[blindLaw] 11C says Websites Not Bound by ADA Accessibility Rules

[Singh, Nandini]

No. Based on a quick Google search, Dominos came out of the 9th Cir. Where the court ruled in favor of the blind plaintiff. SCOTUS did not take that case, so the 9th Cir. Ruling remains. The 11th Cir. Is different. If more circuits weigh in, continuing a circuit split, SCOTUS may take up an online accessibility ADA case later. I am just not familiar with existing law from other circuits to know how much of a split there is right now. These issues could be resolved if DOJ were to issue guidance about online accessibility or else if Congress were to amend the ADA to include digital spaces. Till then, your jurisdiction may have less or more favorable law. 

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of wmodnl wmodnl via BlindLaw
Sent: Friday, April 9, 2021 4:25 AM
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: wmodnl wmodnl <wmodnl at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] 11C says Websites Not Bound by ADA Accessibility Rules

[EXTERNAL]

So are they trying to reverse the supreme court decision and the dominoes case?


Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 8, 2021, at 23:09, Michal Nowicki via BlindLaw <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote:
>
> Thank you, Noel, for sharing this. What impact is this decision 
> likely to have on other ADA website litigation?
>
> Michal
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Nightingale, 
> Noel via BlindLaw
> Sent: Thursday, April 8, 2021 1:11 PM
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Cc: Nightingale, Noel <Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov>
> Subject: [blindLaw] 11C says Websites Not Bound by ADA Accessibility 
> Rules
>
>
> News coverage:
> https://www.courthousenews.com/websites-not-bound-by-ada-accessibility
> -rules
> -11th-circuit-finds/
> 11C Decision:
> https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201713467.pdf
>
> Article Excerpt:
> In a decision that a dissenting judge warned could have widespread 
> consequences for visually impaired people, a split panel of the 11th 
> Circuit ruled Wednesday that websites for businesses that are 
> generally open to the public are not places of public accommodation 
> under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
>
> In a 2-1 decision, a panel of the Atlanta-based appeals court ruled 
> that although "inaccessibility online can be a significant inconvenience,"
> supermarket chain Winn-Dixie cannot be found liable under Title III of 
> the ADA for having a website that is inaccessible to disabled people 
> who use screen-reading software.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/mnowicki4%40iclo
> ud.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/wmodnl%40hotmail
> .com
_______________________________________________
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/nsingh%40cov.com