lawsuit

Fifty Years of Hard-Won Rights Are on the Line: The Fight to Save Section 504

by

Published in support of the National Federation of the Blind‘s March 2026 call to action.

There is a lawsuit moving quietly through the American legal system right now that could undo five decades of civil rights progress for tens of millions of disabled Americans. It is called Texas v. Kennedy, and if you haven’t heard of it yet, that is exactly the problem.

The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) is sounding the alarm — and asking all of us, disabled or not, to pick up the phone and write the email. Here is why this matters, what is at stake, and exactly what you can do about it today.

The Law That Changed Everything

In 1973, Congress passed Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — the first federal law in American history to prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. Its principle was simple and radical: no person with a disability could be excluded from, denied the benefits of, or discriminated against in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

In the decades since, Section 504 has meant that a blind child has the legal right to accessible materials in a federally funded school. That a wheelchair user cannot be turned away from a government building. That a disabled employee at a federally funded organization has recourse against discrimination. It was the direct legal precursor to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 — one of the most important civil rights laws ever enacted in this country.

Section 504 is not a technicality. It is the legal backbone of disabled life in America.

What Texas v. Kennedy Threatens

The Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit, filed by a coalition of nine states led by Texas, challenges the federal government’s authority to enforce Section 504 as currently written and applied. According to the NFB’s official call to action issued in March 2026, the lawsuit “risks weakening or eliminating key protections that blind people in the United States rely on every day,” endangering access to “education, employment, public services, and other essential opportunities.” [National Federation of the Blind, March 2026]

If the plaintiffs prevail, the federal government’s ability to require accessibility accommodations, enforce non-discrimination standards, and hold federally funded institutions accountable could be dramatically curtailed. Schools could reduce or eliminate accommodations for disabled students. Employers at federally funded institutions could discriminate against disabled workers. Public services millions of people depend upon every day could become legally inaccessible without meaningful federal recourse.

The implications reach beyond Section 504 itself. The legal theory at the heart of this case — that federal authority to attach civil rights conditions to federal funding is constitutionally limited — could set a precedent that weakens enforcement of other civil rights statutes as well. This is not simply a disability rights issue. It is a civil rights issue for every American.

The Nine States Behind This Lawsuit

The following nine states are currently party to Texas v. Kennedy:

  • Texas
  • Alaska
  • Florida
  • Indiana
  • Kansas
  • Louisiana
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • South Dakota

The NFB has already organized nine of its state affiliates to write directly to their respective attorneys general urging withdrawal from the case. [NFB Letter from Nine Affiliates, March 2026] Now it is time for the broader public to join that effort.

Why Your Letter or Call Can Actually Change the Outcome

It is easy to feel that a single email cannot change the course of a federal lawsuit. But that thinking misunderstands how political and legal pressure actually works.

Attorneys general and governors are elected officials. They are acutely sensitive to constituent opinion, organized public pressure, and the reputational cost of being seen as attacking the civil rights of disabled citizens. When thousands of letters arrive, when inboxes fill and phone lines ring, when local and national media begin covering a public outcry, political calculations change. Officials who joined this lawsuit made a choice. Sustained constituent pressure helps them make a different one.

Beyond the direct political impact, a documented record of public opposition shapes how officials talk about the case publicly, how they respond to press inquiries, and whether withdrawal begins to look like the politically prudent path. The history of American civil rights is full of moments where ordinary people writing ordinary letters tipped the balance. This is one of those moments.

If You Live in One of the Nine States: Contact Your Officials Now

If you are a resident of any of the nine states party to this lawsuit, your message carries the most direct political weight. Please contact your state attorney general and urge them to withdraw your state from Texas v. Kennedy immediately.

Here are the direct contact emails provided by the NFB [NFB Call to Action, March 2026]:

When you call or write, here is what to say (adapted from the NFB’s suggested message [NFB, March 2026]):

“Hello, my name is [Your Name], and I am a constituent. I am writing to urge you to withdraw our state from the Texas v. Kennedy lawsuit. This lawsuit threatens Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — a critical civil rights protection that ensures equal access for blind and disabled Americans in education, employment, and public life. Weakening Section 504 would cause real, lasting harm to real people in our state. Please take immediate action to remove us from this harmful lawsuit. Thank you.”

Make it personal if you can. Tell them about a family member who depends on accessible education. A friend who relies on workplace accommodations. A neighbor whose independence would be threatened. Officials remember letters that put a human face on the law.

If You Live Outside the Nine States: Contact Texas Directly

Texas is the lead plaintiff and the political engine driving this lawsuit. Even if you are not a Texan, contacting the Texas Attorney General’s office sends a clear signal that this case has drawn national attention and national opposition.

Texas Attorney General: kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov

Tell them that people across the country are watching this case, and that the disability community — and everyone who supports civil rights — expects better.

Share This. Amplify This. Don’t Wait.

The NFB’s call to action is clear: “Your voice is critical. Every message sent and every phone call made helps demonstrate that blind Americans will not stand by while our civil rights are threatened.” [NFB, March 2026]

But this fight belongs to all of us. Forward this article. Post it. Print it out for someone who needs it. Bring it up at your church, your school, your community organization. The officials who signed their states onto this lawsuit are counting on public silence. Let’s make sure they don’t get it.

Section 504 is a promise America made to its disabled citizens fifty years ago. Let’s hold the line together.

Sources & Further Reading

For more information, contact the National Federation of the Blind at 410-659-9314 or visit nfb.org.

The Digital Door Is Closing on Disabled Americans: Please Help Us Keep It Open

by

Imagine you are blind. Your child has a disability. The school district has just posted crucial updates to its website about your son’s Individualized Education Program — his IEP, the legally mandated document that governs every support, accommodation, and service your child is supposed to receive in school. You open the site. Your screen reader — the software that speaks text aloud so you can navigate a world built for sighted people — hits a wall. Images have no descriptions. Forms won’t load. Buttons have no labels. You click again and again, trapped in a digital maze with no exit.

Now imagine learning that your tax dollars paid for that website.

This is not a hypothetical. This is the daily reality for millions of Americans with disabilities. And right now, the federal government is moving to weaken a rule that was specifically designed to end this kind of exclusion.

We are asking you — disabled people, parents, family members, friends, teachers, healthcare workers, religious leaders, and every person of conscience — to take one action: request a virtual meeting with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) and tell them to leave the 2024 Title II accessibility rule intact.

Click here to request a meeting.

What Is Happening and Why It Matters

In April 2024, after decades of advocacy by disabled people and their allies, the U.S. Department of Justice finalized a rule under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requiring state and local governments to make their websites and mobile applications accessible to people with disabilities. The technical standard adopted — the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, version 2.1, Level AA (known as WCAG 2.1 AA) — is an internationally recognized benchmark. For large government entities serving populations of 50,000 or more, the compliance deadline is April 24, 2026.

This rule was hard-won. The DOJ has recognized since at least 2003 that state and local government websites must be accessible under the ADA. The 2024 rule finally put concrete, enforceable teeth into that obligation.

But on February 13, 2026, OIRA — the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an arm of the Office of Management and Budget — published a notice revealing that the Department of Justice had submitted a revised rule to OIRA as an “Interim Final Rule,” or IFR. Unlike a proposed rulemaking, an IFR does not require a public comment period. The public has not been shown what revisions are being proposed. This has never been done before with an accessibility regulation.

The changes could push back or eliminate the April 2026 deadline. They could hollow out other requirements. No one outside the agencies knows yet.

What we do know is this: anyone can request a virtual meeting with OIRA under Executive Order 12866 to explain why the rule matters and should not be changed. The agency is not required to grant a meeting, and a meeting does not guarantee an outcome. But if thousands of people and organizations step forward, their voices will be on the record — and in any future legal challenge to changes in the rule, that record may matter enormously.

The deadline is urgent. The April 24 compliance date for large governments is weeks away.

The Price of Inaccessibility: A Door Slammed in Your Face

When a government website is inaccessible to a blind person, it isn’t a minor inconvenience. It is the digital equivalent of a flight of stairs at the entrance of a government building — it says, without apology, you do not belong here.

Seven out of ten blind people report being unable to access information and services through government websites. Two-thirds of internet transactions initiated by people with vision impairments end in abandonment because the websites they visit are not accessible enough.

Consider what those transactions represent. They are not online shopping. They are applications for Medicaid. They are searches for food assistance. They are registration for school services for disabled children. They are requests for healthcare accommodations. They are the mechanisms through which citizens — including disabled citizens who are fully taxpaying members of their communities — participate in public life.

Inaccessible websites and mobile apps can make it difficult or impossible for people with disabilities to access government services, like ordering mail-in ballots or getting tax information, that are quickly and easily available to other members of the public online. They can keep people with disabilities from joining or fully participating in civic or other community events like town meetings or programs at their child’s school.

The harm is not abstract. During the COVID-19 pandemic, in at least seven states, blind residents said they were unable to register for the vaccine through their state or local governments without help. Phone alternatives, when available, were beset with long hold times and were not available at all hours like websites. “This is outrageous,” declared one disability advocate at the time, noting that blind people were being denied the ability to access something to get vaccinated during a public health emergency.

The Taxpayer Injustice

Here is something that should make every American’s blood boil, regardless of disability status.

The overwhelming majority of state and local government websites — the portals that serve parks departments, public schools, health departments, voting offices, libraries, transit authorities, courts, and social services — are funded by taxpayers. Property taxes. Sales taxes. Income taxes. Every resident pays into the system that builds and maintains these digital public squares.

Blind taxpayers pay these taxes. Deaf taxpayers pay these taxes. People with physical, cognitive, and neurological disabilities pay these taxes. And then, in far too many cases, they are locked out of the very websites and apps their money built.

This is not just bad policy. It is a profound ethical failure. It is taxation without representation. It is saying to an entire class of citizens: you will fund this, but you will not be allowed to use it.

The 2024 rule was an attempt to right this wrong — to ensure that when government spends public money on digital infrastructure, all the public can actually use it. Weakening or delaying this rule is a choice to perpetuate that injustice.

When Inaccessibility Has Real Consequences: Maria’s Story

Maria, a blind mother of two in a mid-sized American city, spent three days trying to access her daughter’s school district website after her daughter — who has a learning disability — was referred for a special education evaluation. The site, like most school district websites of its era, was built without accessibility in mind.

The forms to request records were PDF images — effectively photographs of documents, invisible to a screen reader. The contact directory was a graphic with no text alternative. The link to the district’s special education office was buried in a nested navigation menu that her screen reader could not parse. When she finally found a phone number and called, she was told to visit the website.

Maria’s story is representative. Administrative burdens — including inaccessible and poorly designed websites and complex application processes — cause real, lasting harm to disabled Americans, making it difficult to navigate a system that is supposed to help them cover basic necessities such as food, housing, and medical treatments. For a blind parent trying to advocate for a disabled child in a system that was never built with either of them in mind, the barriers compound each other into something that can feel insurmountable.

Maria eventually got help — from a sighted neighbor who could access the forms on her behalf. But consider what that means. A blind mother, exercising her legal rights on behalf of her disabled child, was forced to surrender her privacy and independence to a third party because a taxpayer-funded website could not do what basic accessibility standards would have required. Her child’s educational rights, her own dignity, and her family’s confidentiality were all casualties of inaccessibility.

When Accessibility Is Won: Angela Fowler’s Story

The story does not have to end in barriers. When accessibility is fought for and won, careers are saved, lives change, and the principle of equal access becomes real rather than rhetorical.

Angela Fowler had worked hard her entire life. She was a longtime member of the National Federation of the Blind, and she had earned a provisional job offer from an insurance carrier — contingent on passing California’s online insurance agent licensing exam. It should have been the next step in a promising career. Instead, it became a wall.

When Fowler sat down to take the state-administered exam, she discovered that the online testing platform used by the California Department of Insurance was completely inaccessible to her screen reader. She could not navigate it. She could not take the test. And when she asked the state to simply make the platform accessible — as California’s own disability access laws required — she was told she would first need to submit her private medical records to justify using a screen reader. Nondisabled applicants were not required to do anything of the sort. The process dragged on. The job offer she had worked toward disappeared.

In 2021, Fowler, joined by a second blind applicant named Miguel Mendez and later the National Federation of the Blind, filed suit against the California Department of Insurance and its testing vendor, PSI Services LLC. The case, Fowler et al. v. PSI Services LLC and California Department of Insurance, was a landmark disability rights action. It argued the obvious: that a state-run licensing examination system must be independently usable by blind applicants who use screen readers — without extra hoops, without burdensome medical documentation requirements, and without segregation from the testing experience available to everyone else.

In August 2024, the case settled. Under the agreement, the California Department of Insurance agreed to no longer require blind or low-vision test-takers who use screen access software to first provide medical documentation. Blind and low-vision test-takers who use screen readers gained access to the same examination scheduling options as those offered to others without disabilities.

NFB President Mark Riccobono called it a meaningful step toward a society that provides equal opportunity to everyone. Attorney Timothy Elder of TRE Legal Practice put it plainly: this case establishes that people who depend on assistive technology should not need a doctor’s note before they can expect an accessibly designed online exam.

Angela Fowler lost the job she had earned. But her fight — her refusal to accept that a government-run system could simply exclude her — ensured that the next blind person who wants to become an insurance agent in California will not face what she faced. That is what accessibility wins look like. That is what is at stake.

The 2024 rule was not asking for perfection. It was asking for a reasonable, internationally recognized standard. It was asking that government — of the people, by the people, for all of the people — actually serve all of the people.

A Word to Every Parent

If you have a disabled child, this message is for you.

You already know what it means to fight for your child in systems that were not built for them. You’ve sat in IEP meetings, argued with insurance companies, driven across town to accessible playgrounds, and spent countless hours researching, advocating, and never giving up.

The 2024 rule was a victory for you and your child. It said: the school district’s website that posts your child’s rights, their services, their calendar, their teacher contacts — that website must be accessible to you, whether you have low vision, blindness, cognitive differences, or any other disability. It said your child deserves parents who can access every digital tool that other parents take for granted.

If that rule is weakened or delayed, it is your child who loses. The IEP portal that you can’t open. The therapy scheduling app that won’t work with your screen reader. The school board meeting you couldn’t participate in because the registration link was broken.

Please. Request a meeting with OIRA. Tell them what your family’s digital access means to you. Tell them that your disabled child deserves parents who can fight for them with the same tools as everyone else.

Request a meeting here.

A Word to Every Friend and Ally

If you have a disabled friend — someone you love, laugh with, and care about — and you call yourself their ally, this is the moment that word is tested.

Disability is not a narrative device. It is not a cause for pity. It is a part of human experience shared by one in four Americans, including people who are brilliant, creative, funny, accomplished, and fully deserving of every digital door that the rest of the world walks through without a second thought.

When your blind friend cannot apply for transit benefits on her phone because the app is inaccessible, she is not experiencing a personal inconvenience. She is experiencing systematic exclusion. When your deaf colleague cannot watch the captionless public health video his county just posted, he is being told — by his own government — that he is not important enough to include.

Allyship means showing up when the stakes are real, not just retweeting hashtags. Requesting a five-minute virtual meeting with a federal regulatory office is one of the lowest-barrier, highest-impact things you can do right now for every disabled person in your life.

Do it because you love them. Do it because they would do it for you.

A Word to Teachers, Educators, and Healthcare Workers

You chose your profession because you believe in the dignity and potential of every person you serve. Every day, you work to ensure that students with disabilities get the education they deserve, that patients with disabilities receive the care they need.

But your work is undermined when the digital tools that are supposed to support it are inaccessible. A teacher of blind students who cannot access the district’s curriculum portal. A school counselor who cannot help a deaf student register for services online. A social worker who cannot guide a disabled client through a state benefits application because the site won’t work with assistive technology.

The 2024 rule would have made these failures less common. Weakening it makes them more so.

You have professional standing. You have community standing. A message from an educator or healthcare provider to OIRA carries weight. Please use it.

A Word to Religious Leaders — and to the Faithful

Every major world religion calls its followers to care for the vulnerable, to remove obstacles from the paths of those who struggle, and to treat all people as beings of sacred worth.

The Hebrew Bible commands, in Leviticus 19:14: “You shall not curse the deaf or place a stumbling block before the blind.” Jewish tradition teaches that stumbling blocks come in many forms — from inaccessible buildings to health care that is harder to access — and that we are obligated to remove them. The Torah repeatedly instructs: “If there be among you a person with needs, you shall not harden your heart, but you shall surely open your hand.” (Deuteronomy 15:7)

The Gospel of Luke records Jesus saying that when you give a feast, you should invite those who cannot repay you — the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind — “and you will be blessed.” (Luke 14:13–14) In Matthew 25:40, Jesus declares: “Whatever you did for the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Turning away from the exclusion of disabled people is, in this framework, turning away from Christ himself.

In Islamic teaching, the Prophet Muhammad said: “If you want to find me, find me amongst the weak, because you are not given victory or aid from Allah except by the way that you treat those who are weak and oppressed.” The Quran directly addresses the treatment of blind people: in Surah Abasa (80:1–10), Allah rebukes the Prophet for turning away from a blind man who came seeking knowledge, teaching that every person — regardless of ability — deserves full attention and dignity. A Hadith states: “Cursed is the one who misleads a blind person away from his path” (Sunan Abu Dawud 2594) — understood both as an individual prohibition and a communal warning: a society that does not respect or care for those with special needs will be cursed.

In Buddhist teaching, karuna — compassion — is one of the four divine abodes, a foundational virtue applied without distinction to all beings. The Hindu concept of seva, selfless service, calls the faithful to act on behalf of those who are vulnerable. In the Sikh tradition, sewa — selfless service — is among the highest moral obligations.

If your faith calls you to love your neighbor, then your neighbor includes every blind person who cannot open a government website, every deaf person who cannot watch a public health video without captions, every person with a cognitive disability who cannot navigate a form that was built without them in mind.

Religious leaders: preach this. Organize your congregations. Help your laypeople understand that accessibility is a moral issue, not a technical one. Encourage every member of your community to request a meeting with OIRA. This is the work of faith made concrete.

What You Need to Do Right Now

Requesting a meeting with OIRA is straightforward. Here is how:

  1. Go to this link: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eo/neweomeeting?rin=1190-AA82
  2. Provide your name, email, and phone number. You will receive a confirmation with a link to schedule your virtual meeting.
  3. When prompted, describe what you will present. You do not need legal language. You do not need to be an expert. Write in plain language. You might say things like:
    • How inaccessible government websites have affected you or your family member
    • Why the April 2026 deadline matters and should not be extended
    • What specific government services — parks, schools, libraries, health departments, voting — you depend on and need to be accessible
    • That the DOJ has recognized since 2003 that government websites must be accessible under the ADA, and this rule simply puts concrete standards to a long-standing obligation
    • That many state and local governments are already in compliance with the rule — and that following it has actually helped lower their costs over time
  4. You can request a meeting as an individual or on behalf of an organization. Both matter. The more voices, the stronger the record.
  5. Share this article. Send it to parents, teachers, pastors, imams, rabbis, priests, coaches, neighbors, and friends. Post it on social media. Read it aloud to someone who cannot read it themselves. The power of this moment lies entirely in how many people choose to show up.

The Rule Is Still the Rule — Until It Isn’t

It bears repeating: as of the publication of this article, the 2024 Title II accessibility rule is still in effect. The ADA still requires that state and local government websites and apps be accessible to disabled people. No change has yet been made.

But “not yet” is not “never.” An Interim Final Rule process moves quickly. Changes could come before the April 24 deadline. The window for public voices to be heard is narrow.

We have waited long enough. Disabled people have waited decades for a digital world that includes them. We have watched as every other aspect of public life went online — voting, education, healthcare, civic participation — and watched as too much of it was built without us.

We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for access to what everyone else already has.

We are asking for the right to open the door.

Please, request your meeting today. For yourself. For your child. For your friend. For your neighbor. For the blind grandmother who cannot access her county health department’s website. For the deaf father who cannot watch the public school board meeting. For every disabled person who has ever stared at a screen that stared back — blank, impassable, indifferent.

This is the moment. The door is still open. Let’s make sure it stays that way.

Request Your OIRA Meeting Now →

Blind Access Journal covers accessibility, disability rights, and assistive technology. We are grateful to disability rights attorney Lainey Feingold, whose legal analysis at lflegal.com provided essential background for this article. We encourage all readers to visit her site for in-depth legal context and additional resources.

The Americans with Disabilities Act continues to require accessible websites and apps regardless of any changes to the 2024 rule. The fight for digital inclusion continues.

Sources

  1. Feingold, Lainey. “Tell the Federal Government Not to Change the Title II Accessibility Regulations.” Law Office of Lainey Feingold, March 2, 2026. https://www.lflegal.com/2026/03/title-ii-action-needed/
  2. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). “Pending EO 12866 Regulatory Review — RIN 1190-AA82.” Reginfo.gov, February 13, 2026. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=1282112
  3. OIRA Meeting Request Portal — EO 12866 Virtual Meeting Request (RIN 1190-AA82). https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eo/neweomeeting?rin=1190-AA82
  4. U.S. Department of Justice. “Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities — Final Rule.” Federal Register, April 24, 2024. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/24/2024-07758/accessibility-of-web-information-and-services-of-state-and-local-government-entities
  5. Settlement Agreement: Fowler v. PSIhttps://dralegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Settlement-Agreement-Fowler_fully-executed_Accessible.pdf
  6. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), June 5, 2018. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/
  7. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Leviticus 19:14. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/leviticus/19-14.htm
  8. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Deuteronomy 15:7. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/deuteronomy/15-7.htm
  9. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Luke 14:13–14. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/luke/14-13.htm
  10. The Holy Bible, New International Version. Matthew 25:40. BibleHub. https://www.biblehub.com/matthew/25-40.htm
  11. The Quran. Surah Abasa (80:1–10). Quran.com. https://quran.com/80
  12. Hadith. Sunan Abu Dawud 2594: “Cursed is the one who misleads a blind person away from his path.” Sunnah.com. https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2594
  13. Hadith. Narrated by Abu Darda: Prophet Muhammad on seeking victory through the weak and oppressed. Sunan Abu Dawud 2594. Sunnah.com. https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2594
  14. Feingold, Lainey. “Title II Web and Mobile Technical Accessibility Standards: History + Current Status.” Law Office of Lainey Feingold, originally published 2022, updated 2026. https://www.lflegal.com/2022/08/doj-web-regs-announce/

There Should be Compensation and Remediation for the Real Damages Inaccessibility Causes

by

I just thought I would respond to Chris Hofstader’s excellent article Stop The ADA Trolls.

While I certainly agree we shouldn’t be supporting these accessibility lawsuit trolls, I also do not feel we should be defending companies that have less-than-stellar
accessibility records. If a company has consistently failed to acknowledge accessibility advocacy and act positively to address accessibility concerns,
why shouldn’t we just leave them to be eaten by the wolves?

You see… I believe there are real damages caused by inaccessibility, and I feel we should, actually, consider a more aggressive approach toward companies
that consistently ignore us.

Blind people lose their jobs due to inaccessible software. Blind children miss out on educational opportunities due to inaccessible educational technology used in the classroom. Inaccessible apps in the new sharing economy result in a complete denial of service, which clearly counts as discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act here in the United States and other similar laws around the world. There are so many other inexcusable ways blind people are excluded because of inaccessibility. How can we put a stop to this discrimination?

Here’s how I see all this working:

  1. Blind people have been consistently advocating with a company for full inclusion / equal accessibility, but the advocacy has been completely or substantively ignored.
  2. A case is opened and documented with an accessibility advocacy clearinghouse that tracks and reports accessibility advocacy efforts and their results, or lack of effective action.
  3. A letter is sent to the company’s CEO outlining the concerns and clearly asking for equal accessibility.
  4. One or more blind persons file a lawsuit against the offending company asking for equal accessibility and for serious monetary damages, including not only the inaccessibility itself, but also for the emotional distress / pain and suffering it has caused.
  5. The lawfirm filing the suit subpoenas evidence, including the documentation from the case filed in step 2 and the letter sent in step 3.
  6. The process continues, on and on, with company after company, in a systematic and transparent manner, until we, possibly, achieve real results!

That’s right! I think the lawsuits should most certainly be filed, because companies are wrong to continue excluding us, but I think it should all be done
in a clear, above-board manner.

Lawsuit Leads to Reconsideration of Patent

by

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has re-examined a patent held by the maker of a screen reader for blind computer users in connection with an infringement lawsuit filed against a competing company. Reliable sources hailed the move as a significant victory for the defendant.

The Document Placemarker patent, held by Freedom Scientific, Inc., covers a specialized screen reading capability that allows a blind person to save their position on a Web page and return to the same place at a later time. The company’s Job Access With Speech (JAWS) screen reading software incorporates this feature.

In a July 15, 2008 complaint filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, the self-proclaimed “world’s leading manufacturer of assistive technology products for those who are vision impaired” accused GW Micro, the maker of the competing Window-Eyes screen reader, of deliberate patent infringement, claiming their placemarker technology is the same as that described in the patent. According to court documents, Freedom Scientific is seeking an injunction requiring GW Micro to stop including the placemarker feature in their product, asks for significant unspecified financial compensation for the infringement and requests recovery of legal fees.

“I believe that this technology shouldn’t have been patented to begin with,” said Doug Geoffray, Vice President of Development with GW Micro, Inc. “It obviously was around way before what they’ve done. We have stated that our version, Window-Eyes 3.1 back in 1999, had previous position capability.”

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office agreed. In a re-examination of Freedom Scientific’s patent, at the request of GW Micro’s attorneys, the office rejected all claims to the invention.

“A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States,” stated a published document describing the re-examination as the basis for the patent’s rejection on the grounds that the technology had already been invented.

The document also cited two existing patents and the availability of IBM’s Home Page Reader, a product employing place marker technology prior to the Freedom Scientific patent, in its reasoning behind the decision.

“We take that as a positive sign,” Geoffray said.

“It’s a victory,” said Dennis Karjala, Jack E. Brown Professor of Law, Faculty Fellow, Center for the Study of Law, Science, & Technology at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. “There’s no question that, if the re-examination decision is upheld, that’s the end of it. There is no patent.”

He said Freedom Scientific may still have some cards to play in this case.

“The patent owner in a re-examination proceeding may appeal,” Karjala said. “It goes to an appeals board within the Patent Office and then they can later seek judicial review. This thing could go on for awhile.”

According to the re-examination document, the Patent Office must receive a response from Freedom Scientific by Oct. 28 if it wishes to appeal the decision.

Karjala said the legal trend points to a probable GW Micro victory.

“Because the Supreme Court has been reviewing so many of their cases with an obvious eye to overturning them, the Patent Office is pretty sensitive now that they’re being accused of being too patent friendly,” said Karjala. “My guess is once you got a ruling by the examiner that the patent is invalid, I’d say the chances are pretty good it will be upheld by the board in the Patent Office. If it’s upheld by the board, the chances that a court would overturn it in this atmosphere are pretty slim.”

Freedom Scientific representatives declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.

Notes:

  • The examiner cited Patent 6085161 describing the invention of a system for assigning and playing specific sounds when a Web page changes or the user encounters a specific Web page element such as a header or list. All of the claims in Freedom Scientific’s patent were rejected based on the positioning techniques described in this “sonification” system.

  • The examiner also cited Patent 7058887 describing a means of determining the position on a Web page according to user-defined settings, including the page’s domain. This IBM patent was referenced in the re-examination as clarification for the rejection of the sixth claim.

  • The examiner also referred to the IBM Home Page Reader Version 2.5 Manual.

  • Ex Parte Re-examination, Control Number 90/010,473, Central Re-examination Unit, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Visit the Patent Application Information Retrieval Web site and enter the specified control number to obtain this document. The Patent Office provides this document only in scanned image PDF, which is inaccessible to blind readers. An accessible copy of this document has been made available using Kurzweil K1000 Version 11.03 optical character recognition software.

  • An accessible copy of Freedom Scientific’s complaint was made available in the July 24, 2008 article about the lawsuit.

Good Thursday TV Coverage of the Kindle Lawsuit

by

At around 4:00 Thursday afternoon, I was contacted by Melissa Blasius with Channel 12 News in Phoenix and asked if I could be available at 5:30 to be interviewed for a story that would run on the 10:00 newscast. I discovered I could prepare myself and make the necessary transportation arrangements for this sort of work within one hour after receiving the request.

You may now watch the video of the story on the 10:00 evening news. An article was also written based on this story, though its text is significantly different from the dialogue on the newscast. A copy of the article’s text is provided for easy accessibility.

My thanks go to Chris Skarstad (Toonhead) and CathyAnne Murtha of the Access Technology Institute for their vital assistance making it possible to bring to all of you a direct link to the video despite accessibility issues with the 12 News web site.

Lawsuit says ASU discriminates by using e-books

by Melissa Blasius – Jul. 2, 2009 11:13 PM

12 News

A journalism student has filed a discrimination lawsuit against Arizona State University.

Darrell Shandrow, a junior, wants the university to delay a pilot program for electronic textbooks and readers called Kindles. He says the devices, made by Amazon, are impossible to use by visually-impaired people.

Sandrow, who is blind, says Kindles have a text-to-audio function that can read the books out loud, but he claims on-screen menus have no audio functions. That means he could never navigate to page one. Blind students would have to continue ordering specialty texts in braille or audio formats, and those books can take months to arrive.

Shandrow said, “Asking us to continue on as we’re going is like saying to sighted students you are climbing on to jet age with your e-books, but blind students still need to use the horse and buggy.”

The National Federation of the Blind and the American Council of the Blind are also plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which claims ASU’s use of Kindles would put blind students on unequal footing.

An ASU spokesman sent a response to 12 News. It said Kindles would be used “for a single course where students may also access traditional textbooks.”

In the statement, Spokesman Virgil Renzulli also said all campuses have Disability Resource Centers “providing the necessary tools so that all students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to be successful in their academic pursuits.”

Positive TV News Coverage of the Kindle Lawsuit Against ASU

by

Shortly after 9:00 Tuesday morning, I was contacted by Tim Vetscher with Channel 15, a local ABC affiliate in Phoenix, and asked to participate in a story on the Kindle lawsuit. He picked me up at 10:15 and we went to a nearby bar-restaurant establishment called Four Peaks Brewry, where he and Toby Phillips, a senior broadcast journalism major at the Cronkite School, talked with me for almost 45 minutes. The interview included a demonstration of Braille reading and accessible technology, part of which made it into the TV story.

After viewing the story, Chris Danielsen, director of public relations for the National Federation of the Blind, said: “Nice job on this. I see that they didn’t get the nuance that books can be read aloud by the Kindle DX; it’s the navigation that’s not accessible. Still, I think we got our point across.”

The story ran on the 6:00 evening newscast. I am happy to report that you can now watch the video or read the transcript below.

Reported by: Tim Vetscher

Email: tvetscher@abc15.com

Darrell Shandrow, a junior at ASU, is suing the university over its use of the Amazon Kindle for textbooks. (Tim Vetscher)

TEMPE, AZ — A student at Arizona State University is suing the school over a new electronic textbook reader.

Junior Darrell Shandrow calls ASU’s new pilot program to use the Amazon Kindle e-book reader in some classes this fall discrimination.

“I believe it’s important for blind and visually impaired people to have the same opportunity to participate the sighted already enjoy,” said Shandrow.

Even though he can’t see, Shandrow doesn’t shy away from technology.

Thanks to a screen reading program, Shandrow uses a labtop computer that talks to him and tells him what’s on the screen.

That kind of accessibility, Shandrow says, helps him to attend ASU, where he’s a junior in the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

When ASU announced plans to begin using the Amazon Kindle as a textbook reader, Shandrow immediately had concerns.

“It’s saying we’re giving sighted students a new avenue for reading but we’re not granting the same facility to blind and visually impaired students,”
said Shandrow.

Shandrow claims the Kindle lacks text-to-speech technology and therefore makes it accessible only to sighted students.

So Shandrow filed a lawsuit against ASU hoping to stop the use of the Kindle.

“We want the pilot program, we just want it to be accessible,” said Shandrow.

An ASU spokesperson released the following statement to ABC15: “Arizona State University is committed to equal access for all students. Disability Resource Centers are located on all ASU campuses. The Centers enable students to establish eligibility and obtain services and accommodations for qualified students with disabilities. These efforts are focused on providing the necessary tools so that all students with disabilities have an equal opportunity to be successful in their academic pursuits.”

“I feel the need for equal accessibility, that is to have an accessible Kindle reading device and accessible books, is a civil right,” said Shandrow.

Amazon claims to be working on adding navigation accessible to the blind for the Kindle.

Shandrow says until that happens, the Kindle e-book reader should be shelved.

In the interest of full disclosure, reporter Tim Vetscher is an adjunct professor at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Arizona State University.

Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction Against ASU and the Arizona Board of Regents

by

In keeping with our tradition of accessibility and openness, we are glad to provide full plain-text copies of the complaint and the motion for a preliminary injunction against ASU and the Arizona Board of Regents to prevent use of the inaccessible Kindle in an upcoming fall semester university pilot program.

Complaint

Accessible copy of the complaint (The NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, The AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, and DARRELL SHANDROW vs. The ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS and ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY) for discrimination against blind and visually impaired students under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Accessible copy of the motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to immediately stop ASU from implementing the pilot program at the beginning of the fall semester on August 24 while the complaint goes forward.

Darrell Shandrow Joins ACB and NFB to File Discrimination Suit Against ASU Over Inaccessible Amazon Kindle DX Pilot Program

by

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT:

  • Chris Danielsen

  • Director of Public Relations

  • National Federation of the Blind

  • (410) 659-9314, extension 2330

  • (410) 262-1281 (Cell)

  • cdanielsen@nfb.org

National Federation of the Blind and American Council of the Blind File Discrimination Suit Against Arizona State University

University’s Amazon Kindle DX Pilot Program Discriminates Against the Blind

Tempe, Arizona (June 25, 2009): The National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and the American Council of the Blind (ACB) filed suit today against Arizona State University (ASU) to prevent the university from deploying Amazon’s Kindle DX electronic reading device as a means of distributing electronic textbooks to its students because the device cannot be used by blind students. Darrell Shandrow, a blind ASU student, is also a named plaintiff in the action. The Kindle DX features text-to-speech technology that can read textbooks aloud to blind students. The menus of the device are not accessible to the blind, however, making it impossible for a blind user to purchase books from Amazon’s Kindle store, select a book to read, activate the text-to-speech feature, and use the advanced reading functions available on the Kindle DX. In addition to ASU, five other institutions of higher education are deploying the Kindle DX as part of a pilot project to assess the role of electronic textbooks and reading devices in the classroom. The NFB and ACB have also filed complaints with the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education and the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, asking for investigations of these five institutions, which are: Case Western Reserve University, the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia, Pace University, Princeton University, and Reed College. The lawsuit and complaints allege violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, said: “Given the highly-advanced technology involved, there is no good reason that Amazon’s Kindle DX device should be inaccessible to blind students. Amazon could have used the same text-to-speech technology that reads e-books on the device aloud to make its menus accessible to the blind, but it chose not to do so. Worse yet, six American higher education institutions that are subject to federal laws requiring that they not discriminate against students with disabilities plan to deploy this device, even though they know that it cannot be used by blind students. The National Federation of the Blind will not tolerate this unconscionable discrimination against and callous indifference to the right of blind students to receive an equal education. We hope that this situation can be rectified in a manner that allows this exciting new reading technology to be made available to blind and sighted students alike.”

Darrell Shandrow, a blind student pursuing a degree in journalism at ASU, said: “Not having access to the advanced reading features of the Kindle DX—including the ability to download books and course materials, add my own bookmarks and notes, and look up supplemental information instantly on the Internet when I encounter it in my reading—will lock me out of this new technology and put me and other blind students at a competitive disadvantage relative to our sighted peers. While my peers will have instant access to their course materials in electronic form, I will still have to wait weeks or months for accessible texts to be prepared for me, and these texts will not provide the access and features available to other students. That is why I am standing up for myself and with other blind Americans to end this blatant discrimination.”

GW Micro Response to Freedom Scientific Lawsuit

by

Fort Wayne, Indiana, August 15, 2008 — GW Micro, Inc., a Fort Wayne, Indiana-based company dedicated to providing high quality adaptive technology solutions for blind and visually impaired individuals, announced today that it has received notice of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Freedom Scientific, Inc., the self-described “world leader in technology-based solutions for people with visual impairments.” The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,993,707 for a “Document Placemarker.” GW Micro has reviewed the claim and believes it is overreaching and not consistent with what Freedom Scientific told the Patent Office when obtaining its patent. GW Micro intends to defend itself vigorously and expects to prevail in court. “As many of our users know, our screen reader — Window-Eyes — has had the capability of returning to a specific line within a webpage since version 3.1, which was released over nine years ago, well before Freedom Scientific’s alleged invention,” said Dan Weirich, GW Micro’s Corporate President. Weirich went on to note that, “The implication in a recent Freedom Scientific press release that GW Micro is ‘benefiting from [Freedom Scientific’s] investment at no charge’ is simply not accurate nor in line with GW Micro’s tradition of success and fair play.” Finally, Weirich concluded, “We will aggressively defend both our legal position and our place in the assistive technology community.”

Daniel R. Weirich

GW Micro, Inc.

725 Airport North Office Park

Fort Wayne, IN 46825

ph 260-489-3671

www.gwmicro.com