23.  Defendant owns, operates and/or controls its restaurants, sells store gift  cards to the public, and uses them as a form of communication. One or more of its  restaurants is located in New York City. Defendant’s restaurants constitute places of  public accommodation. Defendant’s restaurants provide important goods and services to  the public.     25.  Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant’s store gift cards, blind and  visually-impaired customers such as Plaintiff, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the  facilities, goods, and services Defendant offers to the public at its restaurants. 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 purchasing, accessing, and  utilizing the store gift cards and, as a result, Defendant’s restaurants.    26.  These access barriers on Defendant’s store gift cards have deterred  Plaintiff from visiting Defendant’s physical locations, and enjoying them equal to sighted  individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to purchase a Braille store gift card related to  Defendant’s physical restaurant locations, preventing Plaintiff from visiting the locations.  Plaintiff intends to immediately purchase a store gift card issued by the Defendant as  soon as they become available in Braille.   27.  If the store gift cards were equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could  independently purchase the store gift cards and complete a desired transaction utilizing  gift cards as sighted individuals do.   28.  Through his knowledge about the lack of Braille store gift cards, Plaintiff  has actual knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and  independently unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.   30.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   31.  Title III of the ADA requires that public accommodations provide  “appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective  communication with individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c); see also 42  U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).    32.  Defendant discriminates on the basis of disability because they fail to  afford individuals who are visually impaired with the same ability to independently  access the goods and services provided to others, thus failing to ensure effective  communication with its visually impaired customers during transactions for its goods and  services.    33.  The regulation sets forth numerous examples of “auxiliary aids and  services”, including, without limitation, “Brailled materials and displays..." 28 C.F.R. §   34.  In addition to this general nondiscrimination mandate, Title III prohibits  public accommodations from engaging in specific types of discrimination, including  the 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  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, services, facility,  privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue  burden. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(a).    35.  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 provision of an auxiliary aid or service, (emphasis  added) . . . modification of a policy . . .                     42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2)  Nothing in this section shall require a person with disability to engage in a futile  gesture if such person has actual notice that a person or organization … does not  intend to comply with its provisions.   42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1)   37.  If the store gift cards were accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind  and visually-impaired people could independently utilize them.   38.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding its  store gift cards, 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  marketing and selling its store gift cards and has generated significant revenue from the  store gift cards. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its store  gift cards 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 store gift cards, violating their rights.  41.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a nationwide class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind  individuals in the United States who would like independent access to Defendant’s store  gift cards and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and  services offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   43.  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 would like independent access to  Defendant’s store gift cards and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the  relevant statutory period.    44.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether  Defendant’s  store  gift  cards  are  a  “public  accommodation” under the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendant’s store gift cards are a “place or provider of  public accommodation” under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendant’s store gift cards deny the full and equal  enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  people with visual disabilities, violating the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendant’s store gift cards deny the full and equal  enjoyment of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  people with visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   46.  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 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.   47.  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 their litigation.   48.  Judicial economy will be served by maintaining their 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.  49.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   51.  Defendant’s restaurants are places of public accommodation within the  definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Defendant’s store gift cards are  a service, privilege, or advantage of Defendant’s restaurants. The store gift cards are a  service that is integrated with these locations.   52.  Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful  discrimination to deny individuals or a class of individuals with disabilities the  opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   53.  Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful  discrimination to deny individuals 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. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).   55.  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 store gift cards, has not 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.   56.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a) and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  57.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the New York State Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   58.  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.”   59.  Defendant’s physical locations are located in the State of New York and  constitute restaurants and places of public accommodation within the definition of N.Y.  Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s store gift cards are a service, privilege or advantage of  Defendant. Defendant’s store gift cards are a service that is by and integrated with these  physical locations.   60.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns,  operates and/or controls its physical locations and sells its store gift cards. Defendant is a  person within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   61.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its store gift cards, causing its store gift cards and the services  integrated with Defendant’s physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind.  Their inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   63.  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.”   64.  Readily available manufacturing and/or printing capabilities exist for  making store gift cards accessible to the blind and visually impaired. The addition to  store gift cards of Braille on the gift card and packaging thereof and other related  marketing materials would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business  nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   66.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   67.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability in the  full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Defendant’s store gift cards and its physical  locations 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  the Sub-Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   68.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of New York State Human  Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   69.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   70.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   71.  Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below.  73.  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.”   74.  Defendant’s locations are restaurants and places of public accommodation  within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its store gift cards are a  service that is integrated with its establishments.   75.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns, operates and/or  controls its physical locations in the City of New York and its store gift cards, making it a  person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   76.  Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in  refusing to update or remove access barriers to its store gift cards, causing its store gift  cards and the services integrated with its physical locations to be completely inaccessible  to the blind. The inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities,  goods, and services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   78.  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 is:  a.  developing, marketing and selling store gift cards that are  inaccessible to blind class members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  b.  failing to sell store gift cards that are sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious and that is inaccessible to blind class members; and/or  c.  failing to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   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 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 its store gift cards and its  establishments under § 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.   81.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and  therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   83.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   84.  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.  85.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class and New York State and City  Sub-Classes Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   86.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, Defendant’s store gift cards contain access barriers denying blind  customers the full and equal access to the goods, services and facilities of its store gift  cards and by extension its physical locations, which Defendant owns, operates and  controls, and 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., N.Y. Exec. Law §  296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against  the blind.   87.  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.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers On Its Store Gift Cards   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  