Final Settlement and Commerce Clause
Editor’s Note: One of the interesting side lights of this case is the unusual expertise of the lead attorneys. For example Justin Lewis was a partner in Lewis Stevens, which was essentially a truck accident law firm until this case. And William French’s main expertise is ip (intellectual property law). But the issues of this case are so fundamental to our society, that most litigators would find no trouble arguing with conviction.
The class-action lawsuit brought against Target by the National Federation of the Blind has ended in a settlement agreement which includes concessions by Target to increase accessibility of Target.com and also payment of claimants.
- During the transition process, the NFB will monitor Target, as well as provide training to the website’s developers and examine any further complaints regarding the website’s accessibility.
- The target date (no pun intended) is 2/28/2009; at that time, Target.com will be completely accessible to guests who are blind, with an ease of use comparable to sighted guests.
- Should all steps be taken, Target.com will be awarded, and display, NFB-NVA Web Certification (NVA = Non-Visual Access).
- Target has agreed to place $6 million in an interest-bearing account to be divided between all valid claimants (some claimants may refer to two separate instances, for a double share).
- $20,000 will be paid by Target towards the California Center for the Blind, via a nonprofit corporation created by Bruce Sexton (the original plaintiff in the lawsuit).
The United State’s Constitution contains a Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) designed to establish the power Congress has to regulate commerce. The clause specifically names interstate commerce, international commerce, and commerce with “the Indian tribes”.
The Commerce Clause has been used (and abused, in some views) to restrict and also broaden Congress’ reach. Basically, those who would limit the powers of the federal Government (a broad category that includes Strict Constructionists, Free-Market proponents, States’ Rights advocates, Libertarians, and the nearly-vanished original Republican Party) prefer a more literal interpretation, while those who wish the Federal Government to operate with fewer limits (an even wider range, equally attractive to police-state fascists and liberal progressives) tend to invoke the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18) as well.
There is much more information which can help one to come to a conclusion about these facts. It is a very hot topic & should be discussed in order to come to the best possible outcome for all parties involved. Many times theses hot topics are just brushed over because of the nature of the information in question & that leads to very very hard problem to fix. It is about time that we bring these facts to light & spend some time rectifying the situation rather that just sweeping it aside.