14.  Faherty owns and operates stores throughout the United States, including   locations at 133 Prince Street, New York, New York and 351 Bleecker Street, New York,  New York. It sells, at these stores, shorts, shoes, dresses, jumpsuits, outerwear, blankets,  accessories and similar items.   15.  Faherty’s Website is heavily integrated with its stores, serving as a  gateway to them. Through the Website, Faherty’s customers are, inter alia, able to: learn  information about the company; learn about stores’ locations and hours of operation; the  items for sale in the stores and online, including available sizes, the materials used,  details about the items, and care instructions; purchase items for delivery; learn about the  return policy; learn about the “Bestsellers”; purchase a gift card; learn about items on  sale; and sign up for the mailing list.   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.   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 Faherty 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 Faherty’s  stores and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.    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 2.0 Guidelines would  provide Plaintiff Fischler and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the  Website, Plaintiff Fischler alleges that Faherty 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.  Faherty 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).   27.  Although Faherty may currently have centralized policies on maintaining  and operating its Website, Faherty 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.   30.  Faherty 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 Faherty’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Faherty’s stores, 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 Faherty’s stores, 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 Faherty’s stores, during the relevant statutory  period (“New York City Subclass Members”).   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 Faherty 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 Faherty 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.   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.  Faherty’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  Faherty’s stores. The Website is a service that is integrated with these locations.   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).   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  provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and has been provided services that are  inferior to the services provided to non-disabled persons.    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.  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.”   49.  Faherty’s State of New York stores constitute sales establishments and  public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Faherty’s  Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Faherty. Faherty’s Website is a service  that is by and integrated with these stores.   50.  Faherty is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its stores and  the Website. Faherty is a “person” within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   51.  Faherty is violating the NYSHRL 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 Faherty makes available to the non- disabled public. N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296(2)(a), 296(2)(c)(i), 296(2)(c)(ii).    53.  Faherty’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the  class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2), in that  Faherty 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.   54.  Faherty 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 Faherty’s Website and its stores under § 296(2)  et seq. and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins Faherty from  continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass  Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   56.  Plaintiff Fischler 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.   57.  Plaintiff Fischler is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   58.  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.  59.  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.   60.  Faherty’s New York City locations 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.   61.  Faherty 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).   62.  Faherty 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 Faherty makes available to the non- disabled public. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-107(4)(a), 8-107(15)(a).   64.  As such, Faherty 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  Faherty from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New  York City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   65.  As Faherty’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Fischler seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   66.  Plaintiff Fischler 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).   67.  Plaintiff Fischler is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   69.  Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   70.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Fischler contends, and is informed and believes that Faherty 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 Faherty  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.   71.  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   Faherty, 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.  