2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Websites, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   24.  Defendant offers the commercial website, WWW.VOYA.COM, to the  public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the  services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The services  offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to the following, which allow  consumers to find out about office locations and hours and information about insurance,  financial and related services and other services available online and in retail offices.    25.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendant’s  website, and to therefore specifically deny the services that are offered and integrated  with Defendant’s offices. Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access  barriers to its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still  being denied equal access to Defendant’s offices and the numerous services and benefits  offered to the public through the Website.   26.  Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a  computer without the assistance of screen-reading software. Plaintiff is, however, a  proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited  the Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   29.  Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant’s Website, blind and visually- impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally  use or enjoy the facilities and services Defendant offers to the public on its Website. The  access barriers Plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal  access in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the Website.    30.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s physical office locations, and enjoying them equal to sighted  individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation of  Defendant’s physical offices on its Website as well as other important information,  preventing Plaintiff from visiting the locations to purchase services, and to obtain quotes  for insurance and related policies such as annuities or to access his account.   31.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   32.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of  the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently unusable by  blind and visually-impaired people.   34.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   35.  The ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks  in this action. In relevant part, the ADA requires:  In the case of violations of . . . this title, injunctive relief shall include an order to  alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable by  individuals with disabilities . . . Where appropriate, injunctive relief shall also  include requiring the . . . modification of a policy . . .  42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   37.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently view service items, locate Defendant’s  office locations and hours of operation, shop for and otherwise research related services  available via the Website.   38.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding  maintaining and operating its Website, Defendant lacks a plan and policy reasonably  calculated to make them fully and equally accessible to, and independently usable by,  blind and other visually-impaired consumers.   40.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  41.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 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 services offered in  Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   42.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks  certify a New York State 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 Defendant’s  Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of services  offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   43.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks  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 Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to  the equal enjoyment of services offered in Defendant’s physical locations,  during the relevant statutory period.   45.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class and the Subclasses. The Class,  and the Subclasses, similarly to the Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise  blind, and claim that Defendant has violated the ADA, NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing  to update or remove access barriers on its Website so either can be independently  accessible to the Class.   47.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions common to Class Members predominate over  questions affecting only individual Class Members, and because a class action is superior  to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.   48.  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.  49.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   50.  Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,  provides:  No individual shall be discriminated against 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).   51.  Defendant’s offices are public accommodations within the definition of  Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege,  or advantage of Defendant’s offices. The Website is a service that is heavily integrated  with these locations and is a gateway thereto.   53.  Under Section 302(b)(1) of 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).   54.  Under Section 302(b)(2) of 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).   56.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  57.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Subclass Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   58.  N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) provides that it is “an unlawful discriminatory  practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent,  agent or employee of any place of public accommodation . . . because of the . . . disability  of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any  of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.”   59.  Defendant’s physical locations are located in State of New York and  throughout the United States and constitute sales establishments and public  accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s Website  is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant. Defendant’s Website is a service that is  by and heavily integrated with these physical locations and is a gateway thereto.   60.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   62.  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".   63.  Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(ii), unlawful discriminatory practice  also includes, “a refusal to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no  individual with a disability is excluded or denied services because of the absence of  auxiliary aids and services, unless such person can demonstrate that taking such steps  would fundamentally alter the nature of the facility, privilege, advantage or  accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.”   65.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class on the basis of a disability in violation of the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law §  296(2) in that Defendant 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.   66.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   67.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York State 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 Defendant’s Website and its physical locations  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 State  Subclass Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   68.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of New York State Human  Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   70.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   71.  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.  72.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Subclass Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   73.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41.   74.  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40 provides that “all persons within the  jurisdiction of this state shall be entitled to the full and equal accommodations,  advantages, facilities and privileges of any places of public accommodations, resort or  amusement, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law and  applicable alike to all persons. No persons, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager,  superintendent, agent, or employee of any such place shall directly or indirectly refuse,  withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities  and privileges thereof . . .”   76.  Defendant’s New York State physical locations are sales establishments  and public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2).  Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant and its Website is  a service that is by and heavily integrated with these establishments and is a gateway  thereto.   77.  Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   78.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services  integrated with Defendant’s physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, services  that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   79.  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41 states that “any corporation which shall  violate any of the provisions of sections forty, forty-a, forty-b or forty two . . . shall for  each and every violation thereof be liable to a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars  nor more than five hundred dollars, to be recovered by the person aggrieved thereby . . .”   81.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   82.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York State Subclass Members on the basis of disability are  being directly or indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the accommodations,  advantages, facilities and privileges thereof in § 40 et seq. and/or its implementing  regulations.   83.  Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages of five hundred dollars per  instance, as well as civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each  and every offense.  84.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York City Subclass Members,  repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth  herein.   86.  Defendant’s  locations  are  sales  establishments  and  public  accommodations within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its  Website is a service that is integrated with its establishments.   87.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  physical locations in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person within the  meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   88.  Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in  refusing to update or remove access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the  services integrated with its physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities and services  that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   89.  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).   91.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   92.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclasses on the  basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of its Website and its establishments  under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins  Defendant from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and members  of the subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   93.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and  therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   94.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120(8) and § 8-126(a) for each  offense as well as punitive damages pursuant to sec. 8-502(a).   95.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   96.  Under N.Y.C. Administrative 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.  97.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York State and City  Subclasses Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs  as if fully set forth herein.   98.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff 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 physical locations, which  Defendant owns, operations 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.   99.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order  that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW  