Summary of Accessible Information Technology Laws
- Sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act – (29 USC §§791-794) -
Section
501 bars employment discrimination practices and requires reasonable accommodations in the
federal work place. Section 504 prevents any federally funded agency from discriminating
against persons with disabilities in programs and services.
- Section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act –(29 USC $794 d) Section
508 requires Federal departments and agencies that develop, procure, maintain, or use
electronic and information technology to ensure that Federal employees and members of the
public with disabilities have access to and use of information and data, comparable to
that of the employees and members of the public without disabilities-unless it is an undue
burden to do so.
- Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996-(47 U.S.C. §255)
Section 255
provides that a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment or customer premises
equipment shall ensure that the equipment is designed, developed, and fabricated to be
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, if readily achievable.
Complaint procedures available through the Federal Communications Commission.
- IDEAIA ’04 – (20 USC 1400 et seq.)
requires schools to adopt universal
design principles and utilize assistive technology devices to maximize accessibility to
the general curriculum. Complaint and due process procedures are available.
- Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990- (42 USC. §12101 et seq.)Requires
reasonable accommodations in employment, equal access to programs and services for state
and local government, and equal access to businesses services and programs. Complaint
process and litigation available>.
- Help America Vote Act 2002
-(42 U.S.C. §15301; 15545) Requires that a voter
with disabilities have equal access to the polling place and equal access to the polling
booth and ensures voting privacy and independence. HAVA requires that at least one voting
machine in each polling place be accessible to persons with disabilities. Complaint
procedures through state and U.S. Attorney General available.
- Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990
- (47 USC §303 (u)) -Requires that
since July of 1993, all television sets sold in the United States with screens 13 inches
or larger (measured diagonally) to have built-in decoder circuitry for closed captioning.
- Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996-(47 U.S.C. §305) - The FCC has
adopted rules requiring closed captioning of most, though not all, television programming.
The rules became effective January 1, 1998. The rules create transition periods during
which the amount of closed-captioned programming will gradually increase. Under the rules,
there are two categories of programming: new programming and pre-rule programming. Certain
exemptions from the captioning requirements apply to both categories of programming.
Complaints are filed through the FCC.
- Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 (HAC Act) (47 USC §610(b))
-The intent of the
HAC Act is to ensure reasonable access to telephone service by persons with hearing
disabilities. As of August 16, 1989, all telephones manufactured or imported for use in
the U.S. have been required to be hearing aid compatible. Cordless telephones manufactured
or imported for use in the U.S. have also been required to be hearing aid compatible since
August 16, 1991. Secure telephones are exempt, as are telephones used with public mobile
services or private radio services. Complaint procedures are filed through the FCC.
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 USC §701) In the vocational
rehabilitation process, this law defines technology and its use in job planning,
acquisition and retention for people with disabilities.
Summary of Case Law
Martin et. al v. MARTA, Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 225 F. Supp. 2d. 1362, 1377
(N.D. Ga. 2002). The court ordered MARTA to make its website accessible and provide other
alternative access in a timely and equal manner (i.e. reduce the time for sending Braille
schedules, and reduce telephone wait times and provide access to a knowledgeable MARTA
representative). The court recognized that a transit customer with disabilities could not
adequately use the bus system if schedule and route information is not available in a
usable format.
Motion Pictures of America, Inc. v. FCC, No. 01-1149 (8th Cir. 2002). The FCC
recently attempted to adopt video description regulations but the 8th Circuit
Court of Appeals ruled that the agency did not have the Congressional authority to do so.
Absent Congressional authority, the FCC cannot require video description.
Access Now, Inc., v. Southwest Airlines Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d. 1312 (S.D. Fla.
2002). the district court ruled that Southwest’s website did not violate Title III of
the ADA even though it was not accessible to blind persons’ screen readers. The
court’s rationale rested on three premises. The first was that the "place of
public accommodation" described in Title III only includes physical structures, not
cyberspace. Secondly, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to show that there
was a "nexus" or connection to a physical concrete place of public
accommodation. Thirdly, the court, in footnotes 12 and 13, noted that Title III of the ADA
explicitly exempts aircrafts. Had the case been brought under the Air Carrier Access Act
of 1986, a different result may have occurred.
Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions, 294 F. 3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002), reh’g
denied en banc, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 27593 (October 25, 2002). The 11th Circuit ruled
that Title III of the ADA made no distinction between on-site discrimination and offsite
discrimination, and that the "fast finger" automated telephone system tended to
screen out persons with mobility and hearing impairments. The defendants were required to
make modifications to their automated phone system to ensure access.
Office of Civil Rights Letters
- OCR Settlement Letter, Docket No. 09-99-2041, (April 20, 1999). The OCR considers the
timeliness of the delivery, accuracy of the translation, and provision in a manner and
medium appropriate to the significance of the message and the abilities of the individual
with a disability.
- OCR Settlement Letter, Docket No. 09-97-2002, (April 7, 1997). OCR and the courts
mandate that a college or university must not rely on ad hoc accommodations, but must have
established policies that include input from the disabled community who would be most
likely to request accommodations.
State Law Resources
- Overview of State Accessibility Laws, Policies, Standards and Other Resources Available
On-line
, Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center, available
at http://www.ittatc.org/laws/stateLawAtGlance.cfm (last visited June 9, 2004).
- Donna Hartzell, et al. v. Huckabee et al
. Case No. (2001-3700) (July 18, 2001)
(Arkansas)
- SPITZER AGREEMENT TO MAKE WEB SITES ACCESSIBLE TO THE BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED (New
York Attorney General, August 19, 2004) http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2004/aug/aug19a_04.html
Checklists and FAQ's for Accessibility to Electronic
Information Technology
Return to Table of Contents | NLS Home Page | Feedback | Search the NLS Website