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

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.

Over the last couple of months, I have received this phone call close to once a week. So, I thought I should write a preventive law approach to dealing with this. The situation goes like this: potential client owns a small business/restaurant/shopping mall and is worried about fending off a serial plaintiff either presently or

Before moving on to the post of the week, you will notice that the blog has a new look and feel. I upgraded the blog so that it is better able to be used on mobile devices and more importantly the upgrade increases its ability to be accessible. Besides the look, you will see that

Hope everybody had a great Labor Day weekend. Today’s blog entry discusses the professional obligations associated with a person with a disability in litigation. I can’t tell you how often I get a call from a person, generally a couple of times a week, talking about how the court system is not accommodating their disability.