14.  Mercedes House is an apartment building located at 550 West 54th Street,  New York, New York. It rents within this buildings, studio apartments, and apartments  with one or more bedrooms.   15.  Mercedes House’s Website is heavily integrated with its building, serving  as its gateway. Through the Website, Mercedes House’s tenants and prospective tenants  are, inter alia, able to: learn information about the building, including its location,  apartment features and building amenities; view images and floorplans of the apartments;  learn about the neighborhood; learn about the available apartments, including that a  twelvemonth lease includes one month free rent; learn about the developer, apply for the  apartment; book a tour; or contact the leasing office via an online form.   16.  It is, upon information and belief, Mercedes House’s policy and practice  to deny Plaintiff Fischler and other blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website,  thereby denying the facilities and services that are offered and integrated with its  apartment building. Due to its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Website,  Plaintiff Fischler and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied  equal access to Mercedes House’s apartment building and the numerous facilities, goods,  services, and benefits offered to the public through its Website.  -7-   17.  Plaintiff Fischler cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen- reading software. He is, however, a proficient screen-reader user and uses it to access the  Internet. He has visited the Website on separate occasions using screen-reading software.   18.  During his visits to the Website, the last occurring on or about July 16,  2018, Plaintiff Fischler encountered multiple access barriers that denied him the full  enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the Website, as well as to the facilities,  goods, and services of Mercedes House’s apartment building. Because of these barriers  he was unable to, substantially equal to sighted individuals:   a.  Know what is on the Website. This is largely because the non-text  images lack alt-text describing them. They are not tagged with descriptions, not even file  names. Several images are not even detected.  Plaintiff Fischler was unable to learn about  the apartment layouts because when he selects a floor plan, a pop-up window is opened  but no image is detected.  He was unable to learn about neighborhood features.  When he  selected restaurants and cafes, a pop up window opens.  However the screen reader is not  alerted to the new information and the screen reader's focus is not redirected.     b.  Navigate the Website. Plaintiff Fischler had difficulty navigating  the Website due to the repeated use of pop-up windows, which are not compatible with  screen readers.  He also had difficulty trying to book an appointment, despite repeated  efforts he was unsuccessful.   19.  Plaintiff Fischler was denied full and equal access to the facilities and  services Mercedes House offers to the public on its Website because he encountered  multiple accessibility barriers that visually-impaired people often encounter with non- compliant websites:  -8-  a.  Lack of alt-text for images.   b.  Document titles are blank.  c.  Links use general text like "Read More" with no surrounding text  explaining the link's purpose.  d.  PDFs are not tagged and therefore are inaccessible by screen  readers.   e.  Webpages have duplicate IDs which cause problems in screen  readers.  f.  Several links on a page share the same link text but go to a  different destination.  g.  Webpages have markup errors.  Mercedes House Must Remove Barriers to Its Website    20.  Due to the inaccessibility of its Website, blind and visually-impaired  customers such as Plaintiff Fischler, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally  use or enjoy the facilities, goods, and services Mercedes House offers to the public on its  Website. The Website’s access barriers that Plaintiff Fischler encountered have caused a  denial of his full and equal access in the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from  accessing the Website. These access barriers have likewise deterred him from visiting  Mercedes House’s apartment building and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals.    21.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Fischler could  independently navigate it, learn about available apartments, book an appointment as  sighted users can.  -9-   22.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Fischler has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.    23.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would  provide Plaintiff Fischler and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the  Website, Plaintiff Fischler alleges that Mercedes House 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 Fischler;  b.  Failing to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff  Fischler; 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 Fischler, as a member of a protected class.   24.  Mercedes House therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of  administration that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of  others, as alleged herein.   25.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff Fischler seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   26.  Because its Website has never been equally accessible, and because  Mercedes House lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its  Website to become and remain accessible, Plaintiff Fischler seeks a permanent injunction  -10-  under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) requiring Mercedes House to retain a qualified consultant  acceptable to Plaintiff Fischler to assist Mercedes House to comply with WCAG 2.1  guidelines for its Website:  a.  Remediating the Website to be WCAG 2.1 compliant;  b.  Training Mercedes House employees and agents who develop the  Website on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.1 guidelines;  c.  Regularly checking the accessibility of the Website under the  WCAG 2.1 guidelines;  d.  Regularly testing user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Mercedes House’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.1  guidelines; and,   e.  Developing an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Mercedes House’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility- related problems.   27.  Although Mercedes House may currently have centralized policies on  maintaining and operating its Website, Mercedes House 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.   28.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Fischler and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its  rights.   29.  Mercedes House has, upon information and belief, invested substantial  sums in developing and maintaining its Website and has generated significant revenue  -11-  from the Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its  Website equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   30.  Mercedes House has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to  remedy its discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  31.  Plaintiff Fischler 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 have attempted  to access Mercedes House’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Mercedes House’s apartment building, during  the relevant statutory period (“Class Members”).   32.  Plaintiff Fischler seeks to certify a State of New York subclass under Fed.  R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2): all legally blind individuals in the State of New York who  have attempted to access the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Mercedes House’s apartment building, during  the relevant statutory period (“New York Subclass Members”).   33.  Plaintiff Fischler 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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Mercedes House’s apartment building, during  the relevant statutory period (“New York City Subclass Members”).   34.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class Members,  New York Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members:  -12-  a.  Whether Mercedes House’s apartment building is a place of  “public accommodation”;  b.  Whether the Website is a “public accommodation” or a service or  good “of a place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA;   c.  Whether the Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” or an “accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege” under the  NYSHRL or NYCHRL;   d.  Whether the Website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its  goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with  visual disabilities, violating Title III of the ADA; and  e.  Whether the Website denies the full and equal enjoyment of its  goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with  visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   35.  Plaintiff Fischler’s claims are typical of the Class Members, New York  Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members: they are all severely visually  impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Mercedes House has violated Title III of the  ADA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on its  Website so it can be independently accessible to the visually impaired individuals.   36.  Plaintiff Fischler will fairly and adequately represent and protect the Class  and Subclasses’ interests because he has retained and is represented by counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because he has no  interests antagonistic to the Class or Subclasses. Class certification of the claims is  appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Mercedes House has acted or refused  -13-  to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class and Subclasses, making appropriate  both declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses.   37.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions common to Class and Subclass Members  predominate over questions affecting only individuals, and because a class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   38.  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.   39.   Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf of the Class Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   40.  Title III of the ADA prohibits “discriminat[ion] 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).   41.  Mercedes House’s apartment building is a public accommodation under  Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Its Website is a service, privilege, or  advantage of Mercedes House’s apartment building. The Website is a service that is  integrated with this building.  -14-   42.  Under Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to deny  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).   43.  Under Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to deny  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).   44.  Under 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).   45.  These acts violate Title III of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated  thereunder. Plaintiff Fischler, who is a member of a protected class of persons under Title  III of 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, he has been  denied full and equal access to the Website, has not been provided services that are  -15-  provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and has been provided services that are  inferior to the services provided to non-disabled persons.    46.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff Fischler requests the relief as set forth below.  47.  Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf of the New York Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   48.  Mercedes House’s State of New York apartment building constitutes a  sales establishment and public accommodation under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).  Mercedes House’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Mercedes House.  Mercedes House’s Website is a service that is by and integrated with these apartment  building.   49.  Mercedes House is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its  New York apartment building and the Website. Mercedes House is a “person” within the  meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   50.  Mercedes House is violating the NYSHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its  New York apartment building to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and  services that Mercedes House makes available to the non-disabled public. N.Y. Exec.  Law §§ 296(2)(a), 296(2)(c)(i), 296(2)(c)(ii).  -16-   51.  Readily available, well-established guidelines exist on the Internet for  making websites accessible to the blind and visually impaired. These guidelines have  been followed by other large business entities and government agencies in making their  websites 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 its Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of its  business nor result in an undue burden to them.   52.  Mercedes House’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination  against the class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law §  296(2), in that Mercedes House has:  a.  Constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to 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.   53.  Mercedes House discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Fischler and New York Subclass Members on the basis of  disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of Mercedes House’s Website and its  New York apartment building under § 296(2) et seq. and/or its implementing regulations.  Unless the Court enjoins Mercedes House from continuing to engage in these unlawful  -17-  practices, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass Members will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   54.  As Mercedes House’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Fischler  seeks injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination, compensatory damages, civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for every offense, and  reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.  55.  Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf the New York City Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   56.  Mercedes House’s New York City building is a sales establishment and  public accommodation under the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its  Website is a service that is integrated with that establishment.   57.  Mercedes House is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its   New York City apartment building and its Website, making it a person within the  meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   58.  Mercedes House is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with  its New York City apartment building to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and  services that Mercedes House makes available to the non-disabled public. N.Y.C. Admin.  Code §§ 8-107(4)(a), 8-107(15)(a).  -18-   59.  Mercedes House’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination  against the Subclass because of a disability, violating the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-107(4)(a) and § 8-107(15)(a,) in that it 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.   60.  As such, Mercedes House discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Fischler and the New York City Subclass Members because  of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of its Website and its establishments  under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins  Mercedes House from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the  New York City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   61.  As Mercedes House’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Fischler  seeks injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination, compensatory damages, civil  penalties and fines for each offense, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. N.Y.C.  Admin. Code §§ 8-120(8), 8-126(a).  62.  Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.  -19-   63.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Fischler contends, and is informed and believes that Mercedes House denies,  that its Website contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal  access to the goods, services and facilities of its Website and by extension its apartment  building, which Mercedes House 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., N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-107, et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.   64.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate now in order that each  of the parties may know its respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Mercedes House, Its Website And Its Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  