About a year ago, I discussed on my blog the case of MaGee v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., a published decision from the Fifth Circuit, holding that a vending machine was not a place of public accommodation and therefore, Coca-Cola’s machines did not have to comply with the ADA. The case was appealed to

Next week is the week before my daughter’s bat mitzvah. Accordingly, I think I’m going to take that week off. This week’s blog entry comes to me courtesy of my friend Stephen Meyer, a certified Texas accessibility specialist (a certified person in Texas that assesses facilities for compliance with accessibility guidelines and regulations). The case,

Many blog sites, such as this one which appears in my blogroll,  are reporting on a website accessibility case that went to verdict and found in favor of the plaintiff. The case is Gill v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90204 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2017). As is usual, the case is

I bet you didn’t know that in some circumstances title II and §504 may contain an exhaustion requirement. The reason I’m guessing you didn’t know is that until I saw this case, Sierra v. School Board of Broward County, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62498 (S.D. Fla. April 20, 2017), it hadn’t occurred to me

I

This is just outrageous!* People shouldn’t say these things, such as:**

  1. “I’m not going to change anything with respect to IEP’s. After all, appropriate progress means anything you want it to mean.”
  2. “Since I don’t want your money, I can do what I want.”
  3. “A cool website is more important than an accessible website.

I just reviewed the transcript of the oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Endrew v. Douglas County School District, which involves figuring out just how far a school district needs to go in order to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE), under IDEA. Here is what we know from that oral