May 24, 2012 - 11:56 AM EDT — AAPL: 568.742 (-1.818, -0.32%) | NASDAQ: 2839.82 (-10.30, -0.36%)

Apple sued for ignoring disability law in retail stores

Thursday, August 30, 2007 · 12:01 pm · 107 Comments

“Two women bound to wheelchairs are suing Apple for failing to abide by accessibility laws in its retail stores. The women last Friday filed a 17-page lawsuit claiming that Apple violated the federal Americans With Disabilities Act and the California Health and Safety Code because it fails to offer ‘full and equal’ access to disabled persons at its San Francisco flagship store,” MacNN reports.

Full article here.

Apple’s retail stores should and must be equally accessible to all customers. Apple should do whatever it takes to comply with and exceed all existing laws and regulations regarding accessibility.

Categories: All Sites, News

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

♥ Adobe Photoshop CS6 Extended for Mac - Student and Teacher Edition DVD (65171323) only $249!
♥ Blowout: Apple 15.4" MacBook Pro i7/4Core/2.0GHz/4GB/500GB (MC721LL/A) only $1,549.99 + Free Shipping from MacMall
♥ Mac Madness Save 25% on Parallels Desktop 7!
♥ 15% Off Compatible Ink. 10% Off All Others (excludes OEMs). Free Shipping over $55. Coupon: 123BLOSSOM, Expires 6.18.12
♥ Save up to 60% at the Hammacher Schlemmer Special Values Sale-While supplies last.
♥ Dragon Dictate for Mac 2.5 - New! Simply Smarter Speech Recognition
♥ Up to 30% OFF Accessories from Verizon Wireless
♥ Limited Time Offer: Get free ZAGGsmartbuds when you buy a ZAGGsparq!

Comment Feed

107 Comments

1 2 3 … 6 Next »

NSFY

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:08 pm · Reply

“Apple’s retail stores should and must be equally accessible to all customers.”

Amen.

- speaking from experience.
Lawsuit Limbo

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:12 pm · Reply

Sorry – not buying it.

They say they’re “more interested in changing the store to better accommodate their disabilities than punishing the Cupertino-based company” . . . right after they said they’re “seeking a jury trial with compensation for emotional and physical losses incurred by Apple’s alleged neglect of disabled persons.”

I guess I’ve just seen too much of this lately. If they’re sooooo not interested in “punishing” Apple, then why didn’t they just contact the company or even Steve Jobs directly?

I also find it difficult to believe that Apple would be this blind to the ADA and general ergonomic design standards. I mean, these are design issues, and it’s Apple we’re talking about here.
Roar

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:12 pm · Reply

I love Apple’s products, but there is still “right” and “wrong” — I agree with the author here.
CandTsmac

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:13 pm · Reply

Agreed. Nice take MDN.

We are all the same and equal in this modern world of ours.
M.A.D.

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:16 pm · Reply

The disabled should be accomodated, totally agreed with MDN’s take.

But we are not all the same and equal, CandTsmac. That is simply dilusional.
Peach Picker

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:16 pm · Reply

I saw the Mac Genius at my local store on his knees on the hardwood floor providing support to a wheelchair-bound customer. The Genius bar a has a hidden mini-counter at 1/2 height they pulled out so the laptop was at that person’s level.
Bandit Bill

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:17 pm · Reply

I’m surprised that new businesses can pass code if they don’t meet the needs of those in wheelchairs. That being said I’d like to see the store for myself before passing judgement. It could just be another case of people trying to get money from Apple.

Suing seems unreasonable to me. Asking for assistance, then speaking to a manager if that did not happen seems like a logical first step.
Grigori

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:17 pm · Reply

Yea, there’s no acceptable spin on this. I wonder how common this is in all of Apple’s retail stores. The article says they’re seeking a jury trial; let’s hope it doesn’t go that far.

Sometimes, form NEEDS to follow function.
JB

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:19 pm · Reply

Lawsuit happy.

I guarantee not a single employee would not have gone out of their way to make a reasonable accommodation.

.
Oops

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:20 pm · Reply

If Apple didn’t comply, then obviously they should. But it’s a little too convenient these days that every time someone does something you don’t like, you can sue them. Handicapped or not, these ladies should be told, “Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Here’s a free iPhone. Have a nice day. Now shut up and go away.”
What?

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:20 pm · Reply

I’m deaf and I can’t hear my sister’s iPod with either earphones or when she hooks it up to a speaker system. This is blatantly discriminatory against the deaf and Apple should make an iPod that we can hear. My lawyers have been contacted.
Dr Mcr

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:23 pm · Reply

and the winner is…..

… the lawyers (again).

Surely in cases like this, the judge shoud ask… “before coming to court, did you write to the company involved to ask them why they didn’t comply”. If the answer is no, throw the case out and stop wasting peoples time and money.

This ia ridiculous world in which we live. I hate the get-rich-quick litigation lottory mentality that some people have.

If these people genuinely wanted something done for the positive, a simple letter to Apple would have sufficed, I suspect, and been received in a much more positive way.

They’re using a popular brand name to lend weight to their points, thereby getting better exposure. I am all for free access for everyone, but surely this is the wrong way to go about it?
Cubert

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:24 pm · Reply

This is actually an issue at so many businesses and public buildings around the United States. Many public buildings in downtown Philly are not handicap accessible.

It does sound like these two women have a case, and, unlike Lawsuit Limbo above, I do believe that they are not seeking punitive damages.
justme2

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:25 pm · Reply

The one problem I could think of with the SF store is lack of dedicated seating space for folks in wheelchairs in the area upstairs where they do all the presentations — if they simply replaced one of the aisles with a ramp instead of steps, and maybe took out some of the seats in the front to allow room for wheelchairs, that should do it.

Otherwise, I can’t think of a problem, other than being hard to move around when there’s a lot of people, and that’s a problem with any store.

Maybe I should sue Safeway for putting stuff up on the top shelf where it’s hard for me to reach without my husband around?
John C. Randolph

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:25 pm · Reply

This suit is bullshit. I’ve seen the SF store many times, and the only thing that would keep someone from getting around it in a wheelchair is the crowd.

-jcr
J

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:25 pm · Reply

Have you watched Penn & Teller’s B.S. episode on the disability act? The law doesn’t seem to help as many as you’d like to think it does.
MTS

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:26 pm · Reply

So these women are suing because they couldn’t ask the store employees for help reaching some software (elderly and short people in grocery stores are not embarassed at all to ask me to reach items high on the shelf) and because untangling wires for the credit card readers embarassed them? Come one, you can’t build a new store with an elevator without complying with the AwDA. Can I sue the next time I’m shy or embarassed?
John Crawford

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:26 pm · Reply

@Bandit Bill
@Oops

Here, here!
Macaday

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:27 pm · Reply

And if they had written a nice letter to Mr Jobs, do you suppose he would told them to go away???

Money money money. Lawyers lawyers lawyers. Sick sick sick.
Colbert

Thursday, August 30, 2007 - 12:29 pm · Reply

I think we all agree that Apple retail stores should be accessible to all customers. Of course, Apple should do whatever it takes to comply with and exceed laws and regulations for accessibility.

However, these ladies and their lawyers are acting shameful.
“Emotional and physical losses”. COME ON!