[blindlaw] Blog: Domino’s To Ask Supreme Cou rt To Consider Whether ADA Website/Mobile App Accessibility Law suits Violate Due Process, Seyfarth Shaw, March 21 2019

[David Andrews]

The world wide web consortium.

Dave

At 12:40 PM 3/23/2019, you wrote:
>Who issued the guidelines? Shannon Brady 
>Geihsler Law Office of Shannon Brady 
>Geihsler,PLLC 1001 Main Street, Suite 803 
>Lubbock, Texas 79401 Phone:  (806) 763-3999 
>Mobile:  (806) 781-9296 Fax: (806) 749-3752 
>E-Mail:  sbg at sbgaal.com NOTICE the information 
>contained in this communication is protected by 
>the attorney/client and/or the work/product 
>privileges.  It along with any attachments here 
>to, is also covered by the Electronic 
>Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 
>2510-2512.  It is intended only for the personal 
>and confidential use of the recipient(s) named 
>in the communication, and the privileges are not 
>waived by virtue of this having been sent by 
>electronic mail.  If the person actually 
>receiving this communication or any other reader 
>of the communication is not the named recipient, 
>any use, dissemination, distribution or copying 
>of the communication is strictly prohibited.  If 
>you have received this communication in error, 
>please immediately notify us by telephone 
>(please call collect) and delete the original 
>from your  system. Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 
>22, 2019, at 11:44 PM, Michael Nowicki via 
>BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote: > > Wev 
>accessibility content guidelines. > > Sent from 
>my iPhone > >> On Mar 22, 2019, at 10:46 PM, 
>Shannon via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 
>wrote: >> >> Sorry if this is a dumb question 
>but what are the guidelines that you’re 
>referring to? >> >> Shannon Brady Geihsler >> 
>Law Office of Shannon Brady Geihsler,PLLC >> 
>1001 Main Street, Suite 803 >> Lubbock, Texas 
>79401 >> Phone:  (806) 763-3999 >> 
>Mobile:  (806) 781-9296 >> Fax: (806) 
>749-3752 >> E-Mail:  sbg at sbgaal.com >> NOTICE 
>the information contained in this communication 
>is protected by the attorney/client and/or the 
>work/product privileges.  It along with any 
>attachments here to, is also covered by the 
>Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 
>sections 2510-2512.  It is intended only for the 
>personal and confidential use of the 
>recipient(s) named in the communication, and the 
>privileges are not waived by virtue of this 
>having been sent by electronic mail.  If the 
>person actually receiving this communication or 
>any other reader of the communication is not the 
>named recipient, any use, dissemination, 
>distribution or copying of the communication is 
>strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
>communication in error, please immediately 
>notify us by telephone (please call collect) and 
>delete the original from your  system. >> >> 
>Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 22, 2019, at 
>8:40 PM, Michal Nowicki via BlindLaw 
><blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote: >>> >>> 
>All, >>> >>> I think we all know how important 
>This case is for all of us. Assuming that the 
>Supreme Court will indeed review it, how do you 
>expect it to rule? Will the WCAG guidelines save 
>us? Finally, can we help as an organization 
>(e.g., by filing an amicus brief)? >>> >>> 
>Michal >>> >>> Sent from Mail for Windows 
>10 >>> >>> From: Nightingale, Noel via 
>BlindLaw >>> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 3:59 
>PM >>> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org >>> Cc: 
>Nightingale, Noel >>> Subject: [blindlaw] Blog: 
>Domino’s To Ask Supreme Court To Consider 
>Whether ADA Website/Mobile App Accessibility 
>Lawsuits Violate Due Process, Seyfarth Shaw, 
>March 21 2019 >>> >>> >>> 
>https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=24ed5361-3dba-4baa-b58d-d97cfbbe6823  
> >>> >>> Domino’s To Ask Supreme Court To 
>Consider Whether ADA Website/Mobile App 
>Accessibility Lawsuits Violate Due Process >>> 
>Blog ADA Title III News & Insights Blog >>> 
>Seyfarth Shaw LLP >>> March 21 2019 >>> By Minh 
>N. Vu . >>> >>> Seyfarth Synopsis: Domino’s 
>Likely to File Petition for Certiorari from 
>Ninth Circuit’s Ruling in Robles v. 
>Domino’s. >>> >>> As we reported, the Ninth 
>Circuit held in January that a blind plaintiff 
>could move forward with his ADA Title III 
>lawsuit against Domino’s Pizza for having an 
>allegedly inaccessible website and mobile app. 
>The court determined that allowing the claim to 
>move forward was not a violation of Domino’s 
>due process rights, even though the ADA and its 
>regulations contain no definition of, or 
>technical specifications for, “accessible” 
>public accommodations websites. >>> >>> We 
>believe Domino’s will be petitioning the U.S. 
>Supreme Court for certiorari because on March 6, 
>2019, it requested a sixty-day extension of time 
>to file said petition. The request was filed by 
>a newly-engaged Supreme Court specialist which 
>further confirms our conclusion that a petition 
>will be filed. Justice Kagan granted the 
>request, and Domino’s Petition for Certiorari 
>is due on June 14, 2019. >>> >>> There is a lot 
>at stake with this petition. Congress and the 
>DOJ have taken no action to stop the tsunami of 
>lawsuits against thousands of businesses about 
>their allegedly inaccessible websites. A Supreme 
>Court decision could put an end to the 
>litigation frenzy and provide some relief for 
>businesses. >>> >>> Stay tuned for updates on this exciting development. >>>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com