[blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint

[tim and vickie shaw]

if you have the full version of adobe you could always convert from pdf to word then change from ultiple columns to one;)
 
> From: bspiry at comcast.net
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:45:19 -0800
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
> 
> If you'd be willing to share a copy once you've reformatted, I'd certainly
> appreciate it.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of James Pepper
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 1:56 AM
> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
> 
> Looking at this test, this is not a big deal to format this for JAWS 8. Its
> tedious but it can be done. I will start it this weekend, it might take a
> week or two to lay out depending on my work load. It will also work with a
> combination of Narrator and Read out Loud so that people who cannot afford
> screen readers can use it. That is always a good selling point to
> government regulators. AFB tech says my format works with Window Eyes but I
> don't have the program.
> Really I don't see what their problem is in making this accessible. They
> probably just do not know how to do it. What they have right now is a mess.
> 
> James
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Bill Spiry <bspiry at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > James, I'd be very interested in what you are doing with this. I'll be
> > taking the LSAT in June, and I've found the LSAC sampel LSAT test to be
> > miserably inaccessible with JAWS, blended columns, ordering and tagging is
> > a
> > mess, just about totally impossible to read it with any comprehensible
> > clarity.
> >
> > If you've found a way to sort or rearrange the PDF in some way to make it
> > useable, I'd sure appreciate getting a piece of that. I look forward to
> > hearing from you.
> > Thanks.
> > Bill Spiry
> > 541-510-2623
> > Springfield Oregon
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> > Behalf Of James Pepper
> > Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 7:26 AM
> > To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
> >
> > Scott:
> > I just downloaded the SamplePTJune07.pdf the sample test from the LSAC
> > website and I can make that document accessible to JAWS and also to a
> > combination of Adobe's Read out Loud and Microsoft Narrator for those who
> > do
> > not have a screen reader and who do not require braille. AFB Tech says my
> > process works for Window Eyes, but I do not have Window Eyes.
> >
> > It would take a while to lay it all out but it can be done. And the form
> > would be automated so they would not be able to complain about any manual
> > entry of data.
> >
> > If you all have a more up to date test, send me a copy and I will see what
> > I
> > can do!
> >
> > James Pepper
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:32 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/b75205%40gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/bspiry%40comcast.n
> > et
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/b75205%40gmail.com
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/bspiry%40comcast.n
> et
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/timandvickie%40hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________
It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster. 
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Same_022009