ACCESS NOW, INC. and ROBERT GUMSON vs. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. By: Tessa Barrans, Andrea Beckman, Feiya Suo and Monica Olsson

Background Information United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Decided and filed on October 18, 2002

Facts Plaintiff Access Now, Inc. is a non-profit advocacy group for disabled individuals working to. Plaintiff Robert Gumson a blind individual who claims the Southwest Airline’s website is inaccessible. Access argued that Southwest was obligated under Title III of the ADA to take a number of steps to make its website accessible to the visually impaired. Southwest wanted dismiss the Plaintiffs‘ complaint based on how southwest.com is not a "place of public accommodation" and thus is not within the scope of Title III of the ADA.

Issues Is Southwest.com a place of public accommodation defined by the ADA and does it need to be accessible to visually impaired persons?

Decision On Southwest's motion, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' suit, finding that Title III of the ADA did not impose an obligation on Southwest to modify its website so as to accommodate the visually impaired as websites are not recognized as "public accommodations".

Rationale Title III governs solely access to physical, concrete places of public accommodations. This does not include websites. Southwest.com is Not a “Place of Public Accommodation” as defined by the unambiguous language of the ADA Southwest has no obligation under Title III to make its web site accessible to the visually impaired. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that dismissal of a claim is appropriate when "it is clear that no relief would be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with allegations".

Significance This case ruling is a substantial loss to the disabled community, specifically the visually impaired, especially when one takes into account the very active and growing role of the Internet in today's society. This enforces the limited interpretation of the ADA.