[blindLaw] Domino's v Robles (cert re website/app ADA accessibility); pro-ADA amici due Aug 14

Mon Aug 12 19:27:12 UTC 2019

And by majority I mean at least four exceptionally activist judges that would be required to grant cert on this unmeritorious petition.  

-----Original Message-----
From: tim at timeldermusic.com <tim at timeldermusic.com> 
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2019 6:39 PM
To: 'Aimee Harwood' <awildheir at gmail.com>; 'Blind Law Mailing List' <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Domino's v Robles (cert re website/app ADA accessibility); pro-ADA amici due Aug 14

FWIW:

I'd be surprised if SCOTUS granted cert on this case.  There is absolutely nothing in dispute among the appellate courts that is at issue in this litigation.  Every single appellate  court to hear the issue agrees that the language of the ADA can apply to the services of a place of public accommodation, including websites and mobile apps that have a physical nexus to the enumerated places.  A majority of extremely activist judges would be required to hear this case.  It would be extremely drastic for SCOTUS to completely ignore all the careful thought that courts have agreed upon.  We might see a website case in the future, but this particular one is a poor choice to resolve any potential circuit splits.

-----Original Message-----
From: Aimee Harwood <awildheir at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 12:36 PM
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Domino's v Robles (cert re website/app ADA accessibility); pro-ADA amici due Aug 14

A place of public access is anywhere the public has access. The public accesses a web site. The public accesses a mobile app. Dominos does not restrict access to its site or app to a specific group of people. Therefore, it is accessed by the public. Folks, if this goes wrong, we will no longer have the ability to hold anyone accountable if we cannot utilize any thing that is not a building. Microsoft, Apple, or any other technology company will see no reason to put the effort or funds into making things accessible. No more Netflix or amazon described videos. Basically, companies will realize they can say oh well to bad so sad because there will be no recourse for us. When the ADA was enacted, this is how it was applied. Are there any folks here old enough to have been an adult when the ADA was enacted? I am. It never meant only physical brick and mortar. The spirit of the law was whatever the public can utilize, it should also be available to the members of the public with disabilities. Next time you take an Uber, think about that app you use to get the Uber. If you use a guide dog, you could find yourselves with no recourse for denial of access because Uber drivers will say it's my car and I don't want dogs in it. Since it is my car and not a public building, I don't have to let you in. We have access to Uber now because they are offering a service to the public. The service is not a brick and mortar building. That's why the ADA is anything available to the public and the catagories are suggestions to things that are public and not private.  I foresee this ruling leading to more and more denial for us as blind individuals.  

Aimee

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 9, 2019, at 4:32 PM, Jorge Paez via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> Anyone know if an app or site falls under the same classification as say a physical store?
> Or is this still a definition that is being worked out?
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 9, 2019, at 3:47 PM, Aimee Harwood via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>> 
>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Broward College. DO NOT click links or open attachments unless are expecting the information and you recognize the sender.
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> What stance has the NFB taken on this? I've read a couple of the briefs and so far they are against the ADA's coverage of online content and mobile apps. This seems, to me, a major concern that could result in our access of sites and apps to catapult backwards. Am I wrong in thinking public access is also anything that is offered to the public? If a business offered a service to the public, would that service not have to be offered and useable to individuals of the public with disabilities? The categories listed in the ada don't necessarily mean physical locations. They are categories of things the public would utilize. Public accommodation is something open/available to the public. Web sites aren't listed because they didn't exist but they are accessible by the public. If they weren't, they would be private sites and you would have to choose who you want on your site. For instance if I wanted to create a site for only my family to utilize.   Please share your thoughts. This concerns me greatly.
>> 
>> Aimee
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Aug 2, 2019, at 4:08 AM, Sai via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fww
>>> w.scotusblog.com%2Fcase-files%2Fcases%2Fdominos-pizza-llc-v-robles%2
>>> F&data=02%7C01%7Cpaezja%40mail.broward.edu%7C2ed2f2b35e1b4952d1e
>>> 608d71d028f3c%7C7bd8e62933bc43c4870ccd3841be1658%7C0%7C0%7C637009769
>>> 136071813&sdata=EkxBzZTNrQVhMz3xam9rGIo39JTTNPIZkUuR8%2FrXrdo%3D
>>> &reserved=0=
>>> 
>>> QP: Whether websites & apps have to be blind-accessible. CA9 below said yes.
>>> 
>>> A bunch of amici have filed even on the cert petition.
>>> 
>>> Seems likely to have widespread impacts, including on issues y'all 
>>> litigate. Would suggest you get in on amici pro respondent if you can.
>>> 
>>> Deadline August 14 — and August 4 to get parties' consent. Sup. Ct. R.
>>> 34(2)(a)
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Sai
>>> 
>>> Sent from my mobile phone; please excuse the concision and 
>>> autocorrect errors.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> BlindLaw mailing list
>>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnfb
>>> net.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fblindlaw_nfbnet.org&data=02%7C01%
>>> 7Cpaezja%40mail.broward.edu%7C2ed2f2b35e1b4952d1e608d71d028f3c%7C7bd
>>> 8e62933bc43c4870ccd3841be1658%7C0%7C0%7C637009769136071813&sdata
>>> =DLh1J6dhxVlud1u8NfGp%2BHW6N9dFqLpFOI%2BEOwDfOaw%3D&reserved=0=
>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
>>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnfb
>>> net.org%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fblindlaw_nfbnet.org%2Fawildheir%2540gm
>>> ail.com&data=02%7C01%7Cpaezja%40mail.broward.edu%7C2ed2f2b35e1b4
>>> 952d1e608d71d028f3c%7C7bd8e62933bc43c4870ccd3841be1658%7C0%7C0%7C637
>>> 009769136071813&sdata=Uid%2BHXZhLrYWa3ROD0BWndm%2FhUezOaCjbrTeFT
>>> %2BPoTc%3D&reserved=0=
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> BlindLaw mailing list
>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnfbn
>> et.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fblindlaw_nfbnet.org&data=02%7C01%7C
>> paezja%40mail.broward.edu%7C2ed2f2b35e1b4952d1e608d71d028f3c%7C7bd8e6
>> 2933bc43c4870ccd3841be1658%7C0%7C0%7C637009769136071813&sdata=DLh
>> 1J6dhxVlud1u8NfGp%2BHW6N9dFqLpFOI%2BEOwDfOaw%3D&reserved=0=
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw:
>> https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fnfbn
>> et.org%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fblindlaw_nfbnet.org%2Fpaezja%2540mail.br
>> oward.edu&data=02%7C01%7Cpaezja%40mail.broward.edu%7C2ed2f2b35e1b
>> 4952d1e608d71d028f3c%7C7bd8e62933bc43c4870ccd3841be1658%7C0%7C0%7C637
>> 009769136071813&sdata=i4deYfHLaPggBCbgKkmo4WYMd3sYes0O7IqSIR3PrFE
>> %3D&reserved=0=
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/awildheir%40gmai
> l.com