[blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
James Pepper
b75205 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 10 08:46:22 UTC 2009
Scott: I laid out the first section of the LSAT to be accessible and I can
send you the files if you would like to see it. Also I made the form that
they use accessible so the blind can fill out the test without assistance.
This works with JAWS and Window Eyes and a combination of Adobe's Read out
Loud and Microsoft Narrator. My process works and if you need references at
NFB, AFB and the AAPD I can send them to you.
It took a while to figure out how they made thier pdfs and I know where they
are making their mistakes. I can correct this problem. These PDFs are made
to work natively with JAWS and Adobe Reader and the other screen readers
without making any adjustments. They work with the default settings in
Adobe Reader.
Also the forms can be digitally signed and saved and all that fancy stuff
that you expect with Adobe Acrobat Professional can be done with
Adobe Reader, versions 8 or 9 which is the free download from Adobe.com. So
we can make the LSAT accessible to anyone with a PC running Windows XP Or
VIsta without any change of settings. This means the PC can be there for
the sighted and the blind, with equal access for all.
Also since I labeled everything, it will be a lot quicker for you to fill
out this test!
Sincerely,
James G. Pepper
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 4:32 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
>
>
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list