[blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
Michael Fry
mikefry79 at gmail.com
Thu Feb 19 22:42:33 UTC 2009
Kudo's Mr. LaBarre. I didn't know you were tight with DRA. Needless to say
I hope it's a winner. I'm looking forward to hearing you speak in June at
the ABA Confrence in DC.
Mike
u, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:32 PM, Scott C. LaBarre <slabarre at labarrelaw.com>wrote:
> Below I am sharing the complaint that we filed today in California Court.
> **************
> LaurEnce W. paradis (California Bar No. 122336)
>
> Anna levine (California Bar No. 227881)
>
> Disability Rights Advocates
>
> 2001 Center Street, Third Floor
>
> Berkeley, California 94704
>
> Telephone: (510) 665-8644
>
> Facsimile: (510) 665-8511
>
> TTY: (510) 665-8716
>
>
>
> SCOTT LABARRE (to seek pro hac vice admission)
>
> LABARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
>
> 1660 S. Albion Street, Ste 918
>
> Denver, Colo 80222
>
> Telephone: (303) 504-5979
>
> Fax: (303) 757-3640
>
>
>
> DANIEL F. GOLDSTEIN (to seek pro hac vice admission)
>
> MEHGAN Sidhu (to seek pro hac vice admission)
>
> Brown, Goldstein & Levy, LLP
>
> 120 E. Baltimore St., Suite 1700
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202
>
> Telephone: (410) 962-1030
>
> Fax: (410) 385-0869
>
>
>
> SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
> COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
>
>
>
> National Federation of the Blind, the National Federation of the Blind
> of CALIFORNIA, and DEEPA GORAYA,
>
>
>
> Plaintiffs,
>
> v.
>
> LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL, INC.,
>
> Defendant.
>
>
>
> Case No.:
>
>
>
>
>
> COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
> CALIFORNIA DISABLED PERSONS ACT AND UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
>
>
>
>
> INTRODUCTION
>
> Plaintiffs complain of Defendant and allege herein as follows:
>
> 1. This action, brought by the National Federation of the Blind,
> the National Federation of the Blind of California, and Deepa Goraya, seeks
> to put an end to civil rights violations committed by defendant Law School
> Admissions Council (hereafter "LSAC") against blind persons seeking to take
> the LSAT exam and apply to law schools. Plaintiff Deepa Goraya, a blind law
> school applicant in California, has been and is being denied equal access to
> the accommodations, advantages, and facilities LSAC provides its
> non-disabled customers through http://www.lsac.org (hereafter "lsac.org"
> and "the website"). Plaintiffs National Federation of the Blind and the
> National Federation of the Blind of California have members who are
> similarly denied full and equal access to such accommodations, advantages
> and facilities. Lsac.org is currently the only place online where
> prospective law students can register for the Law School Admissions Test
> ("LSAT"), apply to law schools, and obtain official LSAT test preparation
> materials and information. Lsac.org contains multiple access barriers that
> make it difficult if not impossible for blind law school applicants and LSAT
> test takers to use the website and to obtain practice materials without
> sighted assistance. LSAC thus excludes the blind, including Ms. Goraya,
> from full and equal access to the accommodations, advantages, facilities,
> and privileges of lsac.org.
>
> JURISDICTION
>
> 2. This is a civil action under California's Disabled Persons Act
> (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et seq.) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ.
> Code §§ 51, et seq.) and for declaratory relief. This Court has
> jurisdiction over the claims alleged herein pursuant to California Civil
> Code §§ 54, et seq. and California Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. and California
> Code of Civil Procedure section 1060.
>
> 3. This Court has jurisdiction over LSAC because LSAC is a
> corporation authorized to do business in California and LSAC conducts
> substantial business in California. LSAC owns, maintains and operates its
> website, lsac.org, throughout California and in Alameda County.
>
>
>
> VENUE
>
> 4. Venue is proper in Alameda County because liability arises in
> part in Alameda County, where the National Federation of the Blind of
> California has its headquarters. LSAC has been and is committing the acts
> alleged herein in Alameda County, has been and is violating the rights of
> patrons in Alameda County, and has been and is causing injury to patrons in
> Alameda County.
>
> 5. Plaintiff Goraya is a California citizen and has experienced
> injury in California as a result of LSAC's inaccessible website and practice
> materials.
>
> PARTIES
>
> 6. Plaintiff the National Federation of the Blind (hereafter "NFB")
> is a national advocacy organization. The NFB, the oldest and largest
> national organization of blind persons, is a non-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 California) as well as Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico.
> The vast majority of the approximately 50,000 members are blind persons.
> The NFB is widely recognized by the public, 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
> that sighted and blind persons hold concerning the limitations created by
> blindness resulting in the denial of opportunity to blind persons in
> virtually every sphere of life. 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. NFB members reside throughout the United
> States, including the state of California, and many of its members would use
> the services of lsac.org if this website is made independently usable by
> the blind.
>
> 7. Plaintiff the National Federation of the Blind of California
> (hereafter "NFB of California") is a state affiliate of the National
> Federation of the Blind. NFB of California is a California corporation and
> carries out NFB's objectives at the state level. It has local chapters
> throughout California, including Alameda County, and has its headquarters in
> Fremont, California, in Alameda County.
>
> 8. Plaintiff Goraya is a member of the NFB and the NFB of
> California. She is blind and has been denied full and equal access to the
> accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of lsac.org.
>
> 9. Defendant LSAC, is a non-profit corporation
> established to coordinate, facilitate, and enhance the law school admissions
> process. LSAC owns, operates and/or maintains the website lsac.com, a
> public accommodation. Plaintiffs seek access to the services provided by
> LSAC in California through lsac.org.
>
> FACTS
>
> 10. Lsac.org is owned, controlled and/or operated by LSAC. Lsac.org
> is a public accommodation that offers its visitors comprehensive services
> for applying to law school. The website functions as the official
> destination for guiding prospective law school applicants through the
> fundamental steps of applying to law school. Among its services, lsac.orgoffers information about the LSAT and law school application process, and
> extensive LSAT preparation materials and resources. Lsac.org also serves as
> the exclusive online means for registering for the LSAT and applying to
> ABA-accredited law schools.
>
> 11. According to the website, lsac.org's online services enable
> prospective law students to do the following, among other things:
>
> a.. Register for the LSAT
> b.. Register for the LSDAS (Law School Data Assembly Service)
> c.. Purchase publications and test preparation materials
> d.. Have access to electronic applications for all ABA-approved law
> schools
> e.. Apply online to law schools
> f.. Register for law school forums
> g.. Have 24-hour file access
> 12. In addition to facilitating the LSAT and law school application
> processes, a significant portion of the lsac.org website is devoted to
> preparing students to take the LSAT. Among the services offered in that
> regard are online information guides that explain how to prepare for the
> LSAT and free, downloadable sample practice tests and test questions.
> Lsac.org also offers for a fee an online LSAT practice test tool and the
> opportunity to purchase more than 40 official LSAT practice tests.
>
> 13. While sighted visitors to lsac.org can easily obtain the benefits and
> advantages offered by the website, blind individuals, including Ms. Goraya,
> have been and are being denied access to lsac.org due to LSAC's failure
> and refusal to remove access barriers to lsac.org. Specifically, blind
> visitors to the website, including Ms. Goraya, cannot independently apply to
> law school, register for the LSAT, or obtain in an accessible format the
> LSAT preparation materials and practice tests available through lsac.org.
>
> 14. The blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with
> screen-reading software. This software vocalizes or conveys to a refreshable
> Braille display information that appears visually on a computer screen.
> Unless websites are designed to allow for use in this manner, blind persons
> are unable to fully access the internet websites and the information,
> products and services contained therein.
>
> 15. There are well-established guidelines for making websites
> accessible to the blind. These guidelines have been in place for at least
> several years and have been followed successfully by other public
> accommodations in making their online services accessible. The Web
> Accessibility Initiative (WAI), a project of the World Wide Web Consortium,
> which is the leading standards organization for the Web, has developed
> guidelines for making information that is reached via the internet
> accessible. The federal government has also promulgated accessibility
> standards under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. These guidelines
> have long been readily available via the internet so that any public
> accommodation could easily secure the necessary information.
>
> 16. Lsac.org contains a variety of access barriers that prevent free
> and full use by blind persons using keyboards and screen reading software.
> These barriers include but are not limited to: lack of or improperly
> labeled form controls; faulty keyboard navigation; and use of tables and
> charts that are not formatted for accessibility. Form controls allow users
> to input data on online forms and applications. These controls must be
> coded and labeled to allow screen-access software to detect and vocalize the
> requested information. Keyboard navigation refers to the ability to
> successfully navigate a website using keyboard commands, as opposed to
> requiring a mouse as the exclusive means for navigation of the site.
> Further, charts and tables must be formatted to work with screen-access
> software. Much of the lsac.org website, and in particular the online law
> school application and LSAT registration sections of the website, lack these
> fundamental accessibility components. As a result, blind visitors to the
> website cannot independently use those and other critical features.
>
> 17. Lsac.org's test preparation materials that are available on the
> website in Adobe Portable Document (PDF) format, are not properly "tagged."
> This means that the headings, paragraphs, tables, image descriptions and
> form controls are not easily discernable to screen-reading software. As a
> result, these materials are cumbersome, if not impossible, for a blind
> visitor to navigate.
>
> 18. Finally, lsac.org fails to offer LSAT practice tests, available
> as part of its test preparation services, in formats accessible to the
> blind. While the sighted can easily use the website to obtain more than 40
> formerly administered LSAT practice tests, the website fails to offer the
> opportunity to purchase these practice materials in formats accessible to
> the blind, such as Braille or an accessible electronic format.
>
> 19. As a result of lsac.org's accessibility barriers, blind law
> school applicants, including Ms. Goraya, must go over extraordinary hurdles
> to register and prepare for the LSAT and to apply to law school compared to
> their sighted counterparts. After unsuccessfully attempting to use
> lsac.org independently to register for the LSAT and fill out her law
> school applications, for example, Plaintiff Goraya was forced to select and
> rely upon a reader for over 50 hours simply to read aloud the content of the
> website and complete her law school applications. Moreover, none of the
> LSAT practice materials, which include previously administered versions of
> the test, were available to her in accessible electronic formats. Lsac.org
> thus contains numerous access barriers which deny full and equal access to
> Plaintiff, who would otherwise use the accommodations, advantages, and
> facilities of lsac.org.
>
> 20. On December 10, 2008, Plaintiff National Federation of the Blind
> notified LSAC of the unlawful accessibility barriers on its website. LSAC
> responded by setting up and then canceling a meeting with the NFB. On
> January 22, 2009, the NFB notified LSAC that it intended to pursue legal
> action against LSAC for the unlawful barriers on its website.
>
> FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
>
> (Violation of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54, et seq. - the Disabled Persons Act)
>
> 21. The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are
> incorporated by reference.
>
> 22. The Disabled Persons Act ("DPA") requires that individuals with
> disabilities have "full and equal access, as other members of the general
> public, to accommodations, advantages, facilities, . . . and other places to
> which the general public is invited, subject only to the conditions and
> limitations established by law, or state or federal regulation, and
> applicable alike to all persons." Cal. Civ. Code 54.1(a)(1).
>
> 23. Lsac.org, which is owned, operated and/or maintained by LSAC, is
> an
>
> accommodation, advantage, facility and/or place to which the general public
> is invited, as those terms are used in Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1).
>
> 24. Defendant's conduct alleged herein violates the DPA, including
> Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1(a)(1), by denying the Plaintiffs full and equal access
> to the accommodations, advantages and facilities of lsac.org.
>
> 25. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the NFB, the NFB of
> California, and Ms. Goraya are entitled to injunctive relief requiring
> Defendant to make lsac.org accessible to blind individuals, and to make
> the LSAT test practice materials offered to lsac.org patrons available to
> blind people in an accessible format.
>
> SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
>
> (Violation of Cal.Civ. Code §§ 51, et seq. - The Unruh Act)
>
> 26. The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are
> incorporated by reference.
>
> 27. California's Unruh Act requires that individuals with
> disabilities have "full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
> privileges or services in all business establishments of every kind
> whatsoever." Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b).
>
> 28. LSAC and Lsac.org are business establishments as that term is
> used in Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b) and lsac.org is an accommodation,
> advantage, facility, privilege and service of LSAC.
>
> 29. Defendant's conduct alleged herein violates the Unruh Act,
> including Cal. Civ. Code § 51(b), by denying Plaintiffs the full and equal
> accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services of LSAC and
> lsac.org.
>
> 30. Defendant violated the Unruh Act intentionally and/or with
> deliberate indifference to the likelihood that it was violating the rights
> of blind people and/or Defendant's violations were so intuitive or obvious
> that noncompliance could not be other than intentional.
>
> 31. As a result of Defendant's conduct, the NFB, the NFB of
> California, and Ms. Goraya are entitled to injunctive relief requiring
> Defendant to make lsac.org accessible to blind individuals, and to make
> the LSAT test practice materials offered to lsac.org patrons available to
> blind people in an accessible format.
>
>
>
> THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
>
> (Declaratory Relief, Cal. Civ. Proc. § 1060 )
>
> 32. The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are
> incorporated by reference.
>
> 33. On information and belief, Defendants contend that they may
> lawfully deny Plaintiffs access to their website and its contents.
> Plaintiffs contend that lsac.org, which LSAC owns, operates, and/or
> controls, must provide blind patrons access to its website and website
> contents under California Civil Code §§ 54, et seq. and California Civil
> Code §§ 51, et seq., which prohibit discrimination against the blind.
>
> 34. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time
> in order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and
> duties and act accordingly.
>
> WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request relief as set forth below.
>
> RELIEF REQUESTED
>
> WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:
>
> 1. An order enjoining LSAC from violating California
> Civil Code §§ 51, et seq. and §§ 54, et seq.;
>
> 2. A declaration that LSAC is owning, maintaining and/or
> operating lsac.org in a manner which discriminates against the blind and
> which fails to provide access for persons with disabilities as required by
> law;
>
> 3. Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as
> authorized by California California Civil Code §§ 54, et seq., California
> Civil Code §§ 51, et seq., and pursuant to California Code of Civil
> Procedure § 1021.5.
>
> 4. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just
> and proper.
>
>
>
> DATED:
> DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
>
>
>
> By:
> ____________________________
>
>
> Laurence W. Paradis
>
>
>
>
>
> Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.
>
> LaBarre Law Offices P.C.
> 1660 South Albion Street, Ste. 918
> Denver, Colorado 80222
> 303 504-5979 (voice)
> 303 757-3640 (fax)
> slabarre at labarrelaw.com (e-mail)
> www.labarrelaw.com (website)
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message may contain confidential and
> privileged information. If you are not the designated recipient, you may not
> read, copy, distribute or retain this message. If you received this message
> in error, please notify the sender at 303) 504-5979 or
> slabarre at labarrelaw.com, and destroy and delete it from your system. This
> message and any attachments are covered by the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2521.
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindlaw:
>
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/mikefry79%40gmail.com
>
>
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list