Bombay HC: Can’t fix cut-off for filling up identified and reserved posts for persons with disabilities

Court: Bombay High Court

Bench: Justice NARESH H. PATIL AND Justice Z.A. HAQ, 

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1356 OF 2014

Case Title: Karanti Goyal Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Date of Judgement: 27 Sep 2017

Brief: 

A division bench of Bombay High Court consisting of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice ZA Haq has ruled that it was necessary to prepare a merit list of visually impaired people, and consider candidates from this list, without fixing benchmark or cut-off marks for filling up reserve seats for persons with disabilities. 

There cannot be any benchmark or cut-off for filing vacant posts earmarked for people with disabilities, said the  Bench. The court struck down the decision of the Union Ministry of Fnance to not appoint a visually impaired candidate to its economic and policy research department, as no one could cross the bench-mark fixed by it.

The bench said it was necessary for the department to prepare a separate merit list of visually impaired people, and consider candidates from this list according to merit, without fixing benchmark or cut-off marks. “In our view, once the post was identified and reserved for visually impaired person, then fixing cut-off marks for selection of the person for that post was impermissible,” observed the court. 

The bench was hearing a petition filed by Kranti Goyal, a visually impaired person, who had applied for the post of research officer in the Economic and Policy Research Department. He approached the high court after the department decided not to select any visually impaired candidates on the grounds that none of them could cross the cut-off of 210 of 350 marks in the written examination. The petitioner said the department had set the same benchmark for candidates from the general category and the visually impaired category – and merely granted 7% extra marks to visually impaired people.

The court held that by fixing cut-off marks for the visually impaired people on par with the general category candidates, the ministry and the department had acted arbitrarily and contrary to the object of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. It said granting 7% grace marks was not a sustainable criteria.

The court has now directed the central department to prepare a separate merit list for visually impaired people and select a candidate from among them.

Read the Judgement

California Federal Judge allows Website Accessibility Lawsuit to continue under Title III, ADA

Dear Colleagues,

Within a week after a Florida federal judge handed down a trial verdict finding that Winn Dixie had violated Title III of the ADA by having a website that could not be used by the blind plaintiff, U.S. District Judge John Walter of the Central District of California ruled that blind plaintiff Sean Gorecki could continue his lawsuit against retailer Hobby Lobby about the accessibility of its website. The retailer had asked the court to dismiss the case on various grounds, all of which were rejected by the judge. The case will now move forward.

This decision is significant for several reasons:

The decision illustrates that two judges in the same United States District Court can have diametrically opposite views on the very same issue. In March of this year, U.S. District Judge James Otero dismissed a lawsuit brought by a blind plaintiff against Domino’s Pizza about its allegedly inaccessible website. Judge Otero found that Domino’s had met its obligations under the law by providing telephonic access via a customer service hotline, and that requiring Domino’s to have an accessible website at this time would violate its constitutional right to due process. On the due process point, Judge Otero noted that neither the law nor the regulations require websites to be accessible, and that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had failed to issue regulations on this topic after seven years. As further evidence that covered entities have not been given fair notice of their obligations under the ADA, he cited the DOJ’s official statements from the beginning of the website rulemaking process that (1) it was considering what legal standard of accessibility to adopt, and (2) telephonic access could be a lawful alternative to having an accessible website. Based on these due process concerns, Judge Otero invoked the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine which “allows courts to stay proceedings or dismiss a complaint without prejudice pending the resolution of an issue within the special competence of an administrative agency.”

In stark contrast, U.S. District Judge John Walter in the Hobby Lobby case rejected the due process argument and held that the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine did not apply. With regard to the due process argument, Judge Walter stated that “for over 20 years, the DOJ has consistently maintained that the ADA applies to private websites that meet the definition of a public accommodation” and that “Hobby Lobby had more than sufficient notice in 2010 to determine that its website must comply with the ADA.” Judge Walter also held that the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine did not apply because it only applies to cases whose resolution require the “highly specialized expertise” of a federal agency. Judge Walter found that this case is a “relatively straightforward claim that Hobby Lobby failed to provide disabled individuals full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered by its physical stores by not maintaining a fully accessible website.”

Judge Walter reserved judgment on what Hobby Lobby would have to do to make its website accessible until after a decision on the merits. The Court specifically noted that the plaintiff was not asking for conformance with a specific technical rule such as the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0.

Because Judge Walter’s decision was on a motion to dismiss and not a final judgment, Hobby Lobby does not have the right to appeal the decision at this time. We predict that the case will settle before the court reaches the merits of the case.

Sources: 

1. Plaintiffs Score Another Victory in a Website Accessibility Lawsuit

2. Public Accommodations are Starting to Win Website Accessibility Lawsuits