[blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint

Rod Alcidonis roddj12 at hotmail.com
Sat Mar 14 18:24:23 UTC 2009


But it will not be followed by schools, Mike.

Rod Alcidonis
Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009.
Roger Williams University School of Law
10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003
Bristol, RI 02809
Cell: 718-704-4651
Home: 401-824-8685

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Fry" <mikefry79 at gmail.com>
To: "NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint


>I did not know that a new policy regarding evalution of multiple LSAT 
>scores
> had been implemented.  I agree with Angie and Craig that its better.
>
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Craig Borne <cdborne at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Angie,
>> I wonder how many ABA accredited schools will follow the ABA's advice.  I
>> really believe this is a better way to go, though neither the ABA or law
>> schools in general have solicited my advice.  Shame on them.
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> Craig Borne
>> Baltimore, Maryland
>> "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
>> appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
>> defense of custom."  --Thomas Paine, Common Sense
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
>> Behalf Of Angie Matney
>> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 12:55 AM
>> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
>>
>> Now that the ABA advises schools to only consider the highest score, it
>> would seem to be less likely that a low first score would be considered
>> irreparable harm.
>>
>> Angie
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:31:57 -0400, Rod Alcidonis wrote:
>>
>>  >Well, academically speaking, the law suit could have prayed for a
>> Temporary
>>
>> >Restraining Order, or a preliminary Injunction against the LSAC for 
>> >folks
>> >like you. Basically enjoined the LSAC from administering the exam until
>> they
>> >make the changes. The only difficulty with that I think justifies the
>> reason
>> >they probably did not pray for such a relief is that such a measure 
>> >would
>> >cause too much harm to the public, I.E, the thousands of law students 
>> >and
>> >schools who rely on the exam to make admissions decisions. Such an order
>> >while it would have forced the LSAC to make the changes much faster, it
>> >would have unreasonably halted the system for some times. If it were a
>> class
>> >action with thousands of members, it probably would have been easier to
>> >argue, I think. Whether not passing an exam for the first time is
>> considered
>> >irreparable harm is another question -- you can still make the argument
>> >under these circumstances.
>>
>> >Rod Alcidonis
>> >Juris Doctor Candidate, 2009.
>> >Roger Williams University School of Law
>> >10 Metacom Ave., Box: 9003
>> >Bristol, RI 02809
>> >Cell: 718-704-4651
>> >Home: 401-824-8685
>>
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "Bill Spiry" <bspiry at comcast.net>
>> >To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>> >Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:52 PM
>> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
>>
>>
>> >I understand. What might be done to getLSAC to authorize use of this
>> >material as an accessible alternative to what they have to offer? I know
>> NFB
>> >is sueing them, but in the mean time that leaves folks like me who don't
>> >have the Adobe skills you have, and facing the LSAT soon  without
>> accessible
>> >matter. Any ideas or suggestions?
>>
>> >Thanks.
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] 
>> >On
>> >Behalf Of James Pepper
>> >Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:43 AM
>> >To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>> >Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
>>
>> >Well Bill the content is copyrighted by LSAC so I am not sure I can send
>> >this to you. Perhaps some on this list can give that advice. I laid it 
>> >out
>> >properly.
>>
>> >James
>>
>> >On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 9:05 AM, Bill Spiry <bspiry at comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> I would appreciate receiving this as well. Thanks.
>> >> bspiry at comcast.net
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>> On
>> >> Behalf Of James Pepper
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:46 AM
>> >> To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>> >> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] nfb v. lsac complaint
>> >>
>> >>  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.co
>> m
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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.co
>> m
>> >>
>> >_______________________________________________
>> >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/roddj12%40hotmail
>> .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/angie%40mpmail.ne
>> t
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/roddj12%40hotmail.com
> 





More information about the BlindLaw mailing list