On Thursday, Federal District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel refused to dismiss a disability discrimination lawsuit against retail store Target. (National Federation of the Blind v. Target, Northern District of California Case No. C 06-01802 MHP) The lawsuit claims that the retailer violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because its website is not accessible by visually impaired users. In its motion for dismissal, Target argued that disability laws did not apply to its website.

In her ruling [PDF], Judge Patel stated:

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability “in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) (emphasis added). The statute applies to the services of a place of public accommodation, not services in a place of public accommodation. Id. To limit the ADA to discrimination in the provision of services occurring on the premises of a public accommodation would contradict the plain language of the statute. [...]

The purpose of the statute is broader than mere physical access.

Judge Patel did not rule on whether Target's website is, in fact, inaccessible. The company maintains that even if the ADA applies to a retailer's online presence, its website still complies with the requirements of the law.

Disability advocates have long argued that websites fall within the ADA's definition of places of public accommodation and should therefore be held to the statute's requirements for accessibility. In fact, as early as 1996, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has advised that the ADA does apply to the internet. The Civil Rights division even publishes a guide for creating accessible state and local government websites.

In a session at the 2005 CALI Conference (which included an excellent summary of the accessibility redesign project at the University of New Mexico School of Law Library), Steven Perkins of the University of Houston reported that only a small number of law library websites comply with accessibility guidelines provided by the World Wide Web Consortium. If Judge Patel's ruling is upheld on appeal, the implications will be significant for web developers, including those working in law libraries. With more and more library services moving to online formats, accessibility will continue to increase in importance.