Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 19
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and all
`:
`others similarly situated,
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiff JENISA ANGELES, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
` Case No.: 1:21-cv-5118
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`AND
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BOOKS INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`1.
`
`asserts the following claims against Defendant BOOKS INC. as follows.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-
`
`reading software to read website content using her computer. Plaintiff uses the
`
`terms “blind” or “visually-impaired” to refer to all people with visual impairments
`
`who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
`
`correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this
`
`definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.
`
`3.
`
`Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in
`
`the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and
`
`according to the American Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately
`
`400,000 visually impaired persons live in the State of New York.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design,
`
`construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 19
`
`independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.
`
`Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of
`
`its goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the
`
`Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
`
`5.
`
`Because Defendant’s website, www.booksinc.net (the “Website”), is not equally
`
`accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff
`
`seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies,
`
`practices, and procedures so that Defendant’s website will become and remain
`
`accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`
`6.
`
`and 42 U.S.C. § 12181, as Plaintiff’s claims arise under Title III of the ADA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., and 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over Plaintiff’s
`
`New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq.,
`
`(“NYCHRL”) claims.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) and (2) because
`
`Defendant conducts and continues to conduct a substantial and significant amount
`
`of business in this District, and a substantial portion of the conduct complained of
`
`herein occurred in this District because Plaintiff attempted to utilize, on a number
`
`of occasions, the subject Website within this Judicial District.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Defendant has been
`
`and is committing the acts or omissions alleged herein in the Southern District of
`
`New York that caused injury and violated rights the ADA prescribes to Plaintiff
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 3 of 19
`
`and to other blind and other visually impaired-consumers. A substantial part of the
`
`acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District: on
`
`several separate occasions, Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of
`
`the facilities, goods and services offered to the general public, on Defendant’s
`
`Website in New York County. These access barriers that Plaintiff encountered have
`
`caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access multiple times in the past, and
`
`now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Defendant’s Website in
`
`the future.
`
`10.
`
`This Court is empowered to issue a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
`
`and 2202.
`
`THE PARTIES
`Plaintiff JENISA ANGELES, at all relevant times, is and was a resident of New
`
`11.
`
`York County, New York.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and a member of a
`
`protected class of individuals under the ADA, under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)-(2), and
`
`the regulations implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq., and
`
`NYCHRL.
`
`13.
`
`Defendant is and was at all relevant times a California Corporation doing business
`
`in New York.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant’s Website, and its goods, and services offered thereupon, is a public
`
`accommodation within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`The Internet has become a significant source of information, a portal, and a tool for
`
`15.
`
`conducting business, doing everyday activities such as shopping, learning, banking,
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 4 of 19
`
`researching, as well as many other activities for sighted, blind and visually-
`
`impaired persons alike.
`
`16.
`
`In today’s tech-savvy world, blind and visually impaired people have the ability to
`
`access websites using keyboards in conjunction with screen access software that
`
`vocalizes the visual information found on a computer screen or displays the content
`
`on a refreshable Braille display. This technology is known as screen-reading
`
`software. Screen-reading software is currently the only method a blind or visually-
`
`impaired person may use to independently access the internet. Unless websites are
`
`designed to be read by screen-reading software, blind and visually-impaired
`
`persons are unable to fully access websites, and the information, products, goods
`
`and contained thereon.
`
`17.
`
`Blind and visually-impaired users of Windows operating system-enabled
`
`computers and devices have several screen reading software programs available to
`
`them. Some of these programs are available for purchase and other programs are
`
`available without the user having to purchase the program separately. Job Access
`
`With Speech, otherwise known as “JAWS” is currently the most popular, separately
`
`purchased and downloaded screen-reading software program available for a
`
`Windows computer. Another popular screen-reading software program available
`
`for a Windows computer is NonVisual Desktop Access “NVDA”.
`
`18.
`
`For screen-reading software to function, the information on a website must be
`
`capable of being rendered into text. If the website content is not capable of being
`
`rendered into text, the blind or visually-impaired user is unable to access the same
`
`content available to sighted users.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 5 of 19
`
`19.
`
`The
`
`international website standards organization,
`
`the World Wide Web
`
`Consortium, known throughout the world as W3C, has published version 2.1 of the
`
`Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG 2.1”). WCAG 2.1 are well-
`
`established guidelines for making websites accessible to blind and visually-
`
`impaired people. These guidelines are universally followed by most large business
`
`entities and government agencies to ensure their websites are accessible.
`
`20.
`
`Non-compliant websites pose common access barriers to blind and visually-
`
`impaired persons. Common barriers encountered by blind and visually impaired
`
`persons include, but are not limited to, the following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`A text equivalent for every non-text element is not provided;
`
`Title frames with text are not provided for identification and
`
`navigation;
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Equivalent text is not provided when using scripts;
`
`Forms with the same information and functionality as for sighted
`
`persons are not provided;
`
`e.
`
`Information about the meaning and structure of content is not
`
`conveyed by more than the visual presentation of content;
`
`f.
`
`Text cannot be resized without assistive technology up to 200%
`
`without losing content or functionality;
`
`g.
`
`If the content enforces a time limit, the user is not able to extend,
`
`adjust or disable it;
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`Web pages do not have titles that describe the topic or purpose;
`
`The purpose of each link cannot be determined from the link text
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 6 of 19
`
`alone or from the link text and its programmatically determined link
`
`context;
`
`j.
`
`One or more keyboard operable user interface lacks a mode of
`
`operation where the keyboard focus indicator is discernible;
`
`k.
`
`The default human language of each web page cannot be
`
`programmatically determined;
`
`l.
`
`When a component receives focus, it may initiate a change in
`
`context;
`
`m.
`
`Changing the setting of a user interface component may
`
`automatically cause a change of context where the user has not been advised
`
`before using the component;
`
`n.
`
`Labels or instructions are not provided when content requires user
`
`input, which include captcha prompts that require the user to verify that he
`
`or she is not a robot;
`
`o.
`
`In content which is implemented by using markup languages,
`
`elements do not have complete start and end tags, elements are not nested
`
`according to their specifications, elements may contain duplicate attributes,
`
`and/or any IDs are not unique;
`
`p.
`
`q.
`
`Inaccessible Portable Document Format (PDFs); and,
`
`The name and role of all User Interface elements cannot be
`
`programmatically determined; items that can be set by the user cannot be
`
`programmatically set; and/or notification of changes to these items is not
`
`available to user agents, including assistive technology.
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 7 of 19
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`Defendant is an independent bookselling company that owns and operates
`
`21.
`
`www.booksinc.net (its “Website”), offering features which should allow all
`
`consumers to access the goods and services and which Defendant ensures the
`
`delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant’s Website offers products and services for online sale and general
`
`delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to
`
`browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and
`
`avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer
`
`without the assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff is, however, a proficient
`
`NVDA screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited the
`
`Website on separate occasions using a screen-reader.
`
`24.
`
`On multiple occasions, the last occurring in May of 2021, Plaintiff visited
`
`Defendant’s website, www.booksinc.net, to make a purchase. Despite her efforts,
`
`however, Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted
`
`individual due to the website’s lack of a variety of features and accommodations,
`
`which effectively barred Plaintiff from being able to determine what specific
`
`products were offered for sale.
`
`25. Many features on the Website lacks alt. text, which is the invisible code
`
`embedded beneath a graphical image. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to
`
`differentiate what products were on the screen due to the failure of the Website to
`
`adequately describe its content. Such issues were predominant in the section where
`
`Plaintiff was attempting, but was unsuccessful, in making a purchase.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 8 of 19
`
`26. Many features on the Website also fail to Add a label element or title attribute for
`
`each field. This is a problem for the visually impaired because the screen reader
`
`fails to communicate the purpose of the page element. It also leads to the user not
`
`being able to understand what he or she is expected to insert into the subject field.
`
`As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated visually impaired users of Defendant’s
`
`Website are unable to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Website equally to
`
`sighted users.
`
`27. Many pages on the Website also contain the same title elements. This is a problem
`
`for the visually impaired because the screen reader fails to distinguish one page
`
`from another. In order to fix this problem, Defendant must change the title elements
`
`for each page.
`
`28.
`
`The Website also contained a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-
`
`existent or empty webpage. For the visually impaired this is especially paralyzing
`
`due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website
`
`once a broken link is encountered. For example, upon coming across a link of
`
`interest, Plaintiff was redirected to an error page. However, the screen-reader failed
`
`to communicate that the link was broken. As a result, Plaintiff could not get back
`
`to her original search.
`
`29.
`
`These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy
`
`Defendant’s website the same way sighted individuals do.
`
`30.
`
`It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny Plaintiff,
`
`along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendant’s website,
`
`and to therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered to the
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 9 of 19
`
`general public. Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to
`
`its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being
`
`denied equal access to Defendant’s Website, and the numerous goods and services
`
`and benefits offered to the public through the Website.
`
`31.
`
`Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant’s Website, blind and visually-impaired
`
`customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use
`
`or enjoy the facilities, products, and services Defendant offers to the public on its
`
`Website. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of
`
`Plaintiff’s full and equal access in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular
`
`basis from equal access to the Website.
`
`32.
`
`If the Website were equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently navigate
`
`the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.
`
`33.
`
`Through her attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the
`
`access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently unusable
`
`by blind and visually-impaired people.
`
`34.
`
`Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide Plaintiff
`
`and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, Plaintiff
`
`alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including
`
`but not limited to the following policies or practices:
`
`a.
`
`Constructing and maintaining a website that is inaccessible to
`
`visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff;
`
`b.
`
`Failure to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently intuitive
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 10 of 19
`
`so as to be equally accessible to visually impaired individuals, including
`
`Plaintiff; and,
`
`c.
`
`Failing to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of
`
`substantial harm and discrimination to blind and visually-impaired
`
`consumers, such as Plaintiff, as a member of a protected class.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the
`
`effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.
`
`36.
`
`The ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks in this
`
`action. In relevant part, the ADA requires:
`
`In the case of violations of . . . this title, injunctive relief shall include an order to
`alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals
`with disabilities . . . Where appropriate, injunctive relief shall also include requiring
`the . . . modification of a policy . . .
`
`
`42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).
`
`37.
`
`Because Defendant’s Website has never been equally accessible, and because
`
`Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its Website
`
`to become and remain accessible, Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and
`
`seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant
`
`acceptable to Plaintiff (“Agreed Upon Consultant”) to assist Defendant to comply
`
`with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for Defendant’s Website. Plaintiff seeks that this
`
`permanent injunction requires Defendant to cooperate with the Agreed Upon
`
`Consultant to:
`
`a.
`
`Train Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the Website
`
`on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.1 guidelines;
`
`b.
`
`Regularly check the accessibility of the Website under the WCAG
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 11 of 19
`
`2.1 guidelines;
`
`c.
`
`Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons
`
`to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.1
`
`guidelines; and,
`
`d.
`
`Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on Defendant’s
`
`Websites, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related
`
`problems.
`
`38.
`
`Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding maintaining
`
`and operating its Website, Defendant lacks a plan and policy reasonably calculated
`
`to make them fully and equally accessible to, and independently usable by, blind
`
`and other visually-impaired consumers.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in
`
`developing and maintaining their Website and has generated significant revenue
`
`from the Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making
`
`their Website equally accessible to visually impaired customers.
`
`40. Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will
`
`continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks to certify a
`
`41.
`
`nationwide class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind
`
`individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website
`
`and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services,
`
`during the relevant statutory period.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 12 of 19
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks to certify a New
`
`York City subclass under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind
`
`individuals in the City of New York who have attempted to access Defendant’s
`
`Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and
`
`services offered, during the relevant statutory period.
`
`43.
`
`Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class, including:
`
`a.
`
`Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” under
`
`the ADA;
`
`b.
`
`Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public
`
`accommodation” under the NYCHRL;
`
`c.
`
`Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment
`
`of
`
`its products,
`
`services,
`
`facilities, privileges, advantages, or
`
`accommodations to people with visual disabilities, violating the ADA; and
`
`d.
`
`of
`
`Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment
`
`its products,
`
`services,
`
`facilities, privileges, advantages, or
`
`accommodations to people with visual disabilities, violating the NYCHRL.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly to the Plaintiff, are
`
`severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has
`
`violated the ADA or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on
`
`its Website so either can be independently accessible to the Class.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class
`
`Members because Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent
`
`and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because Plaintiff has no
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 13 of 19
`
`interests antagonistic to the Class Members. Class certification of the claims is
`
`appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted or refused
`
`to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making appropriate both
`
`declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole.
`
`46.
`
`Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because
`
`fact and legal questions common to Class Members predominate over questions
`
`affecting only individual Class Members, and because a class action is superior to
`
`other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.
`
`47.
`
`Judicial economy will be served by maintaining this lawsuit as a class action in that
`
`it is likely to avoid the burden that would be otherwise placed upon the judicial
`
`system by the filing of numerous similar suits by people with visual disabilities
`
`throughout the United States.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.
` Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges every
`
`48.
`
`allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`49.
`
`Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides:
`
`No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and
`equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
`accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns,
`leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
`
`50.
`
`Defendant’s Website is a public accommodations within the definition of Title III
`
`of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). The Website is a service that is offered to the
`
`general public, and as such, must be equally accessible to all potential consumers.
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 14 of 19
`
`51.
`
`Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to
`
`deny individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from
`
`the products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an
`
`entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).
`
`52.
`
`Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to
`
`deny individuals with disabilities an opportunity to participate in or benefit from
`
`the products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodation, which
`
`is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. §
`
`12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).
`
`53.
`
`Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination also
`
`includes, among other things:
`
`[A] failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures,
`when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities,
`privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless
`the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally
`alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or
`accommodations; and a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that
`no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise
`treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids
`and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would
`fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage,
`or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii).
`
`54.
`
`The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and the
`
`regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is a member of a protected class
`
`of persons under the ADA, has a physical disability that substantially limits the
`
`major life activity of sight within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A)-(2)(A).
`
`Furthermore, Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Website, has not
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 15 of 19
`
`been provided services that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and
`
`has been provided services that are inferior to the services provided to non-disabled
`
`persons. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its
`
`discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.
`
`55.
`
`Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and
`
`incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL
`Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York City Sub-Class Members, repeats
`
`56.
`
`and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`57.
`
`N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) provides that “It shall be an unlawful
`
`discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor,
`
`manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public
`
`accommodation, because of . . . disability . . . directly or indirectly, to refuse,
`
`withhold from or deny to such person, any of the accommodations, advantages,
`
`facilities or privileges thereof.”
`
`58.
`
`Defendant’s Website is a sales establishment and public accommodations within
`
`the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9).
`
`59.
`
`Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its Website, making
`
`it a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).
`
`60.
`
`Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing to
`
`update or remove access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services
`
`integrated with such Website to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 16 of 19
`
`inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, products,
`
`and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.
`
`61.
`
`Defendant is required to “make reasonable accommodation to the needs of persons
`
`with disabilities . . . any person prohibited by the provisions of [§ 8-107 et seq.]
`
`from discriminating on
`
`the basis of disability shall make reasonable
`
`accommodation to enable a person with a disability to . . . enjoy the right or rights
`
`in question provided that the disability is known or should have been known by the
`
`covered entity.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(15)(a).
`
`62.
`
`Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the Sub-
`
`Class on the basis of a disability in violation of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code §
`
`8-107(4)(a) and § 8-107(15)(a) in that Defendant has:
`
`a.
`
`constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to blind
`
`class members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or
`
`b.
`
`constructed and maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive
`
`and/or obvious that is inaccessible to blind class members; and/or
`
`c.
`
`failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of
`
`substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their
`
`discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.
`
`64.
`
`As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate
`
`against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the basis of
`
`disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the products, services, facilities,
`
`privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of its Website under
`
`
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 17 of 19
`
`§ 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins
`
`Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and
`
`members of the class will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore
`
`Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties and
`
`fines under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120(8) and § 8-126(a) for each offense
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`as well as punitive damages pursuant to § 8-502.
`
`Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`Under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120 and § 8-126 and the remedies,
`
`procedures, and rights set forth and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for
`
`judgment as set forth below.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`DECLARATORY RELIEF
`Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class and New York City Sub-Classes
`
`69.
`
`Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`70.
`
`An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that Plaintiff
`
`contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that its Website
`
`contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the
`
`products, services and facilities of its Website, which Defendant owns, operates and
`
`controls, fails to comply with applicable laws including, but not limited to, Title III
`
`of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., and N.Y.C.
`
`Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
`
`
`
`-17-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 18 of 19
`
`71.
`
`A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each of
`
`the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court grant the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`A preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from
`
`violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq.,
`
`N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq., and the laws of New York;
`
`b.
`
`A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take
`
`all the steps necessary to make its Website into full compliance with the
`
`requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that
`
`the Website is readily accessible to and usable by blind individuals;
`
`c.
`
`A declaration that Defendant owns, maintains and/or operates its
`
`Website in a manner that discriminates against the blind and which fails to
`
`provide access for persons with disabilities as required by Americans with
`
`Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y.C. Administrative Code
`
`§ 8-107, et seq., and the laws of New York
`
`d.
`
`An order certifying the Class and Sub-Classes under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative,
`
`and her attorneys as Class Counsel;
`
`e.
`
`Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof,
`
`including all applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines, to
`
`Plaintiff and the proposed class and subclasses for violations of their civil
`
`rights under New York City Human Rights Law and City Law;
`
`f.
`
`Pre- and post-judgment interest;
`
`
`
`-18-
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-05118 Document 1 Filed 06/09/21 Page 19 of 19
`
`g.
`
`An award of costs and expenses of this action together with
`
`reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees; and
`
`h.
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions
`
`of fact the Complaint raises.
`
`Dated: Hackensack, New Jersey
`
` June 9, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STEIN SAKS, PLLC
`
`By: /s/ Mark Rozenberg
`Mark Rozenberg, Esq.
`mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com
`285 Passaic Str