Lazaro Aleman, ECB Publishing, Inc.
Monticello Mayor John Jones recently warned his colleagues to beware of what he called “money hawks” – attorneys whom he said surfed the internet to review cities' sidewalks compliance with the dictates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
“If the sidewalks aren't ADA compliant, these money hawks will sue,” Jones said.
Jones may or may not have been aware of a recent lawsuit filed against the Jefferson County Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida because of the county's allegedly non-ADA compliant website.
The lawsuit, filed by Miami-based attorneys Scott Dinin and Juan Courtney Cunningham, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for plaintiff Joel Price, whose place of residence is not identified.
The 25-page complaint charges that much of the information provided on Jefferson County's website for the public's online consumption is rendered inaccessible to visually impaired persons who utilize screen readers because the information is in portable document format (PDF).
States the complaint, “Because defendant's online electronic document content is not available for persons who are blind or low sighted, defendant has denied plaintiff Joel Price access to that electronic (PDF) content. As such, defendant has denied access to plaintiff based on plaintiff’s disability (being low sighed and/or blind). In doing so, defendant has denied plaintiff his fundamental right to observe and participate in the democratic process of self government.”
Therefore, the complaint argues, benefits that are afforded “to sighted (non-disabled) individuals” are not afforded the disabled.
“As such, defendant has increased the sense of isolation and stigma that the ADA ... were meant to redress for individuals with disabilities,” the complaint states.
The Jefferson County website, goes the complaint, provides a wealth of information and publications that are pertinent to both county residents and visitors and that touch on myriad areas, including local ordinances, policies, programs, services and the like.
More to the point, according to the complaint, the plaintiff, who is interested in exploring the quality of life and environmental amenities that make Jefferson County a viable visiting or living option, was prevented from getting the desired information because of the site's ADA noncompliance.
The complaint claims that the county's failure to make the electronic documents on its website accessible to the legally blind has caused the plaintiff “to suffer all kinds of injuries”, including shame, humiliation, isolation, segregation and emotional anguish.
“Plaintiff's inability to access defendant's electronic documents has resulted in a virtual barrier, which has impaired, obstructed, hindered and impeded plaintiff's ability to become an involved citizen of Jefferson County government and learn about the programs, services and activities available to residents and visitors,” the complaint states.
It further alleges that despite the plaintiff alerting county staff about the problem, the latter made no reasonable modifications to the website to make it ADA compliant.
“Plaintiff (and others with vision impairments) will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from the defendant's omissions, policies, and practices regarding its electronic documents unless enjoined by the court,” states the complaint.
It accuses the county of being “deliberately indifferent” to the provisions of the ADA, even though the provision of access would in no way impose a burden on the county, states the complaint. To wit, the county is “blatantly discriminating” against blind and visually impaired citizens by its failure to redress the problem, goes the complaint.
Count two of the complaint addresses the county's alleged violation of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating against disabled persons and requires that programs or activities operated by a federally funded entities be readily accessible to persons with disabilities.
As Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners is an entity of local government that receives and distributes federal financial assistance, all of its operations and activities are governed by the Rehabilitation Act, the complaint argues.
Hence, the plaintiff's exclusion and inability to access the online information constitutes a violation of the act, the complaint concludes.
It asks that the court enter a judgement declaring the county discriminatory to the plaintiff and enjoining it from denying plaintiff access to the online information. Plus it asks, among other things, that the county be ordered to “award damages in an amount to be determined at trial, award plaintiff's reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys' fees, and award such other and further relief as (the court) deems necessary, just and proper.”
The county's response has been largely to ignore the complaint, judging it frivolous. County Coordinator Parrish Barwick said the county corrected the problem as soon as staff was made aware of it. That, however, didn't stop the complaint from being filed, he said.