails to meet the minimum
>  standard of web accessibility. Specifically, they allege that the
>  website
>  lacks compliant alt-text and an invisible code embedded beneath graphic
>  images (which allows screen readers to detect and vocalize a description
>  of
>  the image to a blind computer user). Further, the plaintiffs argue that
>  the
>  website contains inaccessible image maps, which prevent customers who
>  are
>  blind from jumping to different destinations within the website. Because
>  the
>  website requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction, customers
>  who
>  are blind are unable to make purchases on Target's website
>  independently.
>
>  "We tried to convince Target that it should make its website accessible
>  through negotiations," explained Dr. Maurer. "It's unfortunate that
>  Target
>  was unwilling to commit to equal access for all its online customers.
>  That
>  gave us no choice but to seek the protection of the court. The
>  website is
>  no
>  more accessible today than it was in May of last year, when we first
>  complained to Target."
>
>  Grounds for lawsuit. Explaining the grounds for the NFB suit, Mazen M.
>  Basrawi, Equal Justice Works Fellow at Disability Rights Advocates,
>  noted
>  that Target's actions are in violation of California law, which in turn
>  incorporates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He explained
>  that,
>  "Target.com is a 'public place' within the meaning of California Civil
>  Code
>  because it is open to the public, and because the laws apply to all
>  services
>  related to Target stores, including the website." Simply put, Target
>  is a
>  retail outlet, a public place, with a public website. The retail
>  outlet is
>  a
>  store, and the website is a service provided by and integrated with the
>  brick-and-mortar stores," Basrawi continued.
>
>  The complaint, filed on February 7, 2006, in California Superior
>  Court for
>  Alameda County seeks to enjoin Target from continued violation of the
>  California Civil Code. The suit asks the court to declare that Target is
>  operating its website in a manner that discriminates against the
>  blind and
>  persons with visual disabilities in violation of California law. The
>  complaint also seeks damages for the plaintiffs.
>
>  "I want to be able to shop online at Target.com just like anyone else,"
>  says
>  UC Berkeley student BJ Sexton, who is a named plaintiff in the
>  lawsuit. "I
>  believe that millions of blind people like me can use the internet
>  just as
>  easily as do the sighted, if the website is accessible."
>
>  Source:  http://hr.cch.com/news/employment/033006a.asp
>
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> To join or leave the list, send a message to
> [log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
> "subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
> VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
> http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
> 


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html