14.  Todd Snyder owns and operates retail stores throughout the country, with  a flagship location in New York City at 25 East 26th Street.  It sells at this store and on its  Website, clothing, shoes and accessories for men.      15.  Todd Snyder’s Website is heavily integrated with its stores, serving as a  gateway to those physical locations. Todd Snyder’s customers are, through the Website,  inter alia, able to: learn information about available styles, including new arrivals and  best sellers, the materials used, and details about the items; learn about sizing; purchase  items for delivery; purchase items as a gift for third parties; sign up for the newsletter;  and interact with the company’s social media accounts via links contained on the  Website..   16.  It is, upon information and belief, Todd Snyder’s policy and practice to  deny Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website,  thereby denying the facilities and services that are offered and integrated with its stores.  Due to its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Website, Plaintiff Olsen and  visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Todd  Snyder’s stores and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits offered to the  public through its Website.  -7-   17.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 May 23,  2019, Plaintiff Olsen 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 Todd Snyder’s stores. Because of these barriers he was unable to,  substantially equal to sighted individuals:   a.  Know what is on the Website. Plaintiff Olsen was unable to access  several areas of the Website.  Very few links are detected, and the only links he was able  to access were “T-shirts,” “New Arrivals” and “Collection.”  He was unable to learn  about the Memorial Day sale because the link was embedded in an untagged image.   Clicking the “sale” link from the main navigation toolbar also did not work.  When a  sighted user hovers over “Sale,” by contrast, he or she is given several sub links that are  clickable and will take the user to a new page.  These sub links were not detected by the  screen reader.  Plaintiff Olsen was able to shop for t-shirts using the link contained on the  body of the home page, but in doing so, he was unable to learn about sizing.  The only  size that appears to the screen reader was labeled “lxl.” Further, the sizes are not  clickable therefore he could not complete a purchase.  Plaintiff Olsen could not even  learn about how Defendant’s sizing works, because the size chart was completely  inaccessible.  It was not presented as a navigable table with proper row and column  labels.  Plaintiff Olsen was unable to learn about Todd Snyder’s social media accounts,  because they were untagged.  Plaintiff Olsen tried to purchase an item using the “Gift  -8-  Now” feature but was unable to do so because the form was not properly labeled. and he  was unable to select a design.  Once the “Gift Now” pop-up was open, he lost control of  his screen reader and had to completely close out the Website in order to regain control.        b.  Navigate the Website. The screen reader had difficulty navigating  the website. As mentioned above, very few links were accessible to the screen reader.   Many elements were unlabeled and Plaintiff Olsen encountered repeated issues with  screen reader focus.  Ultimately, he was unable to complete a purchase for himself or a  third party.  He could not even sign up for the mailing list.  The screen reader found the  text to join the mailing list but no edit box was detected.    19.  Plaintiff Olsen was denied full and equal access to the facilities and  services Todd Snyder offers to the public on its Website because he encountered multiple  accessibility barriers that visually-impaired people often encounter with non-compliant  websites:  a.  Lack of alt-text for images. Images are labeled “Key Look 1,” for  example.  b.  Frames have no titles.  c.  Button elements are empty and have no programmatically  determined name.  d.  Forms have fields without label elements or title attributes.   e.  Webpages have duplicate IDs, which cause problems in screen  readers.  f.  Headings are not nested correctly and approximately twenty (20)  headings are empty.  -9-  g.  Links use general text like “here” which does not explain the link’s  purpose.  h.  Several links on a page share the same link text but go to a  different destination.  i.  Webpages have markup errors.  Todd Snyder Must Remove Barriers to Its Website    20.  Due to the inaccessibility of its Website, blind and visually-impaired  customers such as Plaintiff Olsen, who need screen readers, cannot fully and equally use  or enjoy the facilities, goods, and services Todd Snyder offers to the public on its  Website. The Website’s access barriers that Plaintiff Olsen 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  Todd Snyder’s stores and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.    21.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Olsen could  independently navigate it, view goods and service items, learn about sale items, sign up  for the newsletter and complete a desired transaction, as sighted individuals do.   22.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Olsen 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 2.0 Guidelines would  provide Plaintiff Olsen and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the  Website, Plaintiff Olsen alleges that Todd Snyder has engaged in acts of intentional  discrimination, including, but not limited to, the following policies or practices:  -10-  a.  Constructing and maintaining a website that is inaccessible to  visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff Olsen;  b.  Failing to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff  Olsen; 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 Olsen, as a member of a protected class.   24.  Todd Snyder 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 Olsen seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   26.  Because its Website has never been equally accessible, and because Todd  Snyder lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its Website to  become and remain accessible, Plaintiff Olsen seeks a permanent injunction under 42  U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) requiring Todd Snyder to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to  Plaintiff Olsen to assist Todd Snyder to comply with WCAG 2.0 guidelines for its  Website:  a.  Remediating the Website to be WCAG 2.0 AA compliant;  b.  Training Todd Snyder employees and agents who develop the  Website on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  -11-  c.  Regularly checking the accessibility of the Website under the  WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  d.  Regularly testing user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Todd Snyder’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  and,   e.  Developing an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Todd Snyder’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   27.  Although Todd Snyder may currently have centralized policies on  maintaining and operating its Website, Todd Snyder 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 Olsen and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its  rights.   29.  Todd Snyder 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 its Website  equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   30.  Todd Snyder has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  its discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  -12-  31.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 Todd Snyder’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Todd Snyder’s stores and on the Website,  during the relevant statutory period (“Class Members”).   32.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 Todd Snyder’s stores and its Website, during  the relevant statutory period (“New York Subclass Members”).   33.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 Todd Snyder’s stores and its Website, 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:  a.  Whether  Todd  Snyder’s  stores  are  places  of  “public  accommodation”;  b.  Whether Todd Snyder’s Website is a “public accommodation” or a  service or good “of a place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA;   -13-  c.  Whether Todd Snyder’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” or an “accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege” under the  NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  d.  Whether Todd Snyder’s 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 Todd Snyder’s 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 Olsen’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 Todd Snyder 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 Olsen 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 Todd Snyder has acted or refused 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  -14-  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 Olsen, 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.  Todd Snyder’s stores are public accommodations within the definition of  Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Its Website is a service, privilege, or  advantage of Todd Snyder’s stores. The Website is a service that is integrated with these  locations.   42.  The Website, which is a commercial marketplace that affects interstate  commerce, is a public accommodation under Title III, even absent any connection to a  brick and mortar location.   43.  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,  -15-  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. §  12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   44.  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).   45.  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).   46.  These acts violate Title III of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated  thereunder. Plaintiff Olsen, 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  provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and has been provided services that are  inferior to the services provided to non-disabled persons.   -16-   47.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff Olsen requests the relief as set forth below.  48.  Plaintiff Olsen, 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.   49.  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.”   50.  Todd Snyder’s State of New York stores constitute sales establishments  and public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Todd  Snyder’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Todd Snyder. Todd Snyder’s  Website is a service that is by and integrated with these locations.   51.  Todd Snyder is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its  stores and the Website. Todd Snyder is a “person” within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law  § 292(1).   52.  Todd Snyder 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 its stores to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Todd Snyder makes  available to the non-disabled public.  -17-   53.  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.”   54.  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.”    55.  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.   56.  Todd Snyder’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2), in  that Todd Snyder has:  -18-  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.   57.  Todd Snyder discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff Olsen 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 Todd Snyder’s Website and its stores under §  296(2) et seq. and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins Todd Snyder  from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New York  Subclass Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   58.  As Todd Snyder’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Olsen seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   59.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for every offense.   60.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   61.  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.  -19-  62.  Plaintiff Olsen, 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.   63.  The NYCHRL 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.” N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-107(4)(a).   64.  Todd Snyder’s New York City stores are sales establishments and public  accommodations within the meaning of the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9),  and its Website is a service that is integrated with its establishments.   65.  Todd Snyder is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  stores in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person within the meaning of  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   66.  Todd Snyder is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its stores  to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full  and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Todd Snyder makes available  to the non-disabled public.   67.  Todd Snyder is required to “make reasonable accommodation to the needs  of persons with disabilities . . . any person prohibited by the provisions of [§ 8-107 et  -20-  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).   68.  Todd Snyder’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.   69.  As such, Todd Snyder discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Olsen 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 Todd  Snyder from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New York  City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   70.  As Todd Snyder’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Olsen seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.  -21-   71.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines for each offense. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-120(8), 8-126(a).   72.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   73.  Under N.Y.C. Admin. 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.  74.  Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   75.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Olsen contends, and is informed and believes that Todd Snyder 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 stores, which Todd  Snyder 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.   76.  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   Todd Snyder, Its Website And Its Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  