15.  Heatherwood owns and manages apartment buildings throughout Long  Island and Long Island City, New York, including a location at 27-03 42nd Road, Long  Island City, New York, known as 27 on 27th (the “Building”).  It rents within this  Building, studio apartments, and apartments with one or more bedrooms.   16.  Yardi owns and operates the Website, which provides information  regarding the Building.    17.  Yardi’s Website is heavily integrated with the Building, serving as a  gateway to it.  Through the Website, prospective tenants are, inter alia, able to: learn  information about the Building, including its location and building amenities; learn about  available apartments, including their layout and dimensions; learn about the  neighborhood and community; read reviews; contact the Building via a form contained   on the Website; and apply for an apartment online.   18.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendants’ policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff Fischler and other blind or visually-impaired users access to the Website,  thereby denying the facilities and services that are offered and integrated with the  Building. Due to their failure and refusal to remove access barriers to the Website,  Plaintiff Fischler and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied  equal access to the Building and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits  offered to the public through the Website.  -7-   19.  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.  During his visits to the Website, the last occurring on or about December  20, 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 the 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. Images are labeled “27 on 27 outdoor lounge” or  “27 on 27 bed.”  Plaintiff Fischler had difficulty learning about availabilities.  The link to  “See Available Units” was not detected by the screen reader.  Plaintiff Fischler was only  able to locate the link with assistance from a sighted user.  However the link is not  properly labeled.  The label is read by the screen reader as “Apply Now.”  When he  selects the link, he is taken to a page with the available units.  When he selects a unit, a  pop-up window opens but screen reader focus is not placed in the pop up, therefore it  appears to the screen reader that no new information is provided.  It is only with  assistance from a sighted user that he can find the information for the unit.  When he  selected the “1 Bedroom A Line,” he is given a list of available apartments.  On this page,  several elements are not properly labeled. The table could only be navigated with the  assistance of a sighted user.  When he selects “Apply Now,” he is taken to a page with  multiple elements, but every element appears to be labeled “cozy chair for seating  b.  Navigate the Website. Plaintiff Fischler had difficulty navigating  the Website.  This is due in large part to several untagged elements.  Several other  -8-  elements throughout the website are incorrectly tagged, where the tag does not properly  describe where the link or button will take the user.     21.  Plaintiff Fischler was denied full and equal access to the facilities and  services Defendants offer to the public on the Website because he encountered multiple  accessibility barriers that visually-impaired people often encounter with non-compliant  Website:  a.  Lack of alt-text for images.   b.  All fields in a group of input fields are not properly labeled.    c.  Frames lack proper title attributes.  d.  Webpages have duplicate IDs which cause problems in screen  readers.  e.  Radio buttons are not contained in a fieldset element.  f.  Form field labels are not unique on a page or enclosed in a fieldset  with a legend that makes the label unique.  g.  Approximately twenty (20) headings are empty.  h.  Links use general text like “click here,” which does not explain the  link’s purpose.  Defendants Must Remove Barriers to the Website    22.  Due to the inaccessibility of the 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 Defendants offer to the public on the  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  -9-  accessing the Website. These access barriers have likewise deterred him from visiting the  Building and enjoying it equal to sighted individuals.    23.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Fischler could  independently navigate it, learn about the Building and the apartments, and apply for an  apartment, as sighted users can.   24.  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.    25.  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 Defendants have 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.   26.  Defendants therefore use standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.  -10-   27.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff Fischler seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   28.  Because the Website has never been equally accessible, and because  Defendants lack a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause the Website to  become and remain accessible, Plaintiff Fischler seeks a permanent injunction under 42  U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) requiring Defendants to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to  Plaintiff Fischler to assist Defendants in complying with WCAG 2.0 guidelines for the  Website:  a.  Remediating the Website to be WCAG 2.0 compliant;  b.  Training Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the  Website on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  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 the Website complies with the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and,   e.  Developing an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on the  Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related problems.   29.  Although Defendants may currently have centralized policies on  maintaining and operating the Website, Defendants lack a plan and policy reasonably  calculated to make it fully and equally accessible to, and independently usable by, blind  and other visually impaired consumers.   30.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Fischler and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its  rights.  -11-   31.  Defendants have, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums  in developing and maintaining the Website and has generated significant revenue from  the Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making the  Website equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   32.  Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  its discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  33.  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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of  goods and services offered in the Building, during the relevant statutory period (“Class  Members”).   34.  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 the Building, during the relevant statutory  period (“New York Subclass Members”).   35.  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 the Building, during the relevant statutory  period (“New York City Subclass Members”).   36.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class Members,  New York Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members:  -12-  a.  Whether the Building is a place of “public accommodation[s]”;  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 their  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 their  goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people with  visual disabilities, violating the NYSHRL or NYCHRL.   37.  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 Defendants have violated Title III of the  ADA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on the  Website so it can be independently accessible to the visually impaired individuals.   38.  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 Defendants have 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.  -13-   39.  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.   40.  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.   41.   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.   42.  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).   43.  The Building is a public accommodation under Title III of the ADA, 42  U.S.C. § 12181(7). The Website is a service, privilege, or advantage of the Building. The  Website is a service that is integrated with the Building.   44.  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).  -14-   45.  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).   46.  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).   47.  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.    48.  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.  -15-  49.  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.   50.  The Building, located in the State of New York, constitutes a sales  establishment and public accommodation under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). The Website is  a service, privilege or advantage of the Building. The Website is a service that is by and  integrated with the Building.   51.  Defendants are subject to NYSHRL because they own and operate the  New York apartment building and the Website. Defendants are a “person” under N.Y.  Exec. Law § 292(1).   52.  Defendants are violating the NYSHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to the Website, causing the Website and the services integrated with the  Building to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Defendants make  available to the non-disabled public. N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296(2)(a), 296(2)(c)(i),  296(2)(c)(ii).   53.  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 the Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of its  business nor result in an undue burden to them.  -16-   54.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2), in  that Defendants have:  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.   55.  Defendants discriminate, 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 the Website and the Building under § 296(2) et  seq. and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins Defendants from  continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New York Subclass  Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   56.  As Defendant’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.  57.  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.  -17-   58.  The Building, located in New York City, is a sales establishment and  public accommodation under the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and the  Website is a service that is integrated with the Building.   59.  Defendants are subject to NYCHRL because they own and operates the  Building and the Website, making them a person under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   60.  Defendants are violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to the Website, causing the Website and the services integrated with the  Building to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Defendants make  available to the non-disabled public. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-107(4)(a), 8-107(15)(a).   61.  Defendants’ 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.   62.  As such, Defendants discriminate, 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 the Website and the Building under  § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins Defendants  -18-  from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New York City  Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   63.  As Defendants’ 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).  64.  Plaintiff Fischler, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   65.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Fischler contends, and is informed and believes that Defendants deny, that the  Website contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the  goods, services and facilities of the Website and by extension the Building, which  Heatherwood 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.   66.  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   Defendants, Their Website And Their Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  