Abstract
Lasting nearly six years, one of the most well-known legal cases related to web accessibility has been Robles v Domino’s Pizza LLC. In the Robles case, a blind man sued Domino’s Pizza, asking Domino's to make their website and mobile app accessible for users with disabilities. Rather than make their website and mobile app accessible and realize the consumer potential of people with disabilities who like to eat pizza, Domino’s Pizza has repeatedly fought in court the assertion that Blind people should be able to order pizzas online and through the Domino’s mobile app, and even tried to go to the U.S. Supreme Court to have them remove the rights of people with disabilities to have access to websites. The briefs filed by Domino’s Pizza in this case are striking in their use of ableist assumptions and language. For instance, in their petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, Domino’s Pizza used the following language, that Robles: “threatens the availability of online content for everyone” ignoring the fact that in their use of the word, “everyone” doesn’t include people with disabilities. If a website or web content isn’t accessible for people with disabilities, then “everyone” does not have access. This paper will discuss the use of ableist language and actions in the court filings of Domino’s Pizza, in the Robles v Domino’s Pizza Inc case.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
