| Access Now v. Southwest Airlines | |
|---|---|
| Court | United States district court |
| Full case name | Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co. |
| Date decided | 18 August 2002 |
| Citation(s) | (2002) 02-21734-CIV-SEITZ/BANDSTRA |
| Judge(s) sitting | Seitz DJ |
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. was a decision of the United States District Court on 18 August 2002. It concerned the nature of Title III of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court determined that Southwest Airlines website is not a “place of public accommodation” as defined in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.[1] The case determined that the Southwest Airlines internet website was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as American Disability Act (ADA) concerned with a physical existence and hence cannot govern what it is in cyberspace. Judge Seitz also explained that the “virtual ticket counter” Southwest Airlines Co’s website was a virtual construct and hence not a “public place of accommodation” and as such “To expand the ADA to cover "virtual" spaces would be to create new rights without well-defined standards".[1]
Contents |
Discrimination has existed for a very long time and is still a very big problem in today's society. Discrimination against disabled people is rarely talked about but occurs as often as gender or race discrimination.[2] There are 168.6 million internet users in America [3] and 34 million Americans that live where “unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous."[1]
Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 by the United States Congress to provide a clear and comprehensive mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.[1] That is by the proposition of three titles which each addressed separate issues of discrimination against disabled people. However, website accessibility is not included into the three titles. Research has shown that approximately 98% of all internet websites are inaccessible to deaf or visually impaired people despite 76% of disabled people accessing the internet[4]
Thus,it is an enormous technological challenge in designing programs or hardware to help people that are deaf or visually impaired. Several companies have used applications such as "voice-dictation software, voice-navigation software, and magnification software to assist visually impaired persons in navigating through varying degrees of text and graphics found on different websites".[1] However, there are various debates that are in the coverage of ADA . One of those is the accessibility of the internet to blind or visually impaired people. The topics considered was the “public place of accommodation” and "cyberspace" issue which can be seen in recent cases such as Access Now v. Southwest Airlines[1] and Rendon v. Valleycrest Prod., Ltd. [5] The ruling was that anything physical could be used as a basis for Title III rather than anything cyber based.
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., was a decision of the United States District Court, which on 18 August 2002 ruled that the Southwest Airlines Co’s website is not a “place of public accommodation” as defined in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.[1] The case concerned Robert Gumson, a blind American man living in Florida, United States of America. The plaintiffs; Access Now, Inc and Robert Gumson argued that the Southwest Airlines internet website was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)[6] as the airlines website was not accessible to the blind such as the Robert Gumson.
The main topic that was considered by the United States District Court was whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (public services) requires companies such as Southest Airlines Co to edit their websites to be completely accessible to visually impaired people such Mr. Gumson.The United States district court ultimately decided in favour of the defendant and not the plaintiffs. The judge for this case, Patrica Seitz elucidates that the plaintiff could not apply for Title III of ADA as Type III “governs solely access to physical, concrete places of public accommodation” and hence cannot govern what it is in cyberspace.[1] Judge Partrica Seitz also explained that the “virtual ticket counter” located Southwest Airlines Co’s website was a virtual construct and hence not a “public place of accommodation” and as such “To expand the ADA to cover "virtual" spaces would be to create new rights without well-defined standards.”[1]
The main question in the case was the question of internet websites as a "place of public accommodation" as defined by the ADA. The place was defined in such a way that it did not require a detailed understanding of the statute. The Americans with Disabilities Act believe in equal opportunity of all people whether they are disabled or not are able to enjoy the same level of schooling, services, faculties etc. (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a))[7]
A place of public accommodation was defined by a physical construction of 12 categories and within these constructs a place of public accommodation was given to business, whose operation affects the global market [8],[9]. A public accommodation as defined by the ADA is a physical structure that does not cover cyberspace. The plaintiff argued that the website fell under the category to entertain, a place of public display or as a sales establishment. The judge was dismissive of such comments as these terms are very subjective and can be answered in a variety of way.
In determining that statute, the statute must be "plain and have an ambiguous meaning" to its language.[1] It was also determined that section III did not incorporate the use of websites. Unlike this case, the Eleventh Circuit Court case was able ascertain the congress's intention. The creation of new rights and laws from congress to develop standards that apply to rights.[10] Similarly, the congress also denied the expansion of the Act to cover virtual spaces and not just physical. The congress refused to combine aspects of each accommodation, since it was numerous.
The court has explained its limited reading of the ADA in reference to the Eleventh circuit Court case, in Rendon, where the court has maintained that the telephone selection process for determining an automated telephone selection process of the television show, Who wants to be a Millionaire? [10].This screening was said to be discriminatory against disabled people. Also, from that course case there was only a “nexus between the challenged service and the premises of the public accommodation.”[1] The court had found that Southwest's website was not a physical public accommodation or applicable to concrete space [1] (227 F. Supp. 2d at 1321) and hence plaintiffs could not demonstrate a “specific, physical, concrete space.”[1] The court reasoned that the Internet is a “unique medium” that had a "nexus between challenged service and physical accommodations. For geographic location, the District court utilised the decision from the supreme court in Reno v. ACLU (521 U.S. 844 (1997))[11], where its medium had no unique location geographically and is available for everyone across the globe. Thus, the website for the airplane company is not based on a geographical location and hence no nexus for places of public accommodation. Therefore it can be seen that in the absence of a physical place, thee was the lack of a public accommodation or nexus,
Accessibility is a large component in the design of a website or any type of plan as it often be the tool that will either entice the reader or buyer to follow up and investigate that site or plane etc. The hardest challenge is to design a website that is both assessable to people who have poor vision and those that have perfect sight. The solution should be obvious to increase accessibility by legislation and not by case study. There are currently many laws to protect disabled people across the globe such as Australia's Disability Discrimination Act 1992 [12], ADA but also laws in different states for the same county. These laws can be slightly different from one another and depending on what state or what is being contested, outcome can change. However, in all laws there a few common objectives: A)right to a reasonable way of life, B) own lifestyle to choose what the family wants to do where a disability is a part of there lives and C) the right to obtain fair just and accessibility.
E-commerce is a popular theme in today's world where the exchange of products or the process for it no longer needs to be done physically. That is, the modernisation or commercialism of products as to improve convenience and accessibility. The internet is a virtual place that the e-commerce that is occurring on the internet does not have a physical body or attachment. One such example is with buying from a secure site, no longer does the person who wants to buy have to go to the seller, the seller could afford to put up information and the buyer has to wait a few days to receive it via mail or a courier. In this example the plane of accommodation was the office of the secure site where items are brought. The decision and definition of discrimination in the Rendon case proposed that the barriers that impose upon the website of Southwest airlines was able to affect assisting software and hardware to those that are visually impaired. Thus, there is a clear relationship between websites and a physical place of physical accommodations. However, since the airlines stated that it cannot guarantee easy accessibility to the website and since the website clearly explained the situation, the relationship could bot be in physical accommodations
The implication of the disability laws and especially those involved in this case provided a new grasp of understanding of the hardships of disabilities a lot of people suffer from. That is, website accessibility to certain companies and thus determination of if the company website was a place of public accommodation. The biggest problem that is not based by a judicial system for those that are online is solutions such as specialised programs to help accessibility of visually impaired people is that some programs or hardware do not run or is not compatible the Internet browsers. Thus, in the years to come it is imperative that there will be better software or hardware that is compatible to the internet browsers. In hindsight, if the internet becomes a physical location many laws or ideas will have to be edited or created since, the inclusion will mean the incursion of many things.