Everyone probably has heard of the NFB suit against AOL.  This should be a
wake-up call for libraries and colleges as well.

Even if the suit were to lose, most of us would prefer to avoid the pain of
such a suit.
Norman


>Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 14:43:59 -0600 (CST)
>From: Kelly Pierce <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Text of AOL Lawsuit
>Below is the text of the lawsuit filed by nine individual plaintiffs and
>the National Federation of the Blind in Boston last week.  This is the
>first lawsuit filed by a disability organization that attempts to use the
>Americans with Disabilities Act to gain access to cyberspace.
>
>kelly
>
>
>   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
>
>   NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, INC.; NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE
>   BLIND OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.; C.A. No. ROBERT BARAN; STEVEN BOOTH;
>   DEBRA DELOREY; RICHARD DOWNS; PRISCILLA FERRIS; THERESA JERALDI;
>   COMPLAINT AND REQUEST MICHAEL KOSIOR; MARY ANN LAREAU; FOR INJUNCTIVE
>   RELIEF and BRANDY ROSE, Plaintiffs,
>
>   v.
>
>   AMERICA ONLINE, INC., Defendant.
>
>   COMPLAINT
>
>   Plaintiffs, the National Federation of the Blind, Inc. ("NFB"), the
>   National Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts, Inc. ("NFB-MA"),
>   Robert Baran, Steven Booth, Debra Delorey, Richard Downs, Priscilla
>   Ferris, Michael Kosior, Theresa Jeraldi, Mary Ann Lareau, and Brandy
>   Rose, by their undersigned counsel, complain against America Online,
>   Inc. ("AOL") as follows:
>
>   NATURE OF THE CASE
>
>   1. Plaintiffs, blind advocacy organizations and several blind persons
>   who wish to purchase and use Defendant's services, bring this action
>   for injunctive and declaratory relief to require Defendant, the
>   country's largest internet service provider, to bring its America
>   Online internet service (the "AOL service") into compliance with the
>   Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. The
>   individual Plaintiffs and members of the organizational Plaintiffs are
>   blind, and therefore can only independently use computers, including
>   internet services, by concurrently running screen access software
>   programs for the blind that convert visual information into
>   synthesized speech or braille. However, Defendant AOL has particularly
>   designed its AOL service so that it is incompatible with screen access
>   software programs for the blind. Despite its self-description as "the
>   world's leader in interactive services, Web brands, Internet
>   technologies, and electronic commerce services," AOL, in designing its
>   AOL service, has failed to remove communications barriers presented by
>   its designs thus denying the blind independent access to this service,
>   in violation of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12181, et seq.
>
>   JURISDICTION AND VENUE
>
>   2. This action is authorized by 28 U.S.C. 2201-02 and 42 U.S.C. 12188.
>   This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
>   1331.
>
>   3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), in
>   that the Defendant, a corporation, is subject to personal jurisdiction
>   in this District and in that a substantial part of the events giving
>   rise to this action occurred and continue to occur in this District.
>
>   THE PARTIES
>
>   4. The National Federation of the Blind, the leading national
>   organization of blind persons, is a not-for-profit corporation duly
>   organized under the laws of the District of Columbia with its
>   principal place of business in Baltimore, Maryland. It has affiliates
>   in all 50 states, including Massachusetts. The vast majority of the
>   Federation's approximately 50,000 members are blind and are therefore
>   individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C.
>   12102(2). The Federation is widely recognized by the public, the
>   Congress, executive agencies of government, and the courts as a
>   collective and representative voice on behalf of blind Americans and
>   their families. The purpose of the NFB is to promote the general
>   welfare of the blind by (1) assisting the blind in their efforts to
>   integrate themselves into society on terms of equality and (2)
>   removing barriers and changing social attitudes, stereotypes and
>   mistaken beliefs held by sighted and blind persons concerning the
>   limitations created by blindness that result in the denial of
>   opportunity to blind persons in virtually every sphere of life,
>   including education, employment, family and community life,
>   transportation and recreation. The NFB and many of its members have
>   long been actively involved in promoting adaptive technology for the
>   blind, so that blind persons can live and work independently in
>   today's technology-dependent world. The NFB runs the International
>   Braille and Technology Center for the Blind in Baltimore, Maryland.
>   This Center is the world's most extensive demonstration and evaluation
>   center for computer-related technology serving the needs of blind
>   persons, housing more than two million dollars worth of hardware and
>   software designed specifically for the blind. Thousands of blind
>   persons come to the Center each year for training in the use of
>   adaptive equipment and software.
>
>   5. Plaintiff NFB-Massachusetts, the Massachusetts state affiliate of
>   the NFB, is a not-for-profit corporation duly organized under the laws
>   of Massachusetts with its principal place of business in
>   Massachusetts. The NFB-Massachusetts currently has seven local
>   chapters and approximately 250 members, all of whom are residents of
>   Massachusetts and many of whom are individuals with disabilities as
>   defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2).
>
>   6. The plaintiff, Robert Baran, a blind resident of Chicopee,
>   Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
>   ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12102(2). Mr. Baran is an adaptive technology
>   specialist at Holyoke Community College, who works with blind and
>   disabled students and is also a graduate student at the University of
>   Massachusetts at Amherst. Mr. Baran has computers on which he has
>   installed screen access software and on which he utilizes e-mail and
>   the internet. He has been repeatedly advised that the AOL service is
>   inaccessible to blind people. He would like to be able to use the AOL
>   service for its "buddy" feature and chat rooms.
>
>   7. The plaintiff, Steven Booth, a blind resident of Salem,
>   Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
>   ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). Mr. Booth is the Assistant Operations
>   Manager at the National Braille Press and utilizes e-mail and the
>   internet at home and at the office. If the AOL service were accessible
>   to blind people, he would use it at home for surfing the web and for
>   its various custom features, such as chat rooms and the "buddy"
>   feature.
>
>   8. The plaintiff, Debra Delorey, a blind resident of Holbrook,
>   Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
>   ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). A recent college graduate who is
>   currently applying to graduate school, Ms. Delorey received free AOL
>   service with the computer she purchased with her scholarship money.
>   Although she had purchased a combined screen enlarger/screen access
>   program with a voice synthesizer, she was unable to use the AOL
>   service because of her blindness. Her attempts to resolve the
>   difficulties by calling the help line for the AOL service were
>   unavailing and she gave it up. Ms. Delorey would subscribe to the AOL
>   service if it were accessible for research over the internet and for
>   e-mail.
>
>   9. The plaintiff, Richard Downs, a blind resident of Stoughton,
>   Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
>   ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). Mr. Downs has a home computer with a
>   screen reader and voice synthesizer that he uses to access his
>   computer. Four months ago, he was solicited by AOL to subscribe to its
>   AOL service and advised AOL that he would like to subscribe, but that
>   because of his blindness he cannot access its service. He was urged to
>   subscribe anyway, because, he was told, AOL will eventually have a
>   blind-accessible text screen alternative. Mr. Downs would like to
>   subscribe to the AOL service because he believes that it provides
>   access to a great number of web sites, would give him greater
>   independence from the person whom he employs as a reader and would
>   allow him to surf for electronics that assist the blind and to follow
>   the activities of the National Federation of the Blind. 10. The
>   plaintiff, Priscilla Ferris, a blind resident of Somerset,
>   Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
>   ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). She is the President of the NFB of
>   Massachusetts, works as a consultant, and volunteers for the Girl
>   Scouts. Her two daughters are AOL subscribers and two of her four
>   grandchildren use the AOL service. She has a home computer with a
>   screen access program and would like to be able to use the "buddy"
>   feature of the AOL service with her family, visit chat rooms and,
>   among other uses, employ it to get information from the District
>   Councils and National Office of the Girl Scouts. She also is
>   interested in being able to activate child safety features to block
>   inappropriate content from her home computer, so that her
>   grandchildren could surf the web for educational purposes without
>   being exposed to inappropriate content. This is particularly important
>   to her as a blind grandparent, as she cannot simply look over the
>   shoulders of her grandchildren to monitor their internet use in her
>   home.
>
>   11. The plaintiff, Theresa Jeraldi, a blind resident of Watertown,
>   Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
>   ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). She is a retired employee of the
>   Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education
>   and has a computer with a voice activated screen reader, internet
>   service and the capability of surfing the web through Internet
>   Explorer. Nonetheless, she would subscribe to AOL's service if it were
>   accessible, because she has many sighted relatives, including her
>   grandchildren, who have the AOL service, and she could then utilize
>   AOL's "buddy" feature to chat with them when they are on-line.
>
>   12. The plaintiff, Michael Kosior, a blind resident of Allston,
>   Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
>   ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). Mr. Kosior is a computer systems
>   engineer for a $700 million direct marketing agency in Boston. He has
>   a Bachelor of Science degree in computer information systems from
>   Bryant College and worked as a computer programmer for the United
>   States Navy while he was in high school. Mr. Kosior is an experienced
>   user of the internet and communicates frequently by email. He utilizes
>   several screen access programs for the blind, including DECtalk
>   Express External Synthesizer and Henter-Joyce's Jaws for Windows Build
>   3.31. Mr. Kosior has made several attempts to utilize the AOL service
>   without success. With the assistance of a sighted person he was able
>   to label some of the graphics with the Jaws graphic labeler, but not
>   enough to make the AOL service accessible. Mr. Kosior understands that
>   AOL is easy for sighted people to use and is interested in evaluating
>   whether the AOL service, once it is accessible to the blind, is
>   superior to other internet access platforms that he currently uses.
>
>   13. The plaintiff, Mary Ann Lareau, a blind resident of Waltham,
>   Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
>   ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). As the Secretary of NFB-MA, it is her
>   responsibility to handle all of the e-mail to the state affiliate; in
>   connection with the lobbying and other work that she does for the
>   affiliate, she has a constant need to surf the web for relevant
>   information. While she currently uses another, accessible, internet
>   service provider, she would like to subscribe to the AOL service,
>   because of the additional features that it provides.
>
>   14. The plaintiff, Brandy Rose, a blind resident of Taunton,
>   Massachusetts, is an individual with a disability as defined by the
>   ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12102(2). Ms. Rose has a home computer with
>   screen reader software installed. Through another, accessible,
>   internet service provider, she currently has e-mail. Ms. Rose,
>   however, is aware that AOL advertises that its service has many
>   features not available from other companies offering similar services
>   and would, if it were accessible, subscribe to the AOL service for use
>   in connection with her college classes and to chat with her sighted
>   friends who subscribe to AOL's services, through use of the services
>   "buddy" feature..
>
>   15. Defendant AOL is a for-profit corporation duly organized under the
>   laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Dulles,
>   Virginia. It describes itself as "the world's leader in interactive
>   services, Web brands, Internet technologies, and electronic commerce
>   services," having revenues in excess of 4.7 billion dollars and total
>   assets in excess of 5.3 billion dollars in fiscal year 1999.
>
>   16. AOL's main internet service, the AOL service, has approximately
>   17.6 million customers ("members") worldwide. AOL purposely avails
>   itself of, and persistently directs its commercial activities to,
>   residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and has many members
>   in Massachusetts from whom it derives substantial revenue.
>
>   17. The AOL service includes, by way of illustration and not by way of
>   limitation, the following: simple access to the world wide web with
>   search functionality; an "online interactive community" through
>   electronic mail services, alerts when fellow members are on-line (the
>   "buddy list"), public bulletin boards, public and private interactive
>   conversations ("chat rooms"), guest interviews at live "auditorium"
>   events; nineteen "channels" providing informational content and
>   commerce and community opportunities pertaining to news, sports,
>   games, finance, shopping, health, travel, kids, and the like; as well
>   as personalization and control features that permit AOL members to,
>   for example, automatically update their stock portfolios and block
>   their children's access to inappropriate web sites.
>
>   18. On information and belief, the AOL service has achieved over 1.14
>   million simultaneous users and the exchange of over 534 million
>   electronic mail messages a day.
>
>   19. The AOL service is a public accommodation as defined by Title III
>   of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12181(7), in that it is a place of
>   exhibition and entertainment, a place of public gathering, a sales and
>   rental establishment, a service establishment, a place of public
>   display, a place of education, and a place of recreation.
>
>   FACTS
>
>   20. People who are blind, including the individual Plaintiffs and
>   members of the organizational Plaintiffs, can and do use computer
>   programs, including commercial applications designed to run under both
>   the DOS operating system and the Windows operating system. The
>   information that is displayed on the screen by the computer programs
>   is made available non-visually to blind computer users by means of a
>   class of software referred to as screen access programs. Screen access
>   programs monitor the computer screen and convert the textual
>   information displayed into synthesized speech or Braille on a device
>   known as a refreshable Braille display.
>
>   21. For screen access programs to function effectively in the Windows
>   operating system environment, it is necessary for commercial
>   applications to function in a standard way. Among other things, the
>   commercial application must provide textual labels for all graphics,
>   permit keyboard access to all functions, move the focus whenever the
>   keyboard is used, and rely upon standard Windows controls (e.g.,
>   dialog boxes, combination boxes, list boxes, edit boxes, and push
>   buttons). Screen access programs cannot read an unlabeled graphic,
>   generally cannot provide an effective way to manipulate a mouse
>   pointer, and generally cannot read or activate non-standard, custom
>   controls that are painted on the screen.
>
>   22. Unlike some other internet service providers, AOL requires the
>   user to run proprietary AOL software in order to access and use the
>   AOL internet service. This software can operate only under the Windows
>   operating system or on the Macintosh platform.
>
>   23. AOL's proprietary software for the AOL internet service does not
>   function in the standard way required for screen access programs to
>   effectively monitor the computer screen and to fully convert the
>   information into synthesized speech or a refreshable Braille display.
>   Among other things, AOL's proprietary software employs (a) unlabeled
>   graphics, (b) commands that cannot be activated by using the keyboard
>   but which instead can only be activated by using the mouse, and (c)
>   custom controls painted on the screen. Indeed, what often appears to
>   be text-such as the listing of channels-are in fact unlabeled
>   graphics. As a result, by way of illustration and not by limitation,
>   the following features of the AOL service are inaccessible to the
>   blind: a. To sign up for the AOL service, the user must fill out a
>   sign-up form containing blank fields to be filled in with name,
>   billing address, credit card number, and similar information. Although
>   text describing each field is displayed on the computer screen, the
>   method AOL has used to display the text does not provide screen access
>   programs with sufficient information to tell the blind user which
>   piece of data is being requested in each blank field. Therefore, blind
>   users are denied the independent ability even to sign up for the AOL
>   internet service. b. Once logged on, the user is faced with the
>   "Welcome" screen, a very unwelcoming place for blind users. There is
>   some text on the screen that screen access programs can read; however,
>   most of what appears as text are actually graphics that cannot be read
>   by a screen access program and the icon labels on the "Welcome" screen
>   do not use standard Windows formatting for labels, but are themselves
>   graphics as well. This includes such features as "favorites,"
>   "parental controls," and chat rooms. c. Locating the space for
>   entering a keyword search or a web address cannot be directly
>   accomplished by a blind user, but with trial and error and a great
>   deal of difficulty, a blind user can bring up the browser and give it
>   an instruction. However, unlike other web browsing software, AOL's
>   browser operates in such a way that screen access software does not
>   register that a browser is running. Thus, when the result of the
>   search appears on the screen, the screen access program-and the blind
>   user-is unaware that anything new is on the screen to be read. The
>   screen access software feature for tabbing through hypertext links, a
>   common way for blind users to explore a web page, can also fail to
>   activate because the screen access software can fail to register that
>   the user is running a browser.
>
>   24. Because the AOL service is not independently accessible to the
>   individual Plaintiffs and to members of the organizational Plaintiffs,
>   they have been denied the opportunity to use the AOL service's many
>   features, including AOL's "online interactive community" (electronic
>   mail services, "buddy list" feature, public bulletin boards, public
>   and private "chat rooms,"and "auditorium" events), AOL's nineteen
>   "channels" providing informational content and commerce and community
>   opportunities pertaining to news, sports, games, finance, shopping,
>   health, travel, kids, and other subjects, as well as AOL's
>   personalization and control features that permit members to
>   automatically update their stock portfolios, for example, or block
>   their children's access to inappropriate web sites.
>
>   25. Without injunctive relief, individual Plaintiffs and members of
>   the organizational Plaintiffs will continue to be unable to
>   independently access and use Defendant's AOL service in violation of
>   Plaintiffs' rights under the ADA.
>
>   26. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
>
>   CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I Violation of the ADA's Communication
>   Barriers Removal Mandate
>
>   27. The allegations of fact contained in the foregoing paragraphs are
>   incorporated herein by reference.
>
>   28. Defendant's failure to redesign its AOL internet service to permit
>   the blind to use it through screen access programs violates the
>   communication barriers removal provision of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section
>   12182 (b)(2)(A)(iv), because it constitutes a failure to remove
>   existing communication barriers from the service.
>
>   29. Redesigning the AOL service to permit the blind to use it through
>   screen access programs is readily achievable. COUNT II Violation of
>   the ADA's Auxiliary Aids and Services Mandate
>
>   30. The allegations of fact contained in the foregoing paragraphs are
>   incorporated herein by reference.
>
>   31. Defendant's failure to redesign its AOL internet service to permit
>   the blind to use it through screen access programs violates the
>   auxiliary aids and services provision of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section
>   12182(b)(2)(A)(iii), because it constitutes a failure to take steps to
>   ensure that individuals who are blind are not denied access to the
>   service.
>
>   32. Providing auxiliary aids and services that would make Defendant's
>   AOL service accessible to and independently usable by persons who are
>   blind would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant's
>   service, nor unduly burden Defendant. COUNT III Violation of ADA's
>   Reasonable Modification Mandate
>
>   33. The allegations of fact contained in the foregoing paragraphs are
>   incorporated herein by reference.
>
>   34. Defendant's failure to redesign its AOL internet service to permit
>   the blind to use it through screen access programs violates the
>   reasonable modifications provisions of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section
>   12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), in that it constitutes a failure to make
>   reasonable modifications to policies, practices and procedures
>   necessary to afford access to the service to persons who are blind.
>
>   35. Modifying its policies, practices and procedures to afford access
>   to its AOL service to persons who are blind by redesigning the service
>   to permit the blind to use it through screen access programs would not
>   fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant's AOL service. COUNT IV
>   Violation of the ADA's Full and Equal Enjoyment of Services Mandate
>
>   36. The allegations of fact contained in the foregoing paragraphs are
>   incorporated herein by reference.
>
>   37. Defendant's failure to redesign its AOL internet service to permit
>   the blind to use it through screen access programs violates the full
>   and equal enjoyment and participation provisions of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.
>   sections 12182(a), 12182(b)(1)(A)(i), and 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii), in that
>   it constitutes a failure to make the service fully accessible and
>   independently usable by individuals who are blind.
>
>   PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court
>   grant the following relief:(a) Declare that Defendant's actions and
>   inactions with respect to its AOL internet service violate Title III
>   of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. section 12182;(b) Enjoin Defendant from
>   continuing to violate the ADA and order Defendant to redesign its AOL
>   service and take such other and further steps as are necessary to
>   allow independent access through screen access programs by persons who
>   are blind; and(c) Grant Plaintiffs such other relief as the Court
>   deems just, equitable, and appropriate, including an award of
>   Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs
>   under 42 U.S.C. section 12205.Respectfully submitted,
>
>   THE PLAINTIFFS,
>
>   By their attorneys,
>
>   Joseph P. Davis III, BBO No. 551111 McCABE BROWN & DAVIS A
>   Professional Corporation 151 Merrimac Street Post Office Box 9147
>   Boston, Massachusetts 02114 (610) 742-2700
>
>   Of Counsel: Daniel F. Goldstein (Admission Pending) Lauren E. Willis
>   Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP 520 W. Fayette Street, Suite 300
>   Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 962-1030
>
>   Dated: November 4, 1999
>