35.151(a)(2)(i). Furthermore, any facility or part of a facility that is altered on or after the effective date of the ADA, by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public entity that affects usability, must, to the maximum extent feasible, be accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. 35.151(b)(1). Defendants’ failure to design their parking lots, interior aisles, restrooms, and fitting rooms in their stores in a manner that is accessible to and usable by customers with mobility disabilities violates the ADA because it is not structurally impracticable to do so and is required by the ADA. iii. Failure to Maintain Accessible Features in Violation of the ADA 163. The U.S. Department of Justice regulations to Title III of the ADA require that places of “public accommodation [] maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities,” unless the interruption in service or access is isolated or temporary or due to maintenance or repairs. 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(a). 164. Defendants have failed to maintain accessible features at their Kohl’s department stores, including accessible paths of travel throughout their stores and accessible routes to merchandise displays, wall shelving, sales counters, fitting rooms, and restrooms. 165. Defendants unlawfully fail to maintain accessible aisles in their stores, and as such the members of the Class are unable to approach, examine, or even purchase much of the merchandise on display. 166. Failure to maintain accessible features, primarily including inaccessible paths of travel and routes, has been prevalent and consistent, and is not due to maintenance or repairs, but rather to corporate policies or practices, or the lack thereof, relating to accessibility for people with mobility disabilities. 36 iv. Failure to Make Reasonable Modifications to Policies in Violation of the ADA 167. The access barriers outlined herein are the result of Defendants’ policies, practices, or procedures and/or the absence of policies, practices or procedures for enforcing the ADA. These “policies, practices, or procedures” impose barriers to access within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii), throughout Kohl’s department stores. These policies, practices and procedures include, but are not limited to: a. Approval of standardized aisles, counters, and equipment that are inaccessible to individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters; b. Failure to maintain accessible features, such as accessible paths of travel through merchandise aisles and accessible parking spaces; and c. Failure to ensure that other elements of the department stores, such as merchandise displays and fitting and rest rooms, meet the requirements of the ADA and are accessible to customers with mobility disabilities. 168. Pursuant to the ADA, places of public accommodation must “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 . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). 169. Defendants’ failure to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures necessary to afford individuals with disabilities access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of their stores, violates the ADA and irreparably injured Plaintiffs, the ERC’s members, and the Class. 37 170. Modification of Defendants’ policies, practices, and procedures will not fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. 36.406. 154. All or nearly all Kohl’s department stores were newly constructed or modified after the effective date of the ADA, January 26, 1992. At the time of Kohl’s initial public offering (“IPO”) on May 19, 1992, it is believed that Kohl’s operated 76 department stores. It has since grown to operate approximately 1,146 department stores in 49 states. See Fact Book at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=60706&p=irol-faq. Therefore, all or nearly all of Kohl’s department stores must comply with the ADA. 155. After January 26, 1992, Kohl’s erected new structures or modified existing structures to create a “unique store format” for all or nearly all of its stores. This unique store format is marked by wide main aisles and narrow side aisles, among other things, and that resulted in inaccessible interior paths of travel and merchandise displays, and other elements. 156. Defendants’ failure to design and construct their stores in conformance with the Standards violates Title III because design and construction of their stores to conform to the Standards would not have been structurally impracticable. 157. The Standards require that, where feasible, all “walks, halls, corridors, aisles, skywalks, tunnels, and other spaces that are part of an accessible route shall comply with 4.3.” Standard 4.3.1. “At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, facilities, elements, and spaces that are on the same site.” Standard 4.3.2(2). 158. Defendants’ denial of accessibility to interior paths of travel, in violation of Standard 4.3, is pervasive. In excess of 90 percent of the 41 stores surveyed by the ERC contain aisles that are too narrow in at least one department, and most contain several inaccessible aisles. 34 The existence of inaccessible aisles at the vast majority of stores surveyed by ERC and used by its members demonstrates that Defendants routinely violate Standard 4.3. 159. The Standards further require that accessible parking spaces “shall be at least 96 inches (2440 mm) wide. Parking access aisles shall be part of an accessible route to the building or facility entrance and shall comply with 4.3[̓s]” requirements for accessible routes.”  Standard   4.6.3. Moreover, Standard 208.2.4 requires that one out of every six or fraction six parking spaces be a van parking space. Defendants’ failure to provide accessible parking spaces is pervasive, in violation of Standards 4.6.3 and 208.2.4. 160. Defendants’ stores contain other architectural and structural barriers to accessibility for persons with mobility disabilities in violation of the ADA. These violations include, but are not limited to: inaccessible sales and service counters; inaccessible merchandise displays; inaccessible fitting rooms; inaccessible restrooms; and other barriers. 161. The access barriers at Kohl’s department stores constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability because they denied and continue to deny individuals with disabilities, including members of the ERC, the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations provided by Kohl’s department stores. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 162. The 2010 ADA standards for accessible design and construction state that places of public accommodation constructed on or after 1992, the effective date of the ADA, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. 35.151(a)(1). Only where a public entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements is full compliance excused. Structural impracticability applies when the unique characteristics of the terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features. 28 C.F.R. 35  57. Defendants have discriminated against, and continue to discriminate against, customers with mobility disabilities as more fully set forth in this Complaint.  58. Both prior to and following its survey of Kohl’s department stores around the nation, the ERC was contacted by nearly two dozen individuals who faced barriers to accessibility in their neighborhood Kohl’s department stores.  59. Each of the individual plaintiffs encountered some or all of the accessibility barriers described in this class action complaint at Defendant Kohl’s Department Stores due to his or her use of a wheelchair.  60. Upon information and belief, class members have experienced the same barriers to full accessibility that the individual plaintiffs and ERC members who use wheelchairs have experienced, and such barriers exist in Defendants’ stores throughout the United States.  61. Class members have been injured by Defendants’ failure to comply with the ADA.  62. Plaintiff Fisher, Plaintiff Prentiss, Plaintiff Ryan, Plaintiff Kamal, Plaintiff Lee, and the Equal Rights Center, ("Proposed Class Representatives") seek to maintain this action as a class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to the question whether the inaccessible paths of travel, sales and service counters, merchandise displays, and fitting rooms, restrooms and parking spaces at Kohl’s Department Stores nationwide violate Title III of the ADA and the NYHRL. 16  63. The class consists of all people with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs or are otherwise disabled due to mobility-related issues, who were denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any Kohl’s Department Store in the United States on the basis of disability because of the presence of a narrow aisle, inaccessible sales or service counter, inaccessible merchandise display, inaccessible parking spaces, inaccessible fitting rooms, or inaccessible restrooms, among other barriers.  64. There are approximately 3.6 million individuals in the United States who have mobility disabilities and rely on the use of wheelchairs according to the 2010 Report from the United States Census Bureau. Brault, Matthew W., “Americans With Disabilities: 2010,” Current Population Reports, P70-131, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2012. As such, the class identified is believed to consist of thousands of members, and joinder of all such class members in this lawsuit is impracticable.  65. The question of the compliance of the paths of travel, sales and service counters, merchandise displays, parking spaces, fitting rooms, and restrooms with Title III of the ADA is common to the class.  66. The claims of the Proposed Class Representatives are typical of the claims of the class. The individual plaintiffs, like all other members of the class, each use a wheelchair for mobility and claim that Defendants have violated the ADA by designing the layout of the stores resulting in inaccessible paths of travel, sales and service counters, merchandise displays, parking spaces, fitting rooms, and restrooms after the effective date of the ADA. 17  67. The Proposed Class Representatives will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class because they have retained counsel with extensive experience in litigation brought under the ADA and with class action litigation.  68. The Proposed Class Representatives have no interests that conflict in any way with those of the class.  69. This action may be maintained pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), because Defendants' actions in designing inaccessible paths of travel, inaccessible sales and service counters, inaccessible merchandise displays, inaccessible parking spaces, inaccessible fitting rooms, , and inaccessible restrooms at Kohl’s Department Stores are actions that apply generally to the class. Injunctive or declaratory relief, therefore, is appropriate respecting the class as a whole. VI. 70. Plaintiffs reallege and reincorporate by reference all other allegations in this Complaint as though set forth fully herein. Devora Fisher  71. Plaintiff Devora Fisher is an ERC member and has encountered barriers to accessibility at the Kohl’s department stores located in Glenview, Arlington Heights, Niles, and Vernon Hills, Illinois.  72. Devora has been living with the effects of Agenesis of the Corpus Callosum since birth, along with scoliosis and other conditions which necessitates her use of a manual wheelchair. Devora also wears lymphedema soft boots on her feet. Devora is an accomplished artist and entrepreneur who owns and operates Frames by Devora, where she paints picture and photograph frames for sale on the company’s website, and at local craft and art fairs. 18  73. Since October 2012, Devora has been and is now still a loyal customer of Kohl’s department stores at 2201Willow Road in Glenview, Illinois; 590 Golf Mill Ctr. in Niles, Illinois; 800 W. Dundee Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois; and 235 N. Milwaukee in Vernon Hills, Illinois. Devora has and still now regularly shops at one or more of those Kohl’s store locations 3 to 4 times monthly mainly for picture frames and supplies for her business. Ms. Sheila Fisher accompanies Devora to those stores and maneuvers Devora’s wheelchair throughout those stores. Devora intends to continue to shop at those stores and will increase the frequency of her store visits if they are made accessible.  74. In all four store locations, there is an absence of accessible routes as required by the Standards between certain merchandise aisles, fixed displays and between certain movable displays that preclude Sheila from maneuvering Devora’s wheelchair to access merchandise in those aisles, and on those displays. In addition, certain of those stores have narrow checkout aisles, tall customer service desks and furniture blocking access to the restrooms.  75. The narrow space between displays increase the risk that Devora’s feet may hit one of those displays causing injury or snag one of her foot cushions, regardless of how careful Sheila is maneuvering Devora’s wheelchair, as occurred on October 20, 2012 in the Golf Mills store in Niles, Illinois.  76. On the vast majority of occasions where Devora has encountered accessibility barriers, Sheila has verbally addressed the issues to store and regional managers, each of whom have assured Sheila that those issues will be corrected, but, as of the date of this complaint they still remain, and in some instances, the number of inaccessible aisles have increased.  77. At the Arlington Heights store location, Sheila is not able to maneuver Devora’s wheelchair down merchandise aisles in the Men’s Department, they must confront furniture 19 immediately inside the entrance to the women’s restroom area that blocks access, and have encountered inaccessible customer service desk aisles.  78. At the Glenview store location, Sheila is not able to maneuver Devora’s wheelchair down merchandise aisles in the Home Goods, Shoes, Luggage, Girls’, Men’s, Linens, and the Boys’ Departments as the aisles are too narrow for Devora’s wheelchair. In addition, the aisles to the fitting rooms are also very narrow and cannot be accessed with Devora’s wheelchair.  79. At the Golf Mills store in Niles, a significant number of merchandise aisles in the Women’s Department (for purses, coats, and clothing), in the Men’s, Housewares, Shoes and Home Décor Departments are very narrow, which makes it impossible for Sheila to maneuver Devora’s wheelchair down the merchandise aisles in those departments.  80. At the Vernon Hills store the main aisles have oversized displays that leave little room to maneuver Devora’s wheelchair around them and the merchandise aisles throughout the majority of the store are very narrow and inaccessible for Devora’s wheelchair. In the Women’s Shoe Department the aisles are extremely narrow and it makes it difficult for Sheila to even turn Devora’s wheelchair into an aisle in that department to access the merchandise.  81. Despite Sheila Fisher’s repeated complaints, barriers to accessibility remain in place at the Glenview, Arlington Heights, Niles and Vernon Hills Kohl’s department stores, which prevent Devora Fisher from using and enjoying the store to the same degree as the general population. Edith Prentiss  82. Plaintiff Edith Prentiss, an ERC member, encountered barriers to accessibility at the Kohl’s department store located in Long Island at 106 Ronkonkoma Ave, Lake Ronkonkoma, NY 11779. 20  83. Ms. Prentiss has been a loyal Kohl’s customer for several years, and has regularly visited the location in Lake Ronkonkoma, Long Island every few months. She last went this past spring/early summer. She enjoys the selection of merchandise Kohl’s offers and intends to continue to visit the store often in the future if it is made accessible.  84. Ms. Prentiss has persistently experienced issues with the aisles in the Long Island Kohl’s department store. The aisles are too narrow, and the clothing in the plus size clothing section is thicker and wider, making the aisles there even more crowded. Thus, it is impossible for Edith to maneuver her wheelchair through the aisles there.  85. Because of existing barriers to accessibility, Ms. Prentiss cannot shop on her own; she needs assistance from another person to get clothing from the plus size clothing section for her. Monica Kamal  86. Plaintiff Monica Kamal is an ERC member and has encountered barriers to accessibility at the Kohl’s department stores located in Madison and Monona, Wisconsin.  87. Ms. Kamal is the founder and Executive Director of the Madison Wisconsin Chapter of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. She uses a manual wheelchair because of her disability.  88. Ms. Kamal has been and is a loyal customer of Kohl’s department stores located at 7401 W. Town Way in Madison, and 2501 W. Broadway and Monona, Wisconsin. Ms. Kamal has been at both of those stores within the last 12 months. Her last visit to the Monona location was on September 17, 2014 and to the West Towne location, in and around Christmas 2013. Ms. Kamal intends to continue to shop at Kohl’s if and when it becomes accessible. 21  89. Ms. Kamal has learned to bring someone with her to both of the store locations as it is very difficult for her to get around given the accessibility barriers. At both stores, she cannot access Women’s and Juniors’ clothing and the Bedding and Small Appliances Departments because the merchandise aisles are too narrow, there are displays in the main aisles blocking her access, and there are often displays impeding the merchandise aisles. As a result, she must ask her companion to go down certain aisles and retrieve merchandise for her. Because she is unable to access much of the Kohl’s department store, she is prevented from shopping independently and with the same ease as the general population.  90. At the Monona store there are very limited parking slots for accessible vans. Ms. Kamal drives an accessible van. On the numerous occasions she has visited that location, she has been unable to find available accessible parking and she has to use two adjacent non-accessible parking spots to ensure that she has sufficient room to egress and ingress her accessible van. However, when she parks in the non-accessible parking spots, she is often a considerable distance away from the accessible entrance to the store, and she is always exposed to the traffic within the parking lot as there are no safe paths of travel out of the way of traffic and to the accessible entrance.  91. At both locations, the customer service counters are too high for her to be seen or to properly communicate with employees manning those counters, and the bathroom doors are too heavy for Ms. Kamal to independently open.  92. Barriers to accessibility as experienced by Ms. Kamal remain in place at the Madison and Monona Kohl’s department store locations, which prevent Ms. Kamal from using and enjoying the stores to the same degree as the general population. 22 Jean Ryan  93. Plaintiff Jean Ryan, an ERC member, also encountered barriers to accessibility at a Kohl’s department store located at 8973 Bay Parkway, Brooklyn, New York, of which she is a loyal customer.  94. Ms. Ryan has visited the store three times this summer alone, and last visited on October 15, 2014. Ms. Ryan appreciates Kohl’s affordable plus size clothing and children’s clothing, as well as other merchandise. Ms. Ryan intends to continue to visit the Bay Parkway Kohl’s department store regularly in the future if made accessible.  95. Unfortunately, Ms. Ryan faces significant physical impediments each and every time she tries to shop at the Bay Parkway location. She routinely encounters narrow department aisles, especially in the Women’s clothing section on the first floor, Women’s plus size clothing section, Juniors’ clothing section, (baby) Toys’ section, and some aisles in the Home Goods Department. Because she is unable to access much of the Kohl’s department store she wishes to use, she is prevented from shopping independently and with the same ease as the general population.  96. On her most recent visit on October 15, 2014, Ms. Ryan was not able to reach the point of sales device because the customer service counter was too high. She was able to swipe her credit card but was not able to see anything on the screen as it was not at eye level. When looking for baby clothes, some “onesees” caught on her wheelchair because the aisles were too narrow in that section. In the seasonal aisle, Ms. Ryan almost knocked over a Christmas tree when trying to get past it.  97. On her visit on September 19, 2014, Ms. Ryan entered the store about 45 minutes after the store had opened and encountered piles of hangers littering the isles in various 23 departments such as Women’s clothing (ladies’ active wear; plus sizes for women), Juniors clothing (kids’ pajamas) and in the Men’s Department. Ms. Ryan was not able to navigate those isles.  98. Because racks and tables of merchandise were too close to one another, Ms. Ryan was not able to shop independently for infants clothing, women’s plus sizes, ladies’ clothes, lingerie, men’s clothes, girls’ clothes, toys, and jewelry.  99. The accessible mirror in the Lingerie Department was obstructed by diagonally placed displays with no room for a wheelchair to get through. So Ms. Ryan was not able to use it. 100. Ms. Ryan then tried to order some clothing from the Kohl’s kiosk near the Customer Service area, but it timed out when she was about to check out. Because Ms. Ryan has declining vision, she takes longer to read print. Due to this timeout, she was not able to order what she wanted. 101. On another visit in July of 2014, clothes were caught in Ms. Ryan’s wheelchair in the plus size section and she was not able to move. There were also no mirrors in this section, and she was not able to get to the only accessible mirror, which was in the shoe section, because a bench was blocking access. 102. In the Juniors’ clothing section, the clothes were sticking out of racks on both sides of the aisle, making it impassable for Ms. Ryan’s wheelchair. 103. Ms. Ryan could also not even get close to the baby toys in the Toys Department. 104. Because the greeting cards and seasonal section had insufficient room to turn, Ms. Ryan could not independently exit when she entered that aisle. Columns were blocking certain other aisles. 24 105. Despite Ms. Ryan’s repeated complaints, barriers to accessibility remain in place at the Brooklyn Kohl’s department store, which prevent Ms. Ryan from using and enjoying the store to the same degree as the general population. Regina Lee 106. Plaintiff Regina Lee, an ERC member, also encountered barriers to accessibility at a Kohl’s department store located at 12024 Cherry Hill Road in Silver Spring, Maryland, which she frequented at least twice a month to look at the items on sale. 107. Ms. Lee last visited the Silver Spring Kohl’s store on June 11, 2014. During all of her visits to that store she was confronted with narrow merchandise aisles and would have to navigate around sales displays particularly in the front of the store that impeded her path of travel, and frustrated her ability to independently shop at that store location. 108. As a result, Ms. Lee always made sure to be accompanied by an individual when visiting the Silver Spring Kohl’s store in order to access inaccessible areas of the store. 109. Since June 11, 2014, Ms. Lee has not gone back to that store because she found maneuvering through the aisles and navigating around sales displays at the front of the store to be too difficult, frustrating and she could not enjoy the store to the same degree as the general population. 110. Ms. Lee intends to frequent again the Silver Spring Kohl’s store location if and when it becomes accessible. 25 ERC 111. Plaintiff ERC is a membership organization having members who use wheelchairs. 112. The ERC brings this case on its own behalf and as a representative of its members, whose right to live in and enjoy a community free from discrimination on the basis of physical disability has been infringed by Defendants. 113. The ERC also brings this case because Defendants’ discriminatory behavior has damaged the ERC by frustrating its mission and by causing the ERC to divert resources that it would have used to provide counseling, outreach and education, and referral services. Instead of providing these services to its members and the community, the ERC has devoted resources to identifying and investigating Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices, attempting to contact Defendants to correct Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices, and to counseling individuals who have been denied access to Kohl’s department stores. 114. The participation of individual ERC members in the lawsuit is not required either to resolve the claims at issue or to formulate relief. VII. Discrimination on the Basis of a Disability in Violation of the New York Human Rights Law (N.Y. Exec. Law §290, et seq.) On Behalf of Plaintiff ERC 171. At all times relevant to this action, the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290, et seq. (“NYHRL”), and the guidelines promulgated by the New York State Division on Human Rights were in full force and effect in New York and the ERC’s members had a right not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of their disability by Defendants. 172. The NYHRL makes it an “unlawful discriminatory practice” for 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.” N.Y. Exec. § 296(2)(a). 173. Plaintiff ERC is a person within the meaning of the NYHRL. N.Y. Exec. § 292(1). 174. Each Kohl’s department store located in New York is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of the NYHRL. N.Y. Exec. § 292(9). 175. Defendants have violated and continue to violate the NYHRL because Kohl’s department stores in New York have inaccessible interior paths of travel, making navigating through the stores difficult to near impossible for people who use wheelchairs or scooters. 176. Defendants’ policies and practices, including approving, maintaining, and designing inaccessible New York Kohl’s department stores, deny individuals with mobility disabilities, including the ERC, its members, and class members the full and equal enjoyment of 38 the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of the Defendants’ stores. 177. Defendants’ conduct has harmed Plaintiff ERC and will continue to harm the ERC until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make Kohl’s department stores accessible to individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility and other individuals with mobility disabilities. Defendants’ conduct has harmed Plaintiff ERC by: 1) frustrating of the mission of the ERC to achieve equality of access for persons with mobility impairments and the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities in places of public accommodation; and 2) diverting the ERC’s resources necessary to identify and counteract Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory practices. 178. For their violations of the NYHRL, and in accordance with N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq., Defendants are liable to Plaintiff ERC for costs, attorneys’ fees, and compensatory damages in amounts to be determined at trial, and all other available relief. Discrimination on the Basis of a Disability in Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12181, et seq.) On Behalf of All Plaintiffs 136. On July 12, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) . 30 137. Title III of the ADA states that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any public place of accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 138. The ERC is an organization whose mission includes achieving equality of access for persons with mobility impairments and the elimination of discrimination against persons with disabilities in public accommodations. The ERC’s members include persons with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102. 139. Kohl’s department stores are “place[s] of public accommodation” within the meaning of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E). 140. Defendants are “private entit[ies] who own[], lease[] (or lease[] to), or operate[] a place of public accommodation,” and therefore have obligations under Title III of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 141. Title III makes it “discriminatory to afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class . . . with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(A)(ii). 142. Defendants’ failure to provide access to and throughout their stores for individuals with mobility impairments denied and continues to deny, on the basis of their disability, the ERC and its members, the same access to Defendants’ goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations as the access provided to individuals without disabilities. 31 143. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct denies individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters access to much of the merchandise not located on the wide main aisle of their Kohl’s department stores, preventing individuals with physical disabilities from accessing the full range of merchandise available to individuals without disabilities. Alternatively, individuals with disabilities who wish to access the entire store and its features are forced rely on other individuals to reach inaccessible merchandise located on narrow side aisles or on inaccessible merchandise displays, denying them the ability to shop independently. 144. Defendants further deny individuals with physical disabilities access to their Kohl’s department stores because designated accessible parking spots are either nonexistent or too narrow to be accessed by individuals with disabilities. 145. At all times relevant to this action, the ADA was in full force and effect in the United States, and Plaintiff ERC and its members had a right not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of their disability by Defendants. i. Reduction of Accessibility in Violation of the ADA 146. The ADA requires a place of public accommodation to make alterations to a facility “in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2). 147. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regulations to Title III of the ADA require that “[a]ny alteration to a place of public accommodation or a commercial facility, after January 26, 1992, shall be made so as to ensure that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.402(a)(1). 32 148. At the time of Kohl’s initial public offering (“IPO”) on May 19, 1992, Kohl’s operated 76 department stores. It has since grown to operate approximately 1,146 department stores in 49 states. See Fact Book at http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=60706&p=irol- faq. Therefore, all or nearly all of Kohl’s department stores must comply with the ADA. 149. After January 26, 1992, Kohl’s erected new structures or modified existing structures to create a “unique store format” for all or nearly all of its stores. This unique store format is marked by wide main aisles and narrow side aisles, among other things. This unique store format resulted in inaccessible interior paths of travel and merchandise displays, and other elements. 150. The Standards prohibit alterations that “decrease, or [have] the effect of decreasing accessibility or usability of a building or facility below the requirements for new construction at the time of alteration.” Standards § 4.1.6(1)(a); 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. A. 151. The creation of inaccessible side aisles and merchandise displays at Kohl’s department stores violates the Standards because these alterations decreased the accessibility and usability of the stores below the requirements for new construction. 152. The alterations made by Defendants to the Kohl’s facilities violate the ADA’s and the DOJ’s requirements that alterations enhance accessibility to the maximum extent feasible for people with disabilities, and conflict with the prohibitions in the Standards against alterations that decrease accessibility or usability of a place of public accommodation. ii. Architectural and Structural Barriers in Violation of the ADA 153. Title III of the ADA requires places of public accommodation to design and construct facilities built after the effective date of the ADA in conformance with the Standards, 33 to the extent that such is not structurally impracticable. 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(1); 28 C.F.R. § 