Web Accessibility

1. Web Accessibility Case Law Examples Trainer’s Name Trainer’s Title Phone Number Email/Web Address ADA Trainer Network Module 7i

2. Disclaimer Information, materials, and/or technical assistance are intended solely as informal guidance, and are neither a determination of your legal rights or responsibilities under the ADA, nor binding on any agency with enforcement responsibility under the ADA. The Mid-Atlantic ADA Center is authorized by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) to provide information, materials, and technical assistance to individuals and entities that are covered by the ADA. The contents of this document were developed under a grant from the Department of Education, NIDRR grant number H133 A110020. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.

3. Web Accessibility: Case Law • Title I: • EEOC informal discussion letter • Title II: • California Community College • MARTA • Title III: • Target.com • Southwest Airlines • Netflix • Title III Settlement Agreements: • Charles Schwab & Co. • Hilton Hotels

4. Title I – Informal Guidance Document • No mandate for web accessibility for Title I institutions • Letter to EEOC about lack of access to web-based job openings • EEOC said employers were free to use a variety of methods to expand the pool of applicants for vacant positions

5. How do we promote web accessibility in Title I entities? • Federal government as a model employer for people with disabilities • Section 508 and federal agencies • OFCCP monitors web-site accessibility of federal contractors • Any employer must provide an accessible process for applicants

6. Title II and Web Accessibility • Federal agencies must comply with Section 508 • Many States have adopted state-level web accessibility policies that mirror Section 508 • Title II web access issues are primarily about effective communication • Alternatives can be offered, but are unlikely to provide equal access

7. Title II – Effective Communication California Community College • OCR compliance review for Title II and Section 504 access issues • Recommended investing in accessible distance learning and internet technology MARTA • Lack of information available on bus routes equivalent to the non-disabled population • Critical issue was time difference for 1 access method over another

8. Title III – Conflicting Findings Target • Web site was not the equivalent of the brick and mortar store and therefore it had to be accessible. Southwest Airlines • ADA applies only to physical spaces and not to the internet Netflix • Title III entity for the purposes of the ADA because the “watch instantly” service takes an existing product and modifies it for their customers it is a service under Title III and not a good.

9. Title III and Settlement Agreements Charles Schwab & Co. • Agreed to become compliant to WCAG 2.0 Level A and AA success criteria and provide an alternative to CAPTCHA Hilton Worldwide, Inc. • Agreed to make the whole chain compliant with WCAG 2.0 Level A success Criteria