(Violation of New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law,   Article 15 (Executive Law § 292 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of New York City Human Rights Law,  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102, et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law, NY CLS Civ R,  Article 4 (CLS Civ R § 40 et seq.)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and New York subclass)   (Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq. — Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act)  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)   21.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks certification of  the following nationwide class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure: “all legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access  Rosewoodhotel.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and  services offered in The Carlyle Hotel, during the relevant statutory period.”    23.  There are hundreds of thousands of visually impaired persons in New York State.  There are approximately 8.1 million people in the United States who are visually impaired. Id.  Thus, the persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is impractical and  the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to the Court.   24.  This case arises out of Defendant’s policy and practice of maintaining an  inaccessible website denying blind persons access to the goods and services of  Rosewoodhotel.com and The Carlyle Hotel. Due to Defendant’s policy and practice of failing to  remove access barriers, blind persons have been and are being denied full and equal access to  independently browse, select and shop on Rosewoodhotel.com and by extension the goods and  services offered through Defendant’s website to The Carlyle Hotel.   26.  The claims of the named Plaintiff are typical of those of the class. The class,  similarly to the Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that  Rosewood Hotel has violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to update or  remove access barriers on their website, Rosewoodhotel.com, so it can be independently  accessible to the class of people who are legally blind.   27.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Class because Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent and  experienced in complex class action litigation, and because Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic  to the members of the class. Class certification of the claims is appropriate pursuant to 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.   28.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)  because questions of law and fact common to Class members clearly 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.   30.  References to Plaintiff shall be deemed to include the named Plaintiff and each  member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.  31.  Rosewood Hotel operates The Carlyle Hotel, a luxury hotel in New York City.   32.  Rosewoodhotel.com is a service and benefit offered by Rosewood Hotel and The  Carlyle Hotel throughout the United States, including New York state. Rosewoodhotel.com is  owned, controlled and/or operated by Rosewood Hotel.    33.  Rosewoodhotel.com is a commercial website that offers products and services for  online sale that are available in The Carlyle Hotel. The online store allows the user to browse,  select and book reservations; learn about the Rosewood Hotel’s history and founders, find the hotel  location; and perform a variety of other functions.    34.  Among the features offered by Rosewoodhotel.com are the following:  (a)  hotel information, allowing persons who wish to visit The Carlyle Hotel to  learn its location, hours and phone numbers;  (b)  an online store, allowing customers to book a reservation;  (c)  information about Rosewood Hotel’s gift cards, history and job opportunities;  and  (d)  sale of many of the products and services available at The Carlyle Hotel.    36.  Rosewood Hotel denies the blind access to goods, services and information made  available through Rosewoodhotel.com by preventing them from freely navigating  Rosewoodhotel.com.   37.  The Internet has become a significant source of information for conducting business  and for doing everyday activities such as shopping, banking, etc., for sighted and blind persons.   38.  The blind access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with screen-reading  software which vocalizes visual information on a computer screen. Except for a blind person  whose residual vision is still sufficient to use magnification, screen access software provides the  only method by which a blind person can independently access the Internet. Unless websites are  designed to allow for use in this manner, blind persons are unable to fully access Internet websites  and the information, products and services contained therein.   40.  Rosewoodhotel.com contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by  Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen reading software. These barriers are  pervasive and include, but are not limited to: lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop down  menus; the lack of navigation links and the lack of adequate prompting and labeling; the denial of  keyboard access; and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse.   41.  Alternative text (“Alt-text”) is invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image  on a website. Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that a screen  reader can speak the alternative text while a sighted user sees the picture. Alt-text does not change  the visual presentation except that it appears as a text pop-up when the mouse moves over the  picture. There are many important pictures on Rosewoodhotel.com that lack a text equivalent. The  lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description  of the graphics. (Screen readers detect and vocalize alt-text to provide a description of the image  to a blind computer user.) As a result, Plaintiff and blind Rosewood Hotel customers are unable to  determine what is on the website, browse the site, look for Rosewood Hotel’s location, investigate  Rosewood Hotel’s accommodations, amenities and promotions and/or make reservations online.   43.  Rosewoodhotel.com also lacks prompting information and accommodations  necessary to allow blind shoppers who use screen readers to locate and accurately fill-out online  forms. On an online booking site such as Rosewoodhotel.com, these forms include search fields  to locate menu items, fields that specify the room desired, and fields used to fill-out personal  information, including address and credit card information. Due to the lack of adequate labeling,  Plaintiff and blind customers are unable to complete a reservation.   44.  More specifically, Plaintiff and blind customers are prevented from making a  reservation on The Carlyle Hotel’s initial page. The “make a reservation” button is not accessible  with keyboard. Thus, Plaintiff and blind customers are left without online alternatives to make  reservations.    45.  Moreover, the lack of navigation links on Rosewood Hotel’s website makes  attempting to navigate through Rosewoodhotel.com even more time consuming and confusing for  Plaintiff and blind consumers.   46.  Rosewoodhotel.com requires the use of a mouse to complete a transaction. Yet, it  is a fundamental tenet of web accessibility that for a web page to be accessible to Plaintiff and  blind people, it must be possible for the user to interact with the page using only the keyboard.  Indeed, Plaintiff and blind users cannot use a mouse because manipulating the mouse is a visual  activity of moving the mouse pointer from one visual spot on the page to another. Thus,  Rosewoodhotel.com’s inaccessible design, which requires the use of a mouse to complete a  transaction, denies Plaintiff and blind customers the ability to independently make reservations on  Rosewoodhotel.com.   48.  Rosewoodhotel.com thus contains access barriers which deny full and equal access  to Plaintiff, who would otherwise use Rosewoodhotel.com and who would otherwise be able to  fully and equally enjoy the benefits and services of The Carlyle Hotel in New York State.   49.  Plaintiff LUCIA MARETT has made numerous attempts to complete a reservation  on Rosewoodhotel.com, most recently in October 2016, but was unable to do so independently  because of the many access barriers on Defendant’s website, causing Rosewoodhotel.com to be  inaccessible and not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals.   50.  As described above, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the fact that Defendant’s  website, Rosewoodhotel.com contains access barriers causing the website to be inaccessible, and  not independently usable by, blind and visually impaired individuals.   51.  These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and  enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of Rosewoodhotel.com and The Carlyle Hotel.   53.  Rosewood Hotel utilizes standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others.  54.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations  as if set forth fully herein.   55.  Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a),  provides that “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.” Title III also prohibits an entity from “[u]tilizing standards or criteria  or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of disability.” 42  U.S.C. § 12181(b)(2)(D)(I).   56.  The Carlyle Hotel located in New York State is a sales establishment and public  accommodation within the definition of 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E). Rosewoodhotel.com is a  service, privilege or advantage of The Carlyle Hotel. Rosewoodhotel.com is a service that is by  and integrated with this hotel.   57.  Defendant is subject to Title III of the ADA because they own and operate The  Carlyle Hotel.   59.  Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful  discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities an  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals.   60.  Specifically, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(II), unlawful  discrimination 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.”    61.  In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III), unlawful  discrimination also includes, among other things, “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.”   63.  The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §  12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Patrons of The Carlyle Hotel who are  blind have been denied full and equal access to Rosewoodhotel.com, have not been provided  services that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and/or have been provided services  that are inferior to the services provided to non-disabled patrons.    64.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.    65.  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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or  opportunities of Rosewoodhotel.com and The Carlyle Hotel in violation of Title III of the Americans  with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.   66.  Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful  practices, Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass will continue to suffer irreparable  harm.   67.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of the ADA and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her statutory right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   68.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.     70.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   71.  N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) provides that it is “an unlawful discriminatory  practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent,  agent or employee of any place of public accommodation … because of the … disability  of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any  of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.”   72.  The Carlyle Hotel located in New York State is a sales establishment and public  accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Rosewoodhotel.com is a  service, privilege or advantage of The Carlyle Hotel. Rosewoodhotel.com is a service that is by  and integrated with this hotel.   73.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because they own and  operate the The Carlyle Hotel and Rosewoodhotel.com. Defendant is a person within the meaning  of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   75.  Specifically, under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(I), unlawful discriminatory  practice includes, among other things, “a refusal to make reasonable modifications in  policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford facilities,  privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless such  person can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the  nature of such facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.”   76.  In addition, under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(II), unlawful discriminatory  practice also includes, “a refusal to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no  individual with a disability is excluded or denied services because of the absence of auxiliary  aids and services, unless such person can demonstrate that taking such steps would  fundamentally alter the nature of the facility, privilege, advantage or accommodation being  offered or would result in an undue burden.”   77.  There are readily available, well established guidelines on the Internet for making  websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have been followed by  other large business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited to:  adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither fundamentally  alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   79.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   80.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class on the basis of disability in the full and equal  enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or  opportunities of Rosewoodhotel.com and The Carlyle Hotel under § 296(2) et seq. 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.   81.  The actions of Defendant were and are in violation of New York State Human  Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   82.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil penalties and fines  pursuant to N.Y. Exc. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   83.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   85.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.  Civil Rights Law § 41.    86.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as  though fully set forth herein.   87.  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40 provides that “all persons within the jurisdiction  of this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and  privileges of any places of public accommodations, resort or amusement, subject only to the  conditions and limitations established by law and applicable alike to all persons. No persons,  being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee of any such  place shall directly or indirectly refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the  accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges thereof …”     88.  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) provides that “no person because of …  disability, as such term is defined in section two hundred ninety-two of executive law,  be subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights, or to any harassment, as  defined in section 240.25 of the penal law, in the exercise thereof, by any other person  or by any firm, corporation or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision”   90.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because they own and operate  The Carlyle Hotel and Rosewoodhotel.com. Defendant is a person within the meaning of N.Y.  Civil Law § 40-c(2).   91.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Rosewoodhotel.com, causing Rosewoodhotel.com and the  services integrated with The Carlyle Hotel to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that  Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.    92.  There are readily available, well established guidelines on the Internet for making  websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have been followed by  other large business entities in making their website accessible, including but not limited to:  adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard.  Incorporating the basic components to make their website accessible would neither fundamentally  alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   93.  In addition, N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41 states that “any corporation which shall  violate any of the provisions of sections forty, forty-a, forty-b or forty two … shall for each  and every violation thereof be liable to a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor  more than five hundred dollars, to be recovered by the person aggrieved thereby…”   95.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   96.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class on the basis of disability are being directly or  indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges  thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.    97.  Plaintiff and class members are entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred  dollars per instance, as well as civil penalties and fines pursuant to N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for  each and every offense.  98.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing allegations as if set  forth fully herein.  