2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems and require that any third party vendors who participate on its Website to be  fully accessible to the disabled by conforming with WCAG 2.0 criteria.   28.  Defendant offers the commercial website, WWW.BENNINGTON.EDU,  to the public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the  services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The services  offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to the following, which allow  consumers to find information about: school location and hours, curriculum and programs  of instruction, academic calendars, course and admission prerequisites, cost of tuition,  available financial aid, career services, accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer  credits, textbooks, and other vital information needed by prospective students in order to  make an informed decision about the Defendant’s school.   30.  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 JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited  the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   31.  Plaintiff, Jason Camacho, attended the NACAC college fair at Javits on  Nov. 5, 2018 in order to obtain information from the college exhibitors presenting and  marketing at the fair including the Defendant’s school.   32.  Soon after attending the Javits fair, Mr. Camacho attempted to access the  Defendant’s website in order to obtain additional information about the Defendant’s  school but was thwarted in his efforts to do so due to the inaccessibility of the  Defendant’s website as set forth herein.   35.  The stated principles of NACAC members include “They strive to   eliminate bias within the educational system based on …disability.”1   36.  By its failure to provide a website that is accessible to the blind or vision   impaired, Defendant, that is a member of NACAC, intentionally violated NACAC’s basic  principles to eliminate bias toward the disabled as well as federal, state and city statutes  and regulations designed to protect those members of society who are in need of  protection by those various laws.   37.  NACAC maintains a business relationship with the New York Daily News   newspaper which publishes full page advertisements for the NACAC college fairs at  Javits and an onsite guide to the exhibitors which is distributed free of charge to attendees  at the college fairs. Exhibitors, such as the Defendant, may participate in the New York  Daily News advertisements and/or advertise in the onsite guide.   39.  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 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 accessing the Website.    40.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s school and enjoying the services offered by the Defendant equal to  sighted individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find information about: school  location and hours, curriculum and programs of instruction, academic calendars, course  and admission prerequisites, cost of tuition, available financial aid, career services,  accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer credits, textbooks, and other vital  information needed by prospective students in order to make an informed decision about  the Defendant’s school. Plaintiff intends to visit Defendant's school in the near future if  he could access their website.   41.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   42.  Through his 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.   44.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   45.  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).   47.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently view service items, locate Defendant’s  school, shop for and otherwise research related services available via the Website such as  curriculum, financial aids, campus tours and other vital information.   49.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in   developing and maintaining its 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.    50.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  51.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 have attempted to access Defendant’s Website and  as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of services offered in  Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.   52.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to  certify a New York State 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 Defendant’s  Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of services  offered in Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory  period.    54.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst 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 NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with visual  disabilities, violating the ADA and the RA; and  d.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with visual  disabilities, violating the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL.   55.  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, RA, NYSHRL and NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access  barriers on its Website so it can be independently accessible to the Class.   57.  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.   58.  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.  59.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   60.  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).   62.  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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of  an entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   63.  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 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).   64.  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).   66.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  67.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   68.  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.”   69.  Defendant’s physical exhibit locations are located in the State of New  York and constitutes a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law §  292(9). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant.  Defendant’s Website is a service that is heavily integrated with these physical locations  and is a gateway thereto.   71.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated  with Defendant’s physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities and services that  Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   72.  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 being offered or  would result in an undue burden".   73.  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.”   75.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the State Sub-class on the basis of a disability in violation of the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec.  Law § 296(2) 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.   76.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   77.  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 Website 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 State  Sub-Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   79.  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.   80.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   81.  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.  82.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   83.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41.   84.  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 . . .”   86.  Defendant’s New York physical locations are public accommodations  within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2). Defendant’s Website is a  service, privilege or advantage of Defendant and its Website is a service that is heavily  integrated with these establishments and is a gateway thereto.   87.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   88.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services  integrated with Defendant’s physical locations 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.   89.  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 . . .”   91.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   92.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members 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.   93.  Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each  and every offense.  94.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.    95.  29 U.S.C. § 794(a) provides “No otherwise qualified individual with a   disability in the United States … shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be  excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to  discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance….”     97.  Defendant receives Federal financial assistance.   98.  Defendant’s operations, including its website, is a program or activity  within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794.    Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE REHABILITATION ACT of 1973, §504   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  