14.  Defendant owns and manages buildings throughout the United States,  including the building at issue, Parker Towers, located at 104-20 Queens Boulevard,  Forest Hills, New York.  It rents within this building, studio apartments, and apartments  with one or more bedrooms.   15.  Defendant’s Website is heavily integrated with this apartment building,  serving as its gateway. Through the Website, Defendant’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;  search availabilities; learn about pricing, schedule a tour and apply for an apartment.      16.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’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  buildings. 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 its apartment buildings and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits  offered to the public through its Website.   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.  -7-   18.  During his visits to Defendant’s Website, the last occurring on or about  March 7, 2019, Plaintiff Fischler encountered multiple access barriers that denied him the  full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the Website, and the facilities,  goods, and services of Defendant’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 due in part to the  non-text images, which are labeled only with a file name and no accompanying alt-text.   For example, after clicking the “Photo Gallery” link, Plaintiff Fischler is taken to a new  page which includes several images labeled only with a file name.  Similarly, after  selecting the “Floor plans” link, he is given the options to view floor plans of the various  units.  However, the floor plans are images with non-descriptive labels such as “D  residence Floor plan 1,” with no alt-text describing the layout.  Plaintiff Fischler’s efforts  to learn about the apartments via the brochures was equally unsuccessful.  For example,  Plaintiff Fischler selected the brochure for K&U residences.  No images are detected  within the PDF; a sighted user, in comparison, is given twenty-nine (29) images.    b.  Navigate the Website. The screen reader has significant difficulty  navigating this Website. Links are not properly labeled.  For example, the sighted user is  given a link labeled “Search Apartments” at the top of the home page.  This link is not  detected by the screen reader.  The link for “Schedule a Tour” is poorly labeled, labeled  only with a URL.  Plaintiff Fischler was unable to find it without assistance from a  sighted user.  Once he located the link, it was inaccessible to a screen reader.  When he  clicked on the link, nothing happened.  A sighted user is given a pop-up window with a  calendar to select a date.  Plaintiff Fischler was able to locate an apartment search form  -8-  farther down the page, but the filters do not function properly with the screen reader.   Plaintiff Fischler was only able to narrow his search by number of bedrooms, not “max  rent” or “move in date.”  There were other oddly labeled links on the Website including a  link labeled “times” and one labeled “chains.”  Lastly, Plaintiff Fischler encountered  repeated issues with screen reader focus.  The bots repeatedly try to hijack screen reader  focus and if focus is placed on the bots, the screen reader does not detect any links.   Lastly, when Plaintiff Fischler tried to filter his apartment search results, he was kicked  out of the Website.    c.  Apply for an apartment or Contact the Building.  The application  form is not accessible to the screen reader because Plaintiff Fischler could not get the  audio captcha to play.  Plaintiff Fischler encountered the same problem with the “Contact  Us” form.     19.  Plaintiff Fischler was denied full and equal access to the facilities and  services Defendant offers to the public on its 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.  Frames do not have a title.  c.  Form field labels are not unique on a page or enclosed in a fielset  with a legend that makes the label unique.  d.  Links use general text like “click here” with no surrounding text  explaining the link’s purpose.  -9-  e.  Several links on a page share the same link text but go to different  destinations.  f.  Webpages have markup errors.  Defendant 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 Defendant 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  Defendant’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 the building, including building and apartment  amenities, learn about available apartments, schedule a tour and apply for an apartment,  as sighted users can.   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 Defendant 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 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.  Defendant 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  Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its Website to  become and remain accessible, Plaintiff Fischler seeks a permanent injunction under 42  U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to  Plaintiff Fischler to assist Defendant to comply with WCAG 2.0 guidelines for its  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;  -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 the Website complies under 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.   27.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies on  maintaining and operating its Website, it lacks a plan and policy reasonably calculated to  make it 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.  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 its Website  equally accessible to visually impaired customers.   30.  Defendant 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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of  -12-  goods and services offered in Defendant’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 Defendant’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 Defendant’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:  a.  Whether Defendant’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;   -13-  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 Defendant 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 Defendant 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  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.  -14-   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.  Defendant’s apartment 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 apartment building. The Website is a service that is integrated with the building.   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).  -15-   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.    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.  -16-  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.  Defendant’s State of New York apartment buildings constitutes a sales  establishment and public accommodation under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). The Website is  a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant’s apartment building. The Website is a  service that is by and integrated with this apartment building.   49.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its   apartment building in the State of New York and the Website. Defendant is a “person”  within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   50.  Defendant is violating the NYSHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its   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 Defendant  makes available to the non-disabled public. N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296(2)(a), 296(2)(c)(i),  296(2)(c)(ii).   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  -17-  to make its Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of its  business nor result in an undue burden to them.   52.  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 Defendant 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.  Defendant 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 the Website and its New York apartment  building 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 New York Subclass Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   54.  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.  -18-  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.  The Defendant’s apartment 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 its Website is a service that is integrated with this establishment.   57.  Defendant 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.  Defendant 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 Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public. N.Y.C. Admin. Code  §§ 8-107(4)(a), 8-107(15)(a).   59.  Defendant’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  -19-  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, Defendant 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 establishment  under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins  Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the New  York City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   61.  As Defendant’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.   63.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Fischler contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant 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 Defendant 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.  -20-  §§ 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   Defendant, Its Website And Its Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  