14.  Defendant is a medical service provider.  Customers pay one flat fee and  get access to unlimited doctor’s appointments, preventative and sick care, lab and genetic  testing and remote access.  Defendant operates two medical offices in New York City,  located at 555 Madison Avenue, New York, New York, and 1153 Broadway, New York,  New York.     15.  Defendant’s Website is heavily integrated with its medical service, serving  as its gateway. Through the Website, Defendant’s customers can, inter alia: learn about  Defendant’s service; learn about the Defendant’s physicians and medical board; learn about  the New York City locations, including their address and contact information and take a  virtual tour of the locations, read reviews and become a member.    16.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff Nisbett and other blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website, thereby  denying the facilities and services that are offered and integrated with its medical offices  and services. Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its  Website, Plaintiff Nisbett and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being  denied equal access to Defendant’s medical services and the numerous facilities, goods,  services, and benefits offered to the public through its Website.   19.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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  websites:  a.  Lack of alt-text for images.   b.  Documents do not have a title.  c.  Frames do not have a title.  d.  Webpages have no pages.  e.  Some pages share the same name, so it is hard to distinguish pages.  f.  Webpages have markup errors.  Defendant Must Remove Barriers to Their Website    21.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Nisbett could  independently navigate it, learn about Defendant’s services, including its doctors and  locations, and find out if he is a candidate.     22.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Nisbett 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 Nisbett and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website,  Plaintiff Nisbett 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 Nisbett;  b.  Failing to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff  Nisbett; 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 Nisbett, 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.   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 Nisbett seeks a permanent injunction under 42  U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to  Plaintiff Nisbett to assist Defendant to comply with WCAG 2.0 guidelines for its Website:  a.  Remediating the Website to be WCAG 2.0 AA compliant;  b.  Training Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the  Website on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly checking the accessibility of the Website under the  WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  d.  Regularly testing user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and,   e.  Developing an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s 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, 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.   28.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Nisbett 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 Nisbett 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 enjoyment of  Defendant’s medical services during the relevant statutory period (“Class Members”).   32.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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 Defendant’s medical services during the relevant statutory period (“New  York Subclass Members”).   33.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class Members and  the New York Subclass Members:  a.  Whether Defendant’s online medical services constitute a “public  accommodation” or a service or good “of a place of public accommodation” under Title III  of the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” or an “accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege” under the  39.   Plaintiff Nisbett, 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 medical services constitute a public accommodations under  Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Their Website is a service, privilege, or  advantage that is integrated with its medical services.   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).   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 Nisbett, 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 Nisbett requests the relief as set forth below.  48.  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.”   49.  Defendant’s State of New York medical offices are public accommodations  under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage  of these offices and its medical services. Defendant’s Website is a service that is by and  integrated with Defendant’s medical offices and its medical services.   50.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because its owns and operates its medical  offices and the Website. Defendant is a “person” under 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 medical offices and services 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.   53.  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.”    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.   56.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff Nisbett 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 Defendant’s Website and its medical offices and  services 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.   57.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Nisbett seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   58.  Plaintiff Nisbett is entitled to compensatory damages and civil penalties and  fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for every offense.   59.  Plaintiff Nisbett is 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 Nisbett, 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.   63.  The Website is a public accommodation under NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin.  Code § 8-102(9).   64.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its Website  and its medical offices located in the City of New York, making it a person under 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 medical offices  and services 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).   66.  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  c.  Failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   68.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Nisbett seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   69.  Plaintiff Nisbett 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).   70.  Plaintiff Nisbett is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   71.  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.  72.  Plaintiff Nisbett, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   74.  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 ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  