Today’s blog entry comes from the Fourth Appellate District of the State of California. It is an Internet accessibility case. The difference with this case is that there is a focus on the California’s Civil Rights Act, what they call the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The facts are pretty straightforward. The plaintiff is permanently
Before getting started on the blog of the week, a couple of housekeeping matters are in order. First, I am delighted that you have decided to visit my blog on my birthday (October 8). For trivia nuts, it is also the anniversary of the great Chicago fire.
As I have mentioned before, I am not afraid to blog on cases discussed by fellow bloggers. Recently, Richard Hunt, whose blog appears on my blog roll, discussed a whole bunch of cases. Many of those cases I have put in my to blog pipeline, and two of which are the subject of today’s blog.
My daughter started high school today! City Schools of Decatur always start school on August 1. They operate on a six weeks on and one week off system with two months for summer vacation. They also get two weeks for Christmas. It took some getting used to, but I like it, and the kids appreciate
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
My colleague, Richard Hunt, recently blogged on the issue of website accessibility here and here. I want to focus and provide another perspective on his blog entry discussing Robles v. Dominos Pizza LLC 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53133 (C.D. Cal. March 20, 2017), and Gomez v. Bang and Olufsen America, Inc., 2017 U.S.