ADA

1
ADA Access Antitrust Microsoft Privacy
2
Americans With Disability Access
Title III of Americans With Disabilities Act
(ADA) prohibits discrimination in places of
public accommodation
How does Rendon differ from Southwest Airlines?
Rendon v. ValleyCrest Productions (11th Circuit,
2002) Facts contestant hotlinefast finger
telephone selection process Issue Was
contestant hotline a place of public
accommodation? What were Millionaires
arguments? -- physical public accommodation How
did the court rule? How did it distinguish away
the Stoutenborough case (radio football
broadcasts)?
3
Americans With Disability Access
Access Now v. Southwest Airlines (S.D. Florida,
2002) Facts Southwest website (virtual ticket
counter) inaccessible to blind persons does not
contain alternative text for screen reader
programs for blind. Issue Is Southwest.com a
place of public accommodation under ADA? -- is
it a place of exhibition, display and a sales
establishment? How does court dispose of this
argument? How did the court distinguish this
case from Rendon? Do you agree with the nexus
argument? What does the court suggest is its
role v. Congress role?
4
Antitrust -- Microsoft
Technological dynamism Network
effects Competing for the field vs. competing
within the field
Does Microsoft have monopoly power? -- over what
market? Should we include Mac OS, information
appliances, middleware in definition of the
market? -- is it temporary market
dominance? -- structural market power analysis
Did Microsoft engage in anticompetitive
conduct? -- OEM licensing agreements for IE
integration of IE into Windows (code sharing)
agreements with Internet access providers
(bounties)
5
Privacy
How much privacy should an employee be entitled
to at work?

• Watkins v. L.M. Berry Company (1983)
• Facts Supervisor listens to employees phone
  call regarding new job company policy allows
  personal use of phones, but supervisors can
  listen to determine whether a particular call is
  a a personal or business nature
• Issue Was there consent? Was this interception
  in the ordinary course of business?
• Rule
• Knowledge of the capability of monitoring cannot
  alone be considered implied consent
• a personal call may be intercepted in the
  ordinary couse of business to determine its
  nature, but never its content (is this
  practical?)

6
Privacy -- ECPA
Smyth v. Pillsbury (1996) Facts Employees
assured that email communications would remain
confidential and privileged Smyth writes
threatening emails which are intercepted by
management (email actually sent to one
supervisor) Smyth terminated from job. Issue
Did Smyth have a reasonable expectation of
privacy in email communications? Holding Once
Smyth communicated unprofessional comments to a
second person (his supervisor) over email system
used by entire company, any reasonable
expectation of privacy was lost.
Employers may want to consider Notify all
employees that email will be monitored Getting
written consent of employees regarding email
monitoring Having policy preventing personal use
of email system How about browsing activities?
Employees customers?