This Week in Accessibility: White v. Square

This case ends the hope of remaining inaccessible for Domino’s or any other organization who wants to do business in California or with Californians

Sheri Byrne-Haber, CPACC
5 min readAug 26, 2019

--

Cartoon iphone with “Payment $25 Accept/Decline” and a credit card and payment device connected at the top

It’s not an accessibility case. White is a bankruptcy lawyer who was attempting to access Square’s internet-based services and was blocked by doing so because Square’s terms and conditions specifically refused to provide Square’s services to bankruptcy-related customers. It is a “standing” case as well, meaning the decision is only about whether or not the plaintiff had the right to sue, not about the facts of the case itself.

Even though it is on a completely unrelated topic, the decision by a unanimous California Supreme Court in White v. Square contains unambiguous language that individuals with disabilities will be able to use in alleging accessibility discrimination in the internet setting under the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

When I teach accessibility, I have a slide titled “The Unruh Act — The ADA on Steroids.” California is known for being a) liberal and b) moving vastly more quickly than the federal government when it comes to human rights. The Unruh Act is living proof of that. The Unruh Act:

  1. specifically outlaws discrimination based on sex…

--

--

Sheri Byrne-Haber, CPACC

LinkedIn Top Voice for Social Impact 2022. UX Collective Author of the Year 2020. Disability Inclusion SME. Sr Staff Accessibility Architect @ VMware.