14.  Defendant is a fitness facility located in New York’s Financial District.   At this location, there are three studios were members can take classes in yoga, boxing  and high-intensity interval training, as well as other classes.  Defendant’s fitness facility  also offers sports training and spa services.  Defendant also operates fitness facilities,  spas, and pop-up locations in other states.   15.  Defendant’s Website is heavily integrated with its New York City fitness  facility, serving as its gateway. Through the Website, Defendant’s customers are, inter  alia, able to: learn information about the fitness facility’s location and hours of operation;  learn about classes and spa services offered; learn about membership and pricing; and  learn about special offers including a free trial week.     16.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’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 fitness facility.  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  Defendant’s fitness facility and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits  offered to the public through 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 Defendant 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 Defendant’s  fitness facility and enjoying it 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 Defendant’s New  York City location, view the schedule, book an appointment or create an account, equal  to sighted users.    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 Defendant 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 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.  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 Olsen seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   27.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies on  maintaining and operating its Website, Defendant lacks a policy reasonably calculated to  make the Website 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.   30.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  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 Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s fitness facility 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 Defendant’s fitness facility 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 Defendant’s fitness facility during the  relevant statutory period (“New York City Subclass Members”).   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 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.   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.   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.  Defendant’s fitness facility is a public accommodation under Title III of  the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).    42.  Its Website is a service, privilege, or advantage of this establishment. The  Website is a service that is integrated with this location.   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.  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.    46.  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.  47.  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.  Defendant’s New York fitness facility is a sales establishment and public  accommodation under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s Website is a service,  privilege or advantage of Defendant’s fitness facility. Defendant’s Website is a service  that is by and integrated with this fitness facility.   50.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates its fitness  facility and the Website. Defendant is a “person” within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law  § 292(1).   51.  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 its fitness facility 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.   52.  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.  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.   55.  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.   57.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Olsen seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   58.  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.   59.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   60.  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.  61.  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.    62.  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.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  Website and its fitness facility, making it a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-102(1).   65.  Defendant is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its fitness  facility 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.   66.  Defendant is required to “make reasonable accommodation to the needs of  persons with disabilities . . . any person prohibited by the provisions of [§ 8-107 et 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.  As such, Defendant 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 fitness facility  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.   69.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Olsen seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   70.  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).   71.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   72.  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.  73.  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.  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 ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  