you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 37 points 3 years ago (5 children)

Isn’t this a violation of the ADA?

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    A few years ago I read about a group of lawyers, the self-serving greedy bastard kind of lawyers, that went around finding websites with accessibility violations and would file suit against them. With the way the laws are written the cases were slam dunks. The lawyers didn't actually care about the violations, it was just a way to make a quick buck. It would be a shame if reddit had to face a swarm of those piranhas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Mods aren’t employees so the ADA wouldn’t apply here and constitute legal discrimination. Albeit this is pretty dang negligent from a business perspective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    ADA doesn't just apply to employer/employee relationships.

    "The ADA is divided into four main sections, which are called Titles: Title I covers employment; Title II covers public entities and public transportation; Title III covers public accommodations and commercial facilities; and Title IV covers telecommunications"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago

    I’ve worked with (read: done a tiny amount of work with) accessibility compliance and you basically only need a “we’re working towards accessibility” disclaimer somewhere to be legally covered. Not sure how that works with blatant regressions like this, though; I imagine a case could be made that their statement is a lie.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    You accidentally double commented

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments