Web Site Accessibility Blog

The World Wide Web is significant because of the boundaries it traverses. The web places the opportunity to buy from, learn from or interact with companies outside your neighborhood, your state, or your country right at your fingertips. This is a fantastic opportunity for everybody, and the nature of the medium means that it can be accessible to people with any range of physical or cognitive impairments.

Laws, of course, are designed to be regional.

It’s inevitable, then, that an accessibility question would eventually cross international boundaries. The question is whether a company with no literal presence within a country can be held liable in that country due to an issue of website access. A tribunal in the United Kingdom has recently ruled just that — determining that a computer-based exam which was not accessible was in violation of the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act.

The summary of the situation is that a blind woman working for Proctor and Gamble in the UK elected to study for a specialized internationally-recognized qualification as a Project Management Professional (PMP.) This qualification is managed by a not-for-profit corporation in the United States, the Project Management Institute (PMI.) This institute made the study materials for the examination and the examination itself marginally accessible, which did allow the woman to complete and even pass the examination, but only by enduring unusual and burdensome challenges.

Sam Latif, the blind woman in question, began proceedings against PMI for discrimination under the Disabilities Discrimination Act.

The crux of the matter is whether the employment interactions took place in Great Britain or in the United States. It’s PMI’s position that the entire process took place in the United States, where they are located. MS. Latif takes the position that the acts which were discriminatory took place in the United Kingdom.

Clearly, it’s a tricky issue - but the core element is extremely significant. Web accessibility may be an issue on which you could be in violation of the laws of any country you do business in.

Struan Robertson, a technology lawyer with Pinsent Masons is quoted in the article at Out-Law.com saying:

“A blind person in the UK could argue a right to sue a US company in a UK court for discrimination if the US company has a website that is not accessible to him and he can show that that US company has taken orders from other UK consumers,” he said. “The Tribunal’s reasoning could be influential on a court, though it won’t be binding.”

No binding legal decision has been made, but the possibilities are tremendous. You may not be able to rest easy having made a website which only meets the standards of your own country: you must consider a much broader range of possibilities.

As it stands, PMI is appealing the ruling with the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Interestingly, they are not appealing the question of jurisdiction — they are instead only appealing the ruling that the adjustments which they did provide were insufficient. On this point, there is some chance they could win their case. If they feel particularly that their chance of winning on this point is strong, it could be that they didn’t consider the jurisdiction question to be worth pursuing.

However you look at the situation, the question is very important. Web business is absolutely and unflinchingly international - and that international market suggests a wide variety of new legal considerations to take into account in your site development.