BARRIERS TO ACCESS MUST FALL... LIKE DOMINO'S.

AuthorErvin, Mike
PositionSMART ASS CRIPPLE

Im boycotting Domino's Pizza. I know boycotts are supposed to involve enduring a noble sacrifice so as to demonstrate one's firm and unwavering resolve. But not ordering from Domino's is easy for me to do, because I wasn't planning on placing any orders there in the foreseeable future. For me, boycotting Domino's is like making a solemn vow that, until further notice, I will not eat a banana split smothered in barbeque sauce.

I guess it's more accurate to say that I'm rededicating myself to boycotting Domino's, because its pizza is so putrid. It's almost as though it whipped up a recipe specifically intended to antagonize me. Well, the joke's on Domino's because I live in Chicago, where the streets are paved with pizza, so it can't goad me! I have a cornucopia of pizza options!

But Domino's corporate gall runs much deeper than that. The company has pulled out all the stops to avoid having to make its lousy pizza available to people with disabilities.

In 2016, a man named Guillermo Robles filed a federal lawsuit against Domino's in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Robles is blind. He claimed in the suit that he tried several times to order a pizza online or by using the Domino's mobile app like sighted people do, but could not because the Domino's website lacked the accessibility features necessary for him to navigate it. His suit charged that Domino's was violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which ensures disabled folks access to places of "public accommodation."

In the lower courts, Domino's legal team dug in and argued that the case should be dismissed. They said that "public accommodation" applied only to Domino's brick-and-mortar locations and thus it had no legal obligation to make the website accessible.

But this case wasn't only about access to Domino's pizzas. Of course, the ADA does not specifically state that websites count as public accommodations because this wasn't an issue at the time it was signed in 1990. It's like arguing that the Constitution doesn't say anything about banning assault rifles so therefore it cant be done.

When those who make and pass a law aren't clairvoyant enough to anticipate and account for every possible future scenario, we must resort to applying common sense and consider the spirit of the law. The spirit of the ADA is to open up all of the important aspects of life to disabled folks. How can anyone argue that equal access to the Internet isn't...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT