[blindlaw] Article: Major Defense Win in Website Accessibility/ADA Case , Lexology, April 25, 2018

Daniel McBride dlmlaw at sbcglobal.net
Thu May 3 00:37:24 UTC 2018


Dear Noelle:

Please forgive my tendency for practical solutions to any problem, but I
assume Mr. Carroll did his banking with New People's Bank and found their
website accessibility difficult or just plain unnavigable.

It's just me I suppose, but I would have simply moved my accounts to a bank
with a friendlier website. Problem solved.

A lawsuit is a major investment in time, mental and physical energy, effort
and, possibly, money when it takes little effort to simply do your business
elsewhere.

Daniel McBride
Fort Worth, Texas 

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
Nightingale, Noel via BlindLaw
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 6:59 PM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Cc: Nightingale, Noel
Subject: [blindlaw] Article: Major Defense Win in Website Accessibility/ADA
Case , Lexology, April 25, 2018



https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=244eed2b-7e6a-4007-b605-24c78
a987da9



Major Defense Win in Website Accessibility/ADA Case

Lexology

April 25, 2018

By Fredrikson & Byron PA - Steven E. Helland



Defense of 'Mootness' Prevails When Website Operator Engaged Third-Party
Consultant to Improve Site Accessibility



Federal Judge James P. Jones handed website owners, operators and developers
a major win in April 2018 in dismissing the website accessibility/Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) case brought by blind plaintiff Keith Carroll.
Carroll v. New People's Bank, Case No. 1:17CV00044, E.D. Va, April 5, 2018.



Carroll's complaint was similar to many other website accessibility
complaints in that it alleged that the plaintiff:



*is blind or visually impaired;

*uses a screen-reader to access the internet;

*but is unable to read or access the defendant New People Bank's website as
it was not designed or maintained to work well with screen-reader
technology.



Successful Defense of Mootness



Judge Jones granted the bank's motion to dismiss in light of the fact that
the bank had engaged a third party consultant to improve the accessibility
of the website. The bank "contends that Carroll's claim is now moot based on
its voluntary upgrades made to the website after this action was filed,
which upgrades Carroll does not dispute. I agree. If a claim becomes moot,
the court no longer has jurisdiction to decide it."



Other Courts Agree



Other courts have similarly dismissed website accessibility/ADA cases,
albeit sometimes on different legal grounds. For example, in the case of
Gomez v. Empower "U," Case No. 17-CV-22633-GAYLES, S.D. Fl, Oct. 31. 2017,
the court wrote that "If, upon review of the report, the Court finds that
Defendant intends to remediate the property in a timely manner, the Court
will administratively close the case pending remediation."



Takeaway



The takeaway for website owners, operators and developers is that bona fide,
meaningful accessibility improvements by a third party website accessibility
consultant or developer provides a meaningful defense, recognized by a
growing number of courts.



_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dlmlaw%40sbcglobal.net





More information about the BlindLaw mailing list