[blindLaw] ADA Title 3 judgments for compelling private players towards digital accessibility or meaning of full and equal enjoyment/non-discrimination

[Rahul Bajaj]

Amar, the Canadian Supreme Court’s Eldridge judgment might be useful. It concerned providing sign language interpreters to deaf patients by a private hospital. It was held that Sec. 15 of the Charter - the equality clause - applied to them, even though they were a private entity. They ruled in the claimant’s favour. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 1, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Amar Jain via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> I am Amar Jain, a qualified Indian lawyer.
> 
> In order to give a push to digital accessibility in India through judicial pronouncements, we are looking at other jurisdictions’ judgements on how discrimination, or full and equal enjoyment have been interpreted by courts. In nutshell, we are trying to come up with something close to Dominos case.
> 
> I would be greatful if someone can share or point us to ADA’s judgments on these aspects under Title 3 regulations, or anything similar that you are aware of. Also, any leads on attorneys / activists working on implementing accessibility especially for private players would be appreciated. Just would like to caution that alternate dispute resolution for accessibility is not implementable in India given the country’s preparedness on this mechanism other than commercial disputes. So, the solutions have to come up from judicial pronouncements or any effort in that direction.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Regards,
> Amar Jain
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> 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/rahul.bajaj1038%40gmail.com