supreme court accessibility screen reader

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming have passed some legislation or published guidance governing website compliance, he noted. In addition, many states have adopted similar rules governing website compliance, said Conner Eversole, an attorney with Hall Estill in Denver. 'An employer that has a website used for hiring, training, information distribution or other aspects of employment is likely going to need to make that website accessible, to the extent that is not an undue hardship, in order to comply with its nondiscrimination obligations under ADA Title I.' 'Title I prohibits covered employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in employment, which includes the application and hiring process,' said Michael McClory, an attorney with Cable Huston in Portland, Ore. Title III applies to public accommodations-businesses open to the public-while Title I of the ADA covers employers. Employers with careers websites likely must make them accessible to people with disabilities despite a recent ruling under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that a grocery retailer's website wasn't covered by the law.

Supreme court accessibility screen reader