Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Must Retailer's Web Site Be Accessible to the Disabled?
In September 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a retailer with physical store locations may be sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act ('ADA'), the Unrue Civil Rights Act (Cal. Civ. Code ' 51(b)) and the California Disabled Persons Act (Cal. Civ. Code ' 54.1(a)(1)), if its Web site is not accessible to the blind. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (9th Cir. 2006). Although the ADA does not impose an affirmative duty on companies to make Web sites accessible to the disabled, the Target decision may represent the tip of a looming iceberg. Companies ' particularly retailers with physical store locations ' that maintain a Web site to enhance the 'full and equal enjoyment of goods and services' offered in physical stores should consider revamping those sites to make them accessible not just to the visually impaired, but also potentially to those who are hearing impaired, learning impaired, or who have limited mobility.
As described below, pure on-line retailers, companies that maintain business-to-business or less public-facing Web sites, as well as companies that communicate with employees through an 'intranet,' also should take notice of and monitor this potential litigation trend. For many organizations, an initial challenge is simply determining who should have accountability for monitoring and evaluating these issues, particularly for organizations that lack a formal compliance oversight function. The risks currently in focus for employers may not cleanly fit within the responsibilities of in-house employment counsel or Human Resources, but the ADA and the Unrue Civil Rights Act are statutes that impact the workplace and, as discussed below, the arguments for Web site accessibility raised in the Target case are important to consider with regard to employees and applicants, particularly for companies that rely on electronic communications and internal and external Web sites to communicate with employees and applicants.
The Target Decision
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?