* Book Review Editor, Boston College Third World Law Journal (2001–2002).
1 Michael Ashley Stein, From Crippled to Disabled: The Legal Empowerment of Americans with Disabilities, 43 Emory L.J. 245, 246 (1994).
2 See Marc D. Stolman, A Guide to Legal Rights for People with Disabilities 2 (1994).
3 See Senator Tom Harkin, The Americans with Disabilities Act Ten Years Later: A Framework for the Future, 85 Iowa L. Rev. 1575 (2000).
4 See Stolman, supra note 2, at 2.
5 See id. at 6; Mary Gannon, The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and its Effect upon Employment Law, 16 J. Corp. L. 315, 316 (1991); Dana Whitehead McKee & Deborah Fleischaker, ADA and the Internet: Must Websites Be Accessible, 33 Md. Bar J. 34, 35 (2000).
6 See Patrick Maroney, The Wrong Tool for the Right Job, 2 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 191, 195 (2000).
7 See Sally McGrane, Is the Web Truly Accessible to the Disabled?, at http://home.cnet.com/ specialreports/0–6014–7–1530073.html (Jan. 26, 2000). CNET Networks, Inc. (Nasdaq: CNET), is the global source of information and commerce services for the technology industry.
8 See id.; Maroney, supra note 6, at 192.
9 See Maroney, supra note 6, at 192; McGrane, supra note 7.
10 See McGrane, supra note 7.
11 See id.
12 See Curtis Chong, Making Your Website Accessible to the Blind, at http://www.nfb.org/ tech/webacc.htm (Oct. 17, 2000).
13 See id.
14 See About WeMedia Inc., at http://www.wemedia.com/wehome (last visited Mar.. 13, 2002).
15 See id.
16 See id.
17 See Joshua Harris Prager, People with Disabilities Are Next Consumer Niche, available at http://www.wemedia.com/wehome (Dec. 15, 1999).
18See Complaint of National Federation of the Blind against America Online, available at http://www.libertyresources.org/ news/aol_1.html (last visited Apr. 12, 2002) [hereinafter Complaint]; Barbara Pierce, NFB Sues AOL, at http://204.245.133.32/bm/bm99/bm99 1201.htm (last visited Apr. 12, 2002).
19 See Jonathan Bick, Americans with Disabilities Act and the Internet, 10 Alb. L.J. Sci. & Tech. 205, 217 (2000); Pierce, supra note 18.
20 See National Federation of the Blind/America Online Accessibility Agreement, available at http://www.nfb.org/Tech/accessibility.htm (Jul. 26, 2000) [hereinafter Online Accessibility Agreement]; Bick, supra note 19, at 222.
21 See 42 U.S.C. � 12181 (1990). The ADA is broken up into five areas: Title I concerns employment practices by units of state and local government; Title II addresses programs, services, and activities of state and local government; Title III deals with public accommodations and commercial facilities; Title IV addresses telecommunication services; and Title V deals with miscellaneous provisions like construction, state immunity, attorney’s fees, etc. Id. See Bick, supra note 19, at 222 n.1.
22 42 U.S.C. � 12181. See generally Bick, supra note 19; Karen Volkman, The Limits of Coverage: Do Insurance Policies Obtained Through an Employer and Administered by Insurance Companies Fall Within the Scope of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act?, 43 St. Louis U. L.J. 249 (1999).
23 See Bick, supra note 19, at 207.
24 See Stephen Percy, Disability, Civil Rights and Public Policy (1989) (quoting Power, Privilege, and Law: A Civil Rights Reader 423 (Leslie Bender ed., 1995)).
25 See McKee & Fleischaker, supra note 5, at 35. See generally Matthew A. Stowe, Interpreting “Place of Public Accommodation” Under Title III of the ADA: A Technical Determination with Potentially Broad Civil Rights Implications, 50 Duke L.J. 297 (2000).
26 See Percy, supra note 24, at 423–25.
27 See Jeffrey A. Van Detta & Dr. Dan R. Gallipeau, Why Are So Many ADA Plaintiffs Losing Summary Judgment Motions, And Would They Fare Better Before a Jury? A Response to Professor Colker, 19 Rev. Litig. 505, 507 (2000).
28 See Stolman, supra note 2, at 3.
29 See Joseph P. Shapiro, No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement 59 (1993).
30 See id.
31 See id. at 60.
32 See id. at 61.
33 See Stolman, supra note 2, at 3.
34 See id.
35 See id. at 4.
36 29 U.S.C. � 704; 42 U.S.C. �� 2000 et. seq; see Shapiro, supra note 29, at 65; Bick, supra note 19, at 212; Gannon, supra note 5, at 318.
37 See Gannon, supra note 5, at 317.
38 See id. at 320–21.
39 See Allison Duncan, Defining Disability in the ADA: Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 60 La. L. Rev. 967, 968 (2000); Gannon, supra note 5, at 321.
40 See Gannon, supra note 5, at 321. The definition of disability in � 3(2) of the ADA is very similar to � 7(8)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 42 U.S.C. � 12101 (1990); 29 U.S.C. � 706 (8)(b) (1988). See id. The definition of handicap in � 7(8)(B) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is as follows:
any person who:
(i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities,
(ii) has a record of such an impairment, or
(iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.
29 U.S.C. � 706 (8)(b); see Gannon, supra note 5, at 321 n.64.
41 42 U.S.C. � 12101 et seq.; see Bick, supra note 19, at 213.
42 See 42 U.S.C. � 12102; Senator Larry E. Craig, The Americans with Disabilities Act: Prologue, Promise, Product, and Performance, 35 Idaho L. Rev. 205, 210 (1999).
43 42 U.S.C. �� 12181–12189.
44 See Volkman, supra note 22, at 254.
45 See H.R. Rep. No. 485, pt. 2, at 99 (1990); Volkman, supra note 22, at 253.
46 See S. Rep. No. 116, at 59 (1990); Volkman, supra note 22, at 253.
47 42 U.S.C. � 12182(a); see Craig, supra note 42, at 211.
48 See Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1010–11 (6th Cir. 1997); Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New Eng., 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994).
49 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); see Craig, supra note 42, at 211.
50 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); see Craig, supra note 42, at 211.
51 See Stowe, supra note 25, at 298.
52 See generally Bick, supra note 19.
53 See Doe v. Mutual of Omaha, 179 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1999); Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New Eng., 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994).
54 See BankAmerica Corp. v. United States, 462 U.S. 122, 128 (1983); Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19; Maroney, supra note 6, at 195.
55 See 42 U.S.C. � 12182(a) (1990); Bick, supra note 19, at 219.
56 See Bick, supra note 19, at 219; McKee & Fleischaker, supra note 5, at 35.
57 See Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19.
58 42 U.S.C. � 12181(7); see Bick, supra note 19, at 220.
59 42 U.S.C. � 12181(7)(f); see Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19.
60 See Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19; Maroney, supra note 6, at 194.
61 See 37 F.3d at 19.
62 See id.
63 See id.
64 See id.
65 See id.
66 See Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19.
67 See id.
68 See id. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals and numerous district courts have also followed the approach of Carparts in broadly interpreting Title III of the ADA. See Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 28, 31–33 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that “Title III’s mandate that the disabled be accorded ‘full and equal enjoyment of the goods, [and] services . . . of any place of public accommodation,’ suggests to us that the statute was meant to guarantee them more than mere physical access.”); Cloutier v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 964 F. Supp. 299, 302 (N.D. Cal. 1997); Kotev v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 927 F. Supp. 1316, 1321–22 (C.D. Cal. 1996); Winslow v. IDS Life Ins. Co., 29 F. Supp. 2d 557, 561–63 (D. Minn. 1988).
69 See Mutual of Omaha, 179 F.3d at 559.
70 See id.
71 See id.
72 See 121 F.3d 1006, 1014 (6th Cir. 1997); Maroney, supra note 6, at 195, 198.
73 See Maroney, supra note 6, at 195. The Sixth Circuit’s en banc decision contained two different dissents which were joined by three other judges. See Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1006 (6th Cir. 1997).
74 See Parker, 121 F.3d at 1010–14.
75 See id. at 1010–11; Volkman, supra note 22, at 267.
76 See Parker, 121 F.3d at 1014.
77 See Maroney, supra note 6, at 195–96.
78 See Parker, 121 F.3d at 1014; Maroney, supra note 6, at 196.
79 See Parker, 121 F.3d at 1014; Maroney, supra note 6, at 196.
80 See 42 U.S.C. �� 12181–12189 (1990); Carparts., 37 F.3d at 19; Maroney, supra note 6, at 198.
81 See Maroney, supra note 6, at 198.
82 See id.
83 See id.
84 See 42 U.S.C. � 12181(7); Volkman, supra note 22, at 268.
85 See 121 F.3d at 1014; Volkman, supra note 22, at 269.
86 See 121 F.3d at 1022 (Merrit, J., dissenting); Volkman, supra note 22, at 270–71. Judge Merritt, in a caustic dissent, writes:
The Court limits [public accommodation] to physical access to an office, rejecting the contrary view of the other circuit and district courts that have decided the issue, as well rejecting the Department of Justice and the EEOC view that employer group health insurance is covered. In the end, the unnecessary conflict between these two views will now have to be resolved by the Supreme Court.
See id. at 1021. However, the Supreme Court has yet to grant a writ of certiorari to such a test case.
87 See Pallozzi, 198 F.3d at 31–33; Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601, 613 (3rd Cir. 1998) (finding that Title III restricts public accommodations to physical places); Cloutier, 964 F. Supp. at 302 (rejecting the insurer’s argument that applicant lacked standing for an ADA claim because it only prohibited discrimination in providing physical access to public accommodations); Kotev, 927 F. Supp. at 1321–22 (finding that plaintiffs are not required to be physically present in a physical accommodation to proceed with a disability claim); Winslow, 29 F. Supp. 2d at 561–63 (finding that an insurance office is a public accommodation according to Title III of the ADA); see also Volkman, supra note 22, at 271.
88 See Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19; Bick, supra note 19, at 215.
89 See Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19.
90 See Mutual of Omaha, 179 F.3d at 559; Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19.
91 See Mutual of Omaha, 179 F.3d at 559; Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19.
92 See Parker, 121 F.3d at 1010–14.
93 42 U.S.C. � 12186(b) (1990); see Maroney, supra note 6, at 201.
94 42 U.S.C. � 12186(b) (1990); see Maroney, supra note 6, at 201.
95 See Bick, supra note 19, at 206; Letter from Deval L. Patrick, Assistant Attorney General, to Senator Tom Harkin, at http://www.usdoj.gov./crt/foia/cltr204.txt (Sept. 9, 1996) [hereinafter DOJ Letter]. This letter, #204, was written by Deval L. Patrick, Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. The letter was in response to a constituent inquiry regarding accessibility of “web pages” on the Internet to people with visual disabilities. See id.
96 See DOJ Letter, supra note 95.
97 See id.
98 See id; Maroney, supra note 6, at 201.
99 See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 865 (1984).
100 See id; Maroney, supra note 6, at 201.
101 See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 865; Maroney, supra note 6, at 201.
102 See Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19.
103 See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43.
104 29 U.S.C. � 794d (1998); see Bick, supra note 19, at 222.
105 See Bick, supra note 19, at 222.
106 See id. Section 508 adopts the “undue burden” standard which is found in Title III of the ADA and is equivalent to the term “undue hardship” in Title I of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) (1990); see Bick, supra note 19, at 223.
107 29 U.S.C. � 794d; see Bick, supra note 19, at 222.
108 See Peter David Blanck & Leonard A. Sandler, ADA Title III and the Internet: Technology and Civil Rights, 24 Mental and Physical Disability L. Rep. 855, 857 (2000).
109 29 U.S.C. � 794d; see Bick, supra note 19, at 222–24.
110 See Bick, supra note 19, at 209.
111 29 U.S.C. � 794d; see Bick, supra note 19, at 210.
112 See Bick, supra note 19, at 210.
113 See Marca Bristo, The Applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act to Private Internet Sites, at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/testimony/bristo_2–17–00.html (Feb. 17, 2000).
114 See National Council on Disability, at http://www.ncd.gov/index.html (last visited Mar. 17, 2002).
115 See House Comm. on Education and Labor, Legislative History of Public Law 101–336 The Americans with Disabilties Act, H. Rep. No. 102-A, at 630 (1990) [hereinafter Legislative History]; National Council on Disability, supra , note 114.
116 See Bristo, supra note 113.
117 See id.
118 See id.
119 See id.
120 See id.
121 See Bristo, supra note 116.
122 See id.
123 See Parker, 121 F.3d at 1010–11; Bristo, supra note 113.
124 See Parker, 121 F.3d at 1021 (Merrit, J., dissenting); Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19; Bristo, supra note 116.
125 See Bristo, supra note 113; DOJ Letter, supra note 95.
126 See 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984).
127 29 U.S.C. � 794d (1998); see DOJ Letter, supra note 95; Bristo, supra note 113.
128 42 U.S.C. � 12181 (1990); The World Wide Web was created in 1991. See PBS Life on the Internet, at http://www.pbs.org/internet/timeline (last visited Mar. 17, 2002).
129 See William N. Eskridge, Jr. & Philip P. Frickey, Cases and Materials On Legislation: Statutes and the Creation of Public Policy 743 (2d ed. 1995); Ryan P. Healy, Mitigating Measures and the Definition of Disability Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990—A Case of Judicial Myopia? Sutton v. United Air Lines, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (1999), 35 Land & Water L. Rev. 211, 227 (2000).
130 See Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 129, at 733.
131 See 37 F.3d at 19-20.
132 See 121 F.3d at 1014 n.10.
133 See id. Note, however, that Justice Meritt in his dissent argues that the majority ignores the legislative intent of the ADA. See id. at 1021 (Meritt, J., dissenting).
134 See Parker, 121 F.3d at 1014 n.10; Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19–20; Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 129, at 733.
135 42 U.S.C. � 12181 (1990); see Carparts, 37 F.3d at 19–20; Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 129, at 733.
136 See Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 129, at 733.
137 See id; Otto Hetzel, Legislative Law and Process 202 (1980).
138 See Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 129, at 733.
139 See id. at 743.
140 See id. Experts in this field report that over a forty-year period, over 60% of the Supreme Court’s citations to legislative history were references to committee reports. Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 129, at 743; Jorge L. Carro & Andrew Brann, The U.S. Supreme Court and the Use of Legislative Histories: A Statistical Analysis, 22 Jurimeterics J. 294, 304 (1982).
141 See Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 129, at 773.
142 See id.
143 See Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 98–99 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting); Ernest Gellhorn, Justice Breyer on Statutory Review and Interpretation, 8 Admin. L.J. Am. U. 755, 758 (1995).
144 See 121 F.3d at 1010–11; Gellhorn, supra note 143, at 758.
145 See Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 129, at 743–44; Gellhorn, supra note 143, at 758. In a recent opinion, Justice Scalia quoted another judge who described the use of legislative history as “the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one’s friends.” See Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 519 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring).
146 See Gellhorn, supra note 143, at 758–59.
147 See Edward Heath, How Federal Judges Use Legislative History, 25 J. Legis. 95, 102 (1999); Patricia M. Wald, The Sizzling Sleep: The Use of Legislative History in Construing Statutes in the 1988–89 Term of the United States Supreme Court, 39 Am. U. L. Rev. 277, 286 (1990).
148 See Heath, supra note 147, at 98; Richard Posner, Statutory Interpretation—in the Classroom and in the Courtroom, 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 800, 817–22 (1983).
149 42 U.S.C. � 12181(7) (1990); see PBS Life on the Internet, supra note 128.
150 42 U.S.C. � 12181; see Heath, supra note 147, at 98; Posner, supra note 148, at 817.
151 42 U.S.C. � 12101 (emphasis added).
152 Id.
153 Id. � 12101(b)(1)–(4) (emphasis added).
154 Id.
155 See 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994).
156 See id.; Legislative History, supra note 115, at 100.
157 See Bick, supra note 19, at 207.
158 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 99–116; Bick, supra note 19, at 207; Gellhorn, supra note 146, at 758–59. On August 2, 1989, the Committee on Labor and Human Resources voted favorably 16–0 on S. 933 which was sponsored by Senator Tom Harkin (D–Iowa). See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 99–100.
159 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 102.
160 See id. On May 9, 1989, Mr. Joseph Danowsky, an attorney who is blind, spoke before the Committee. See id.
161 See id. at 157.
162 See id; Posner, supra note 148, at 817.
163 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 158.
164 42 U.S.C. � 12181(7) (1990). See generally Bick, supra note 19.
165 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 160.
166 See id.
167 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(ii).
168 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 160.
169 See id. at 161.
170 See Bick, supra note 19, at 217; Chong, supra note 12; see also infra Part III.
171 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 161.
172 See id. at 162.
173 See Chong, supra note 12.
174 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 162–63.
175 See id.
176 See id.
177 See Eskridge & Frickey, supra note 129, at 773.
178 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 619–30; Bick, supra note 19, at 216.
179 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 102–03.
180 See Jill L. Schultz, The Impact of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Employer-Provided Insurance Plans: Is the Insurance Company Subject to Liability?, 56 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 343, 372 (1999).
181 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 623.
182 See Prager, supra note 17.
183 See Legislative History , supra note 115, at 624.
184 See id.
185 See Bick, supra note 19, at 207.
186 See Legislative History, supra note 115, at 630.
187 See id.
188 See id.
189 See Bristo, supra note 113.
190 See generally Applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to Private Internet Sites, 2000: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong (2000).
191 See id.
192 See id.
193 See Bick, supra note 19, at 217; Blanck & Sandler, supra note 108, at 855.
194 Law Suit Filed Against AOL by the National Federation for the Blind, at http:// www.libertyresources.org/news/news_17.html (Nov. 11, 1999) [hereinafter NFB Lawsuit].
195 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2) (1990).
196 See Complaint, supra note 18.
197 Online Accessibility Agreement, supra note 20.
198 See Complaint, supra note 18. The suit was filed in Federal District Court. See NFB Lawsuit, supra note 194. The plaintiffs included the National Federation of the Blind, Inc., the National Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts, Inc., and nine blind citizens of Massachusetts who all faced some level of inaccessibility to America Online. See id.
199 See id.; Blanck & Sandler, supra note 108, at 855.
200 See Complaint, supra note 18; Pierce, supra note 18.
201 42 U.S.C. � 12182(a); � 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii-iii) (1990); see Complaint, supra note 18.
202 See Complaint, supra note 18; Pierce, supra note 18.
203 See Richard Ring, America Online: Stonewalling Responsibility and Ignoring Access for the Blind, at http://www.nfb.org/bm/bm00/bm0001/bm000107.htm (last visited Mar. 17, 2002). The lawsuit was filed before AOL 6.0 was released. See Welcome to AOL Anywhere, at http://www.aol.com (last visited Mar. 17, 2002).
204 See Ring, supra note 203.
205 See id.
206 See id.
207 See Chong, supra note 12.
208 See id.
209 See generally Ring, supra note 203. In fairness to AOL, while the majority of AOL services are largely inaccessible to the blind, AOL’s electronic mail service is “minimally usable.” See id.
210 See id.
211 See id.
212 See id.
213 See Ring, supra note 203. Channels provides AOL users with a convenient way to browse through numerous subjects such as news, weather, sports, and shopping, etc. See id. Headline News presents the AOL user with current events headlines in an animated news-ticker-like display. See id.
214 See Complaint, supra note 18.
215 42 U.S.C. � 12182 (1990).
216 Id. � 12182(2)(A)(iv); see Complaint, supra note 18.
217 42 U.S.C. � 12181(9).
218 Id. � 12181(9)(A)–(D).
219 See Complaint, supra note 18.
220 See America Online, Inc., Capsule, at http://www.hoovers.com/co/ (last visited Mar. 17, 2002).
221 See id.
222 See U.S. Department of Justice, Title III Highlights, at http://www.usdoj.gov/ crt/ada/t3hilght.htm (2002) [hereinafter DOJ, Title III Highlights].
223 See id.
224 See Complaint, supra note 18.
225 See DOJ, Title III Highlights, supra note 222.
226 See America Online, Inc., Capsule, supra note 220.
227 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii) (1990); see Complaint, supra note 18.
228 42 U.S.C. � 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).
229 See DOJ, Title III Highlights, supra note 222.
230 See Chong, supra note 12; America Online, Inc., Capsule, supra note 220.
231 See Chong, supra note 12.
232 See id.
233 See id.
234 See id.
235 See Encyclopedia Britannica, at http://www.britannica.com/ (2001). This acronym stands for American Standard Code for Information Interchange. See id.
236 See Chong, supra note 12.
237 See id.
238 42 U.S.C. � 12182(2)(A)(iii) (1990); see Fact Sheets for “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0,” available at http://www.w3.org/1999/05/WCAG-REC-fact (May 5, 1999).
239 Alvin Powell, Making Web Access a Reality, HARV. U. GAZETTE, June 14, 2001, at 18.
240 See Chong, supra note 12.
241 See id.
242 See id.
243 See id. Although I explicitly mention five methods in this Note, this list is certainly not exclusive. See id.
244 See Chong, supra note 12.
245 See id.
246 See id.
247 See id.
248 See id.
249 See Chong, supra note 12.
250 See Powell, supra note 239.
251 See Chong, supra note 12.
252 See Complaint, supra note 18.
253 See id.
254 See Chong, supra note 12. A “splash screen” is an “initial website page used to capture the user’s attention for a short time as a promotion or lead-in to the site home page or to tell the user what kind of browser and other software they need to view the site. See Whatis.com: IT-Specific Encyclopedia, at http://whatis.techtarget.com/ (2002).
255 See Chong, supra note 12.
256 See Paul V. Sullivan, The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: An Analysis of Title III and Applicable Case Law, 29 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 1117, 1185 (1995).
257 See Bick, supra note 19, at 217.
258 See id.
259 See Sullivan, supra note 256, at 1186 n.95.
260 See id. at 1186.
261 See Bick, supra note 19, at 217; Sullivan, supra note 256, at 1186.
262 See generally Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 134 (2002); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
263 See Doe v.Mutual of Omaha, 179 F.3d 557, 559 (7th Cir. 1999).
264 42 U.S.C. � 12181 (1990). See generally, Bick, supra note 19.
265 See DOJ Letter, supra note 95.
266 See Complaint, supra note 18; Online Accessibility Agreement, supra note 20.
267 See Stein, supra note 1, at 246.