Citation[]
Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) (full-text), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1106 (2000).
[Note Although the facts of this case did not relate to the IT industry, the holding is relevant in interpretating the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 definition of "place of public accommodation" to the IT industry.]
Appellate Court Proceedings[]
Judge Posner discussed the nondiscrimination requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the context of a case involving a cap on insurance policies for AIDS and AIDS-related complications and found that
| “ | [t]he core meaning of this provision, plainly enough, is that the owner or operator of a store, hotel, restaurant, dentist's office, travel agency, theater, website, or other facility (whether in physical space or in electronic space) . . . that is open to the public cannot exclude disabled persons from entering the facility and, once in, from using the facility in the same way that the nondisabled do.[1] | ” |
The court reasoned that "the owner or operator of, say, a camera store can neither bar the door to the disabled nor let them in but then refuse to sell its cameras to them on the same terms as to other customers."[2] However, Judge Posner found no violation of the ADA in this case and concluded that "Section 302(a) does not require a seller to alter his product to make it equally valuable to the disabled and nondisabled."[3]