Why Winn-Dixie Doesn’t Matter Recap

Sorry, I keep getting text messages, mostly from Thomas Okay So continue that and get rid of this on the screen and I'm going to move this off to the side So good day everyone, and welcome to my presentation, Beyond Winn-Dixie As the title of the presentation suggests, the theme of the presentation is going to pivot around the recent 11th-Circuit decision around the Winn-Dixie case Tom and I have a long history around the Winn-Dixie case Tom introduced me to Scott Dinin, the plaintiff for Winn-Dixie and suggested that they work together But that's fodder for a future podcast or a blog post I also posted on Winn-Dixie specifically with the folks from Three Play Media and I went into the decisions in that presentation but since that presentation, there were a few more developments beyond what I mentioned in that presentation,

plus I've also had a lot of time to think more broadly and I wanted to talk about the bigger picture about web accessibility lawsuits in this country and specifically, how the Winn-Dixie decision fits into that So — and there's also the recent Domino's Pizza case It serves as a nice foil to the Winn-Dixie case and some of the more recent negative trends that we've been seeing So I'll touch on that briefly, as well So if your focus is just on Winn-Dixie and the 11th Circuit, and if you did watch that presentation, I promise you this one will overlap it but still be different from that one So let me see if I can switch slides here Yup, okay, great Because I'm a lawyer in addition to being a consultant I have to start with a disclaimer

Please note that nothing in this presentation should be interpreted as legal advice or as forming an attorney-client relationship Before acting on any of this information contained, you should seek assistance from a licensed attorney in your state So most people think that lawyers are protecting themselves, but it's actually to protect you and we're only going to touch on a few of them today and having an attorney who knows all of your factors especially the ones that are unique to you is the only way to make confident decisions So let's see..

so who am I to be opining about this kind of stuff? My name is Ken Nakata and I'm principal and partner of Converge Accessibility which I formed about a year ago We're unusual among consulting firms because we bring about an equal share of legal — I used to be a senior trial attorney with the US Department of Justice and for 12 years I investigated and litigated cases under the Americans with Disabilities Act and I helped write the original Section 508 working group Which brought together all of the different federal agencies to coordinate how to make the federal government's IT systems accessible to people with disabilities I also helped create the does want of justice's policies for application of the ADA websites I wrote the technical assistance guidance Which is titled accessibility of state and local government websites to people with disabilities

Which you can still find at the DOJ website, ada.gov from a technical perspective I also wrote the original Access Board's book on coding for accessible practice I'm still a member of the Bar in New York, the District of Columbia, and Washington State where I live Let me see I'm having trouble transitioning here So at Converge we try to apply our diverse backgrounds in ways that are a bit different from other consulting firms We have a strong focus on helping companies become more proactive and really own accessibility So while manual audits and automated testing will always about part of the solution for really big organizations we also help companies make accessibility simpler and just a regular part of their web-development process in the most cost-effective way As web accessibility litigation has exploded, a lot of companies are having to find

that they have to constantly fix their sites over and over again but simultaneously, web accessibility has matured and these same companies know they can do better and fold in web-accessibility requirements into the web development cycle better if you find yourself in that situation, please reach out to us because we have a far simpler solution for you Another way we're different is we work with a lot of law firms We help attorneys to understand the technical issues in web accessibility as well as some of the latest developments in case law around web accessibility So one consequence of the avalanche of litigation that we've had recently is that the law is constantly changing and I think that every noteworthy consulting shop has their place Over the past-to-years, we've worked in accessibility — we've worked a lot with the

team at Equal Entry both as coworkers at the same company and as partners in different companies but if you find — if web accessibility legal issues interests you, I would encourage you to sign up for our mailing list We post new content at least weekly and more than half of our posts focus on the latest legal developments I actually found out about the 11th-Circuit opinion in Winn-Dixie and read through it and blogged about it on the same day that the decision was announced It was my good friend, Mark Duben who else worked the Justice Department with me who gave me the heads up on the decision and here on our mailing list, you would have had all that information on the same day So let me give you a quick sense of where we're going

We'll start with a brief overview of the Winn-Dixie opinion, and then after that, we will — again, I don't want to repeat everything I said that in my presentation last month and if you'd like a copy of that presentation you can reach out to me directly as it hasn't appeared on the Three Play Media website yet As I mentioned we also have a very active blog at Converge Accessibility website and we post at least once a week and there's a link directly there from that video But as I mentioned at the outset, I want to take a step back and talk about how Winn-Dixie fits into the larger landscape of legal issues in this country and how it tends to limit the overall scope of the ADA as it comes to Winn-Dixie It really did reinterpret the scope of the ADA

a more sensible way of handling the avalanche of web-accessibility cases is to make it harder for plaintiffs to bring hundreds of web accessibility cases in the first instances in general this works relatively well, but sometimes it affects adverse honest plaintiffs adversely the position I started was that the most effective thing we can do is help the Department of Justice with their web accessibility rule-making and raise a very different approach to web accessibility litigation in a form that is rapidly replacing the 11th Circuit Plus the latest Domino's decision raises some other fascinating legal issues that everyone else should be interested in So let's first start talking about the Winn-Dixie decision and how it fits into the bigger picture of web accessibility Okay and to do that, we need to know what first what happened in Winn-Dixie

So I'll try to keep this part brief but in essence, Winn-Dixie involved the blind plaintiff named Juan Carlos Gil who was the complainant in Florida Unlike many of retailers, Winn-Dixie doesn't sell anything directly on their website Instead, Mr Gil was interested in coupons so he wouldn't have to wait for hours to have this prescriptions refilled Because Winn-Dixie's website was inaccessible, Mr Gil had to find someone at his Winn-Dixie store to tell him about the physical coupons he could use and in order to get his prescriptions refilled while other non-disabled customers could just come in and pick up their refills immediately Of course, Southern Florida where Mr Gil lived was the nation's worst hotbed for web-accessibility lawsuits while attorneys in other parts of the country were more successful using demand letters Plaintiffs in Florida resorted quickly to the federal courts

and almost all of those cases settled quickly But Mr Gil's cases was one of the first cases to go all the way to trial and he won So one hurdle that the director had to get padding was the language of the ADA not discriminate against people with disabilities the word "place" is very critical here and we'll have more to say about that in a few minutes but for our quick summary of the Winn-Dixie case, the director had previously ruled that the online coupons and the prescription refill service had created enough of a connection or a nexus to place public accommodation and Mr Gil could sue It required Winn-Dixie to make it accessible Winn-Dixie appealed from the trial court's decision, in this case, the US Southern District Court in the Florida 11th Circuit the 11th Circuit encompasses Florida, Alabama, and Georgia

In any event, the 11th Circuit -- it is that the director was wrong Specifically the 11th held that the strength of that connection between the website and Winn-Dixie's physical stores wasn't strong enough for Winn-Dixie to be liable for having an inaccessible website Now this may be getting terribly abstract right now so let's review First, the ADA is written to prohibit discrimination at places of public accommodation Second some courts, for example, the 11th unless that website has a very — and third, online coupons that can be redeemed at stores, or online refills for prescription that could be picked up at a physical store, those don't create a strong enough connection Now, this really is a departure from every other circuit in the country — and a physical — brick-and-mortar physical location in order to bring a lawsuit, aledging that the website is inaccessible under the ADA

[Internet dropping] — as the gateway approach In effect, the 11th Circuit is saying, just establishing that connection or nexus is irrelevant Instead a plaintiff has to show that there's some inaccessible feature on the website that effectively barred someone from accessing goods and services was at a physical store Apart from having no legal basis this kind of test is also completely removed from reality Winn-Dixie would have to require customers like Mr Gil to order prescription refills only online and then pick them up at a physical store or Winn-Dixie would have to offer its coupons only online and then let those coupons be redeemed in a store but this simply isn't the way that businesses operate According to the 11th Circuit, as long as there's some way to get the same benefits that are available on its website, people with disabilities would just have to accept it

The opinion relegates people with disabilities to the back of the bus Instead of having equal access to coupons, people with disabilities would have to cajole strangers to read coupons to them Instead of quickly refilling prescriptions they have to wait hours to get their prescriptions refilled So the 11th Circuit's decision in Winn-Dixie irritated me because of its really cavalier approach to the ADA After all, the ADA isn't just a technical set of requirements like the tax code Instead, it's a civil-rights law and it's intended to address generations of past wrongs the ADA's virtually silent when it comes to the phrase place of public accommodation but yet the way that the court treats the word place is completely — instead it's more understanding that the word "place" that congress just lifted the term place of public accommodation from the 1964 Civil Rights Act

So on the screen I have a screenshot of what happens when you look up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Lexis You get an ancient 64-year-old scanned version of the bill but also indicates that the term place wasn't likely thought about too carefully when the ADA was passed It's iron I can that the term place comes verbatim from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was designed to combat racial discrimination Just because that discrimination didn't happen at a physical store?

There's hardly any case law under the 1964 Civil Rights Act defining place of public accommodation but I couldn't imagine any court making that kind of ruling yet the 11th Circuit seems to have no trouble taking that same language and say that people with disabilities have the added burden when they try to access goods and services on a website The decision that it should be narrowly read means that they don't have an appreciation for — undercutting the ADA's impact not the way to do it As I mentioned we spend a lot of time helping defense attorneys fight against a deluge of frivolous web accessibility cases Every day I help defense attorneys understand how to fight a client's interests and when to settle a case in terms most favorable to them And nevertheless, I'm happy to call a spade a spade

the 11th-Circuit decision in Winn-Dixie is awful and undercuts the rights of people with disabilities So while I think the 11th Circuit's decision in Winn-Dixie is terrible, I don't think it's ultimately a source of concern And the 11th Circuit and the Winn-Dixie case They're moving away from the Southern District of Florida and the 11th Circuit And the Winn-Dixie decision has absolutely no effect on New York and California where the real action is Second I think there's a good chance that the opinion is gonna get reversed Shortly after the decision was announced, the plaintiffs and disability-rights groups from around the country such as the National Federation of the Blind and the National Council on Independent Living They all piled on and argued to have a rehearing before the entire panel of the 11th Circuit and not just the three-judge panel that made the Winn-Dixie decision

In my other opinion, I discussed how the courts had been all over the place On the one hand you've got decisions like Vallycrest Productions that have read the ADA more broadly Whereas decisions like Access Now v Southwest Airlines and now Gil v Winn-Dixie, seemed to slam the door shut But we don't have the time to discuss the legal nuances to discuss those cases today and, again, I'll refer you to my other presentation if you'd like to understand those cases and how Winn-Dixie evolved from them So to give some sense of how the 11th-Circuit opinion is an outlier, it helps to understand how the federal judiciary in our country works Federal courts throughout the country have struggled with this question of whether a company can be sued under the ADA for a discrimination has

occurred outside of its physical place of business such as through its website As different circuit courts have taken different approaches, this issue has created a split in the circuits So our country is divided into 12 circuits with each circuit containing one or more district courts Some circuits are enormous and others quite small For instance, the DC circuit only includes one director, Washington D.C So when we say that there's a split in the circuits we mean that different groups of courts take different approaches and unless they change their mind or the supreme court settles that split, where you bring your lawsuit will have a big impact on the way the court is gonna go So the most popular approach is the so-called nexus approach which is followed in the third circuit: Delaware, New Jersey, PA, and — Hawaii, Montana, and Nevada,

Oregon, Washington, Guam, and, of course, the Northern Marianas Islands So until the Winn-Dixie came along, we put the Third Circuit here, as well In these jurisdictions, they have to show that there's a connection between a website and a physical-brick-and-mortar place of business or location Or coupons that are redeemable at a physical store that can be downloaded from a website or being able to place orders online and then return those orders at a physical store Features like that would create a nexus The fact that the Ninth Circuit follows the more relaxed traditional version of the nexus test is important because California's rapidly becoming the venue of choice for web accessibility lawsuits And even more liberal approach is followed in the first circuit which is the New England states: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and interestingly enough, Puerto Rico

And the Seventh Circuit which is Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin in these circuits a physical place isn't required at all This means that even purely online companies would with absolutely no physical place of public accommodation could be sued Courts in these circuits recognize that the term "place of public accommodation" is largely historical leftover and the broad remedial place of the ADA would make it unfair through their online activities More recently district courts in the Second Circuit which includes Connecticut, Vermont, and New York, and even the Fourth Circuit which is Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, have declared they're going to follow this same approach Now this is very important because the Southern District of New York is now where most web accessibility cases are brought Simply put far more web accessibility lawsuits are now brought in New York and not in Florida

So while judges in New York may not be happy by the serial plaintiffs who bring hundreds of web-accessibility cases in their district they've been able to eliminate a lot of them without undercutting the ADA, in certain cases plaintiff did not clearly identify the inaccessible features of a website and how they impacted them Or certain cases proved -- or they had simply filed too many complaints and so were declared a vexatious litigating, therefore, having to have approval before filing in the future [Internet lagging] — and I'll have a few words about some of the problems about this approach later — over the last several years We've also noticed another trend Cases moving away from the ADA entirely Over the last two years, there's been a noticeable uptick in the number of cases that have been brought under the Unruh Act in California's state court

Lower filing fees and a lower bench but also liquidated damages — so remember the Target case from a few years back — involving hundreds Target and NFB members who joined the lawsuit I think it's helpful to remind ourselves why web-accessibility cases are creating such a problem for companies and the federal courts So this is my last presentation Jason Taylor published his annual review of web-accessibility litigation So Jason's really quite amazing at keeping up with all of this on the data side and so are the attorneys over at Safe Arts Shop They've both been collecting data on the number of web accessibility lawsuits and while the numbers don't match up perfectly, they're consistent enough to paint a clear picture of the pattern So before 2015 there were hardly any web accessibility cases Then in 2015 there were only 57 cases filed in the entire country

in 2016, this number increased to 262 in 2017 814 and then 2,314 in 2018 Up to this point, the curve is sweeping upward at an exponential rate but then the rate seems to level off because in 2019 there was a break in the curve and then there were 3,503 in 2020 So if we continue this curve out, in a straight line, to 2021 — so far the actual number seemed — the actual number of cases filed seems to track with that number So let's dive into that estimate for this year Analyze it a bit more closely That number, 4,195 cases is a lot especially because almost all those losses are filed in one of three district courts So let's look at what happened over the first half of this year During that half almost two-thirds of those cases or 1,178 cases

were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York There were about 40 judges appointed to the Southern District of New York So assuming that there'll be about 2,200 cases by the end of the year in New York, that means that there's going to be 55 cases for each judge just this year So there's a very strong incentive for the courts to reduce the number of lawsuits filed each year The second most popular state for lawsuits is California And here, the action is focused in the Central District of California with about 594 cases, and the least popular state is Florida Specifically, the Southern District of Florida with only 163 cases What's interesting about that number is 123 of those 163 cases were filed before the 11th Circuit's decision in Winn-Dixie and there have been only zero cases filed since then

So the Winn-Dixie decision had a major effect in Florida Florida was already losing ground as a place for bringing these lawsuits When we look at it month-by-month pattern, we could see that Florida which is just a tiny sliver in the total number of web accessibility cases in the year It's interesting that all of the courts saw a downturn in April around the time of the Winn-Dixie decision about California and New York seem to be picking it back up again While Florida continues to look like a sliver of web accessibility cases So seen in the context of this data, it's clear that Winn-Dixie won't have a great impact on web accessibility Remember that Winn-Dixie's only the 11th Circuit which really only means Florida in this case People aren't filing in Georgia or Alabama And specifically, the Southern District of Florida And the data clearly shows

that that court is just not where the action is anymore for web-accessibility cases but actual data only goes so far to give a fuller picture of how pervasive web accessibility litigation is we should look more closely at that estimate of 4195 federal lawsuits for this year Because the actual number of complaints is quite a bit larger After all that, 4,195 are only the actual number of — well, projected number — of lawsuits filed in federal court in the United States in addition to the federal courts However — we also have the state court system And there's a state court in each of the 50 states in this country And state courts like the one in California are very popular for filing lawsuits Also most cases don't even get filed as a lawsuit Instead most complaints get settled well before a lawsuit gets filed

So I very conservatively — so that was the actual number but I very conservatively estimate that the actual number was probably double that number So that means there would be about 8,390 complaints for the year So looking at the lower end of that estimate gives a whopping high of 33,563 complaints just within this year Seen within this bigger context, you can see that really have had a strong incentive to kick out as many of these cases as possible Winn-Dixie really attempts to limit the avalanche of web accessibility lawsuits by limiting the protections of the ADA Another way that the ADA can be limited is when bills are introduced in Congress to make it harder to bring about web accessibility cases in the first instance An example of the online accessibility act, introduced by Ted Bud of California, and Luke Carea of California

They first file the complaints with the Department of Justice but also applied for compensatory damages And, unfortunately, that bill never became a law There are a bunch of problems when trying to curtail the ADA and this gets back to the fact that ADA is civil-rights legislation designed to protect the rights of people with disabilities There are always going to be people who will try to take advantage of laws like this and make lawsuits seemingly out of thin air but when courts or Congress try to cut back on the ADA, it has the unintended consequence of making life harder for people with disabilities These problems only become magnified when it comes to the Internet On the one hand, the Internet has the potential to break down so much barriers in our society

Shopping, for instance, could be a nightmare for someone who's blind or if you use a wheelchair And these barriers almost disappear when these experiences are made available online in terms of accessibility but a plaintiff could just as easily leverage that and use automated scanning tools to identify dozens of perhaps hundreds of lawsuits in an afternoon However, and that's to use traditional legal skeptics to identify plaintiffs who have suffered a genuine harm versus those who don't I think the courts have done a good job of separating these types of cases but I think they've failed to hit their mark So in general, they've created their dockets is by applying the legal concept of standing to sue In the United States, the plaintiff can't just bring a lawsuit any time they feel like it Instead the Constitution requires that there actually be a

case or controversy in order to be heard by the federal courts In other words, the court won't hear a case that involves a purely hypothetical harm So over the years, over the last two centuries, this has evolved into the concept of standing to sue Plaintiff must have, one, suffered some actual or threatened injury, two, that injury can be fairly traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and, three, that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision And it is the element of that alleged injury that courts have focused on in many of these web-accessibility cases m and by separating out the worthy cases from the lousy cases in this way, the courts are using basic tools like standing to sue And in most cases, this works great because it doesn't have

any impact for the rights of people with disabilities under the ADA So, for instance, one place where these limitations makes perfect sense is federal credit union cases involving web accessibility I'm not exactly sure why but credit unions were an early target for plaintiffs in web-accessibility cases So as you know, credit unions often have very specific geographic and status requirements Like you have to be a veteran But that doesn't prevent the same plaintiff suing the City of Miami Because the plaintiff wasn't eligible to become a member of the credit union and thus suffered no injury from being unable to navigate their website Another place where standing to sue has been successful and more recently, is in a series of hotel accessibility cases in New York and California These cases are quite different from traditional web-accessibility cases because they don't allege that the website isn't accessible

They allege that the hotels failed to reveal the accessibility of their rooms Now that's a specific requirement under the new regulations issued by the Justice Department And in these cases, less than a half dozen plaintiffs filed several hundred lawsuits around the country against smaller hotels and motels And recently, almost all those cases have been dismissed because the plaintiffs have shown no genuine intention to stay at the hotel and could not have suffered an injury In many of these cases, plaintiff alleges that they were a tester, and also in housing cases alleging racial discrimination but these have been largely rejected by the federal court, not entirely -- largely This does not mean all is perfect, however, when courts apply standing requirements in web-accessibility cases and an example of this is how the US District Court for the Eastern District

of New York, required popularized injuries in order for Albert Grizzy to sue Hilton Hotels To understand why, I would like to talk a few minutes about that case So Albert Rizzi is a blind advocate living in NYC and he's a actually good friend of mine and Thomas Logan, as well Several years ago, he tried to reserve a room at a Hilton hotel but was unable to do so because the site was inaccessible His mistake was that he didn't take excruciatingly detailed notes of what happened to him Specifically, the court required him to identify the exact date and time that Albert visited the website, and each feature on the website that constituted a barrier, and an injury that resulted from said barriers, and a link tying each barrier to each injury Now while those requirements may superficially flow from the basic requirements for standing,

it represents the ever-changing nature of websites A lot more to say on that when we get to Domino's Pizza in a few minutes Accommodating these too rigorously denies plaintiffs from their eligibility in the ADA I know Albert and I know he's not an abuser and I knew that he was trying to book a hotel room and was blocked because of the website But requiring plaintiffs to preserve this detailed information only serves to support professional plaintiffs -- exactly the opposite of what the courts should be trying to do So after some thought, I've come to the conclusion that the only real solution to web accessibility is my original solution Ultimately, it's the Department of Justice that needs to clarify its ADA Title III regulation for websites Now for those of you working in this field even for a couple of years

You probably already know the sad story of the Justice Department's effort at creating its web accessibility rule I'm glad to say that I was not at the DOJ when this happened because this is frankly an embarrassment [Internet lag] This was done in the form of an advanced notice of proposed rule-making or what we call an AMPRM which is really the first step and asks a series of questions Then we had to wait six years in silence Six Whole Years Ultimately, on April 29th, 2016, the should have come out with a brand-new draft but instead they issued a supplemental notice of advanced rule-making which is kind of a rare event called an SANPRM which was just another list of questions Well, 2016 was an election year and we all know how that turned out Six months after the Trump administration came in,

they put the web — even though the web accessibility and the disability community were clamoring for the issue to be — so the regulation was pulled entirely on June 26th, 2017 Happy freaking Christmas, everyone So I really think that the reason DOJ is the only solution to web accessibility — only by making WCAG into a legal requirement, it will become a standard and give businesses the guidance they need in order to make their websites accessible in the first place So when I first started preparing this presentation, a certain someone at Equal Entry asked me if I was going to cover the Domino's Pizza case Good grief, I thought After the supreme court denied hearing the case, what's to talk about?

It's obvious which way the court is going to go But I heeded to their request as I frequently do to Thomas' issues and thought about how to incorporate talking about Domino's Then it hit me It makes a new foil to cases like Winn-Dixie and raises some fun legal issues in its own right So instead of ending on a note of doom and gloom we can end on a cheerier note and talk about Domino's So for anyone who's been working in web accessibility, you might already know that the litigation for Domino's website has been going on since the stone age This appeared 2016 as the district court took a very narrow reading of the case and ordered the case be stayed since they were still working on the decision And then they ended up back in district court and went through discovery and now

it was time for motions and summary judgment, a last step before trial and only — and unless Domino's could find a hail-mary pass it was pretty stern to everyone that Domino's Pizza would ultimately lose and they did lose Now when I blogged about this case last month, I compared it to Homer's Odyssey So they sailed from Troy and made it home But that doesn't quite do it justice Sometimes the real story is, is about the journey and not the destination and so, too, the Domino's Pizza story had its own surprising findings that wasn't tied to the decision if you'd like to learn more about the case, I would direct you to our blog at @convergeaccessibility The first surprise was that Domino's Pizza could be liable as a franchisor for the franchisee's website I haven't thought about that before

As you know in California, you have to show a connection or a nexus between what happens on a website and a brick and mortar location That's a typical web-accessibility case in a nexus jurisdiction But what if that website and a business are owned by two completely different companies? So in this case you've got the franchisor, Domino's Pizza which owns the website but they don't own any stores Instead the stores, which are really the places of public accommodation are all owned by the franchisees That legal distinction can really throw a monkey wrench in the discussion but they didn't have any trouble saying that Domino's Pizza would be liable for it Another decision was that phone lines were deemed insufficient by the court This defense to having an accessible website makes sense because the ADA only requires effective communication and the court held that waiting 45

minutes to order a pizza didn't constitute effective communication What's also interesting is what the court didn't say Could a company, for instance, have an inaccessible website if the same products and services were available through a telephone number that had little or no wait time Who knows? So the court also clarified that having multiple barriers on a site or revisiting the same site to conduct the same transaction or same type of transaction only violates one rule in its Unruh Act But for our purposes today, the most important point of the Domino's Pizza case was how the court handled the standing to sue requirement Specifically, the court noted that the Domino's site had changed over 7,600 times since the litigation started and was constantly in a state of flux All they had to maintain was that a continually changing website that cannot be read by screen readers

This is, obviously, an entirely different reading of the standing-to-sue requirement than the one applied to Albert Rizzi Maybe he should have moved to San Francisco I would like to thank my friends at Equal Entry for letting me giving my thoughts on Winn-Dixie and other recent litigation and I would also like to thank all of you for your attention today If you would like to reach out to me, you can reach out to me at [email protected] And if you would like a copy of any of these resources I've talked about today Please reach out Thank you very much.

Ken, we had a question here Can they receive a copy of the deck and would they receive that from you?

It may take me a little bit of time because I was just working on it and I still have to make it accessible.

Okay So that should answer the question and as far as that case was concerned, the other presentation you had, you asked everyone to also reach out to you at your email there I have another question that says: I learned about the inter-american convention recently What is the role and purpose when we have ADA?

Uh, I have no idea Let's see I wasn't prepared for that If you're talking about the UNCRPD, that's different and there's movement with IAAP, and GCPICT on incorporating web accessibility into that But the inter-american Convention I don't know about.

Does anybody else have any questions?

No one has responded so.. Ken...

Everyone gets — oh?

How/when with will we receive the recording?

Tim, we'll have that out to you next week and it comes in by email.

We had a great presentation..

fantastic information Thank you, Ken Thank you, Ken and Elise.

Yeah, Ken, thank you Great working with you like this again and it was really good information I really appreciate it.

Yeah, thanks! Okay Well, thank you everyone and we'll give you this time back and if you have any questions Again, we'll leave Ken's email up here for another minute or so, so you guys can grab it and we will be getting the presentation out to you next week!

Okay! Thank you, everyone Have a great day!

Okay Thanks! Bye! Bye!