[blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint

tim and vickie shaw timandvickie at hotmail.com
Sat Feb 28 00:40:34 UTC 2009


oh i just remembred something iw anted ot ask everyoen about when they took teir lsat. Section 2 of my test wasnt there. it said "this section has been deleted" and when they test proctors tried to call LSAT to find out why and what to do all they would say is "the section was deleted on purpose, but we cant say why for confidentiality reasons"  does anyone have any idea what this may be about? 
 
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:01:52 -0600
> From: b75205 at gmail.com
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
> 
> This is a pdf file, you should not have to convert it to text to make it
> work. Besides if this file was laid out properly you could convert it to one
> column using Reflow. No, the problem here is how the PDF was laid out and
> this is a common problem in many documents. They did not use the right
> programs to lay it out and turn it into a PDF files.
> 
> For instance question number three in reflow is thus:
> 3.Ifthethirddigitofanacceptableproductcodeisnot0,whichoneofthefollowingmustbetrue?
> I can make the form accessible so you do not have to get someone to help you
> fill that out.
> 
> I will put into my book a section on how to fix the LSAT. This actually is a
> common layout problem that I see a lot in forms and documents so this would
> be a good example to illustrate the solution. I will use a government form
> to illustrate that chapter but the LSAT is doing the same thing.
> 
> The only set of questions that will be a distinct problem are the visual
> logic questions. They are map questions but what they really are is a set of
> visual logic questions where you have to be able to see to work them out.
> 
> They seem to be the same sort of thing you find in IQ tests where you have
> to arrange a set of blocks to form an object, with the exception that they
> include objects that do not apply, shapes that would interfere with the
> structure of the set of blocks. In the IQ test it measures your ability to
> handle 3 dimensions and I think a similar test should be used in the LSAT
> test.
> 
> I ran into a lot of this type of testing in Architecture School. It is a
> big problem if you cannot think in three dimensions. My church is expanding
> its ampitheatre and they were all convinced that they would have a set of
> new hallways on the plans so that people could enter the theatre at the
> bottom of the hall so that they could use elevators for the disabled
> people. But the hallways were actually the stairs for the theatre where
> people got into the seats and they realized once if was built that they had
> no way to get people to the bottom of the theatre unless they opened up a
> storage closet and turned it into a hallway.
> 
> The funny thing is that in the renovation, they did it again! They got the
> steps mixed up with the hallways on the plans. They just cannot think 3
> dimensionally.
> 
> So clearly this question will have to be redone. There is a map on the
> National Voter Registration form and this was a big contentious problem
> especially for the state of Arkansas which insisted that the blind were able
> to do this in the past on their voter registration form. Of course everyone
> got help to make this map.
> 
> On the form you are to located two sets of lines which indicate cross
> streets. You are to label these cross streets with the names of your
> closest cross streets, then you place an X on the form of your home's
> position relative to these cross streets. Then you place marks and write in
> the locations of your police stations, court houses and other landmarks onto
> this map.
> 
> I suggested that this be replaced by a form field where people describe
> where they live relative to the nearest cross street. Arkansas insisted on
> the map so their poll workers could find the applicant and so the blind must
> get assistance in Arkansas to fill out their applications form. The
> National Form also requires the blind to get assistance to fill out the
> form.
> 
> I suggested using GPS.
> 
> I made the form so there is no need for assistance. You just fill it out,
> like anyone else and you don't have to go all over the document to find the
> content, it is right there in front of you.
> 
> So I will look at the LSAT and lay it out properly. See what I can do to
> solve this problem. The key here is to make sur ethey understand that the
> blind can do this all by themselves, they do not need assistance. This
> attitude of insisting they have help is why nobody goes the extra mile and
> make documents forms and tests completely accessible. They just do not have
> the right atttitude!
> 
> James Pepper
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:11 PM, tim and vickie shaw <
> timandvickie at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/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


More information about the BlindLaw mailing list