SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Court rules grocery store's inaccessible website isn't an ADA violation:
A federal appeals court struck a significant blow against disability rights this week when it ruled that a Florida grocery store's inaccessible website did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ruling contradicts a 2019 decision by a different appeals court holding that Domino's did violate the ADA when it failed to make its app accessible to blind people.
[...] Winn-Dixie is a grocery store chain with locations across the American South. Juan Carlos Gil is a blind Florida man who patronized Winn-Dixie stores in the Miami area for about 15 years.
A few years ago, Gil learned that the store offered customers the ability to fill prescriptions online. Ordering online saves customers time because prescriptions are ready when the customer arrives. Gill also preferred to order prescriptions online because it offered greater privacy. In court, he testified that ordering in person as a blind man made him "uncomfortable because he did not know who else was nearby listening" as he told the pharmacist his order.
Unfortunately, the Winn-Dixie website was incompatible with the screen-reading software Gil used to surf the web, rendering it effectively useless to him. Incensed, Gil stopped patronizing Winn-Dixie and filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Gil argued that the inaccessible design of the Winn-Dixie website discriminated against blind customers like him because it forced them to order prescriptions in person, a process that is slower and offers less privacy.
In his lawsuit, Gil also said he couldn't access two other features of the Winn-Dixie website: a store locator function and the ability to clip digital coupons and automatically apply them at the register with his loyalty card.
[...] The ruling runs directly contrary to a 2019 decision by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court, which covers California and several other Western states. In 2019, the Ninth Circuit ruled that Domino's had violated the ADA by failing to make its online ordering system accessible to blind customers. Plaintiff Guillermo Robles claimed that this violated his rights under the ADA, and the Ninth Circuit agreed.
[...] Hence, while the website itself might not be a place of public accommodation, an inaccessible website impedes blind customers' access to the Domino's restaurant—which clearly is such a place.
This situation—where two different appeals courts take divergent positions on the same legal question—is known as a circuit split. For now, businesses in Western states will be required to follow the Ninth Circuit's broad interpretation of the ADA and make their websites accessible. Meanwhile, businesses in the three Eleventh Circuit states—Alabama, Georgia, and Florida—won't have to worry as much about making their websites ADA compliant.
(Score: 4, Informative) by RamiK on Tuesday April 13 2021, @01:55PM (4 children)
The ADA has specific exceptions for existing and historic properties as well as cost caps on how much the whole thing should cost: https://www.structuremag.org/?p=7540 [structuremag.org] https://www.burnhamnationwide.com/final-review-blog/a-misunderstood-area-of-ada-compliance-existing-facilities [burnhamnationwide.com]
Look, this is details that we shouldn't go into since we're not in construction. We know tech. We know it's entirely justifiable to demand accessibility out of web crap. But when it comes to this technical stuff... I mean, it's one thing to talk about military spending where it's all bullshit and there's no science to be had. But to construction engineers we must sound like a couple of MBAs arguing on Apple vs. Samsung... Aha now I feel bad for the construction people having to read through this :/
compiling...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 13 2021, @11:34PM (2 children)
It doesn't really ensure that people won't sue and the ADA lacks any provision to require that the injured party notify the business prior to filing suit so that the violation can be fixed. In some cases, the cases are brought for minutia that are of minimal impact to anybody. A sink that's an inch too high is not likely to be an impediment to anybody as the standard is low enough to deal with eventualities like that.
And even if what the business is doing is legal, there's no guarantee that the business isn't going to be stuck paying legal fees just to determine that's the case and deal with it. Overall, the ADA was a massive step in the right direction, it's just a shame that there's been so little interest in fixing and improving it. Trying to extend a law written to deal with real world facilities to online ones is not something that's just going to happen without a lot of unnecessary pain for all those that are involved.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Wednesday April 14 2021, @02:24AM (1 child)
There is a shyster in Los Angeles who partnered with a guy in a wheelchair to find non-compliant local businesses and sue them. The fact that the businesses were grandfathered and not *required* to comply was irrelevant; these crooks used the ADA as a bludgeon to extract money, since small businesses will usually settle rather than fight it in court. Last I heard (this was about 15 years ago) these two crooks were making a nice seven-figure income.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday April 14 2021, @11:51AM
And, wait, let me guess...because regulation can be abused, allllll regulation is bad, and to hell with discrimination protections because these specific shitheels gamed the system. Right? Did I fill out my bingo card?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday April 14 2021, @04:39AM
No, it's not. Unless you just have developer time and money to burn, it is a fairly significant hardship.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.