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 Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems and require that any third party vendors who participate on its Website to be  fully accessible to the disabled by conforming with WCAG 2.0 criteria.   21.  Defendant offers the commercial website, WWW.PEETS.COM, to the  public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods  and services which Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The  goods and services offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to the following,  which allow consumers to: find information about coffee shop locations and hours of  operation and information about the coffee and tea in its retail gourmet coffee shops for  purchase, gift cards, reward program, special promotions and employment opportunities.   22.  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 goods and services that are offered and are  heavily integrated with Defendant’s gourmet coffee shops. 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 gourmet coffee  shops and the numerous goods, services, and benefits offered to the public through the  Website.   23.  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.   26.  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, goods, 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.    27.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s physical gourmet coffee shops locations, and enjoying them equal to  sighted individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of  operation of Defendant’s physical gourmet coffee shops on its Website as well as other  important information, preventing Plaintiff from visiting the locations to purchase items  and to view the items. Plaintiff intends to visit Defendant's gourmet coffee shops in the  near future if he could access their website.   29.  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.   30.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would  provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website,  Plaintiff 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;  b.  Failure to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including  Plaintiff; 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, as a member of a protected class.   31.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   33.  Because Defendant’s 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 invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and  seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant  acceptable to Plaintiff (“Agreed Upon Consultant”) to assist Defendant to comply with  WCAG 2.0 guidelines for Defendant’s Website. The Website must be accessible for  individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops, tablets and smart phones.  Plaintiff seeks that this permanent injunction requires Defendant to cooperate with the  Agreed Upon Consultant to:  a.  Train Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the Website  on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  b.  Regularly check the accessibility of the Website under the WCAG   35.  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.    36.  Defendants have, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums  in developing and maintaining their Website and have generated  significant revenue from the Website. These amounts are far greater than  the associated cost of making their Website equally accessible to visually  impaired customers.    37.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  38.  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 goods and services offered  in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   40.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 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 Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to  the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s physical  locations, during the relevant statutory period.   41.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” under  the ADA;   b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  c.  Whether Defendant’s Website denies the full and equal enjoyment  of its goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to people  with visual disabilities, violating the ADA; and  d.  Whether Defendant’s 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.   43.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of  the Class Members because Plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because Plaintiff has  no interests antagonistic to the Class Members. 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, making appropriate both declaratory and  injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole.   44.  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.   45.  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.  46.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   48.  Defendant’s gourmet coffee shops are a public accommodation 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 gourmet coffee shops. The Website is a  service that is heavily integrated with these locations and is a gateway thereto.   49.  Under Section 302(b)(1) of 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).   50.  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).   52.  The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and  the regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is a member of a protected class of  persons under 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,  Plaintiff 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. Defendant has  failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. These  violations are ongoing.   53.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  54.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   55.  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.”   57.  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).   58.  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 Defendant’s physical locations 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.   59.  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".   61.  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  website 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  Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   62.  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.   63.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   65.  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.   66.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.   67.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   68.  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.  69.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   70.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41.   72.  N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) provides that “no person because of . . .   disability, as such term is defined in section two hundred ninety-two of executive law, be  subjected to any discrimination in his or her civil rights, or to any harassment, as defined  in section 240.25 of the penal law, in the exercise thereof, by any other person or by any  firm, corporation or institution, or by the state or any agency or subdivision.”   73.  Defendant’s New York 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 heavily integrated with these establishments and is a gateway thereto.   74.  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).   75.  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, goods and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   77.  Under NY Civil Rights Law § 40-d, “any person who shall violate any of  the provisions of the foregoing section, or subdivision three of section 240.30 or section  240.31 of the penal law, or who shall aid or incite the violation of any of said provisions  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 in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the  defendant shall reside . . .”   78.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   79.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class 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.   80.  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.  81.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York City Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   83.  Defendant’s New York City 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 heavily integrated with its establishments and is a gateway  thereto.   84.  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).   85.  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, goods, and  services that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   87.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the City Sub-Class on the basis of a disability in violation of the N.Y.C. Administrative  Code § 8-107(4)(a) and § 8-107(15)(a) 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.   88.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   89.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed class and subclass on the  basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, 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 class will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   90.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and  therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   92.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   93.  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.  94.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York State and New  York City Sub-Classes Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   95.  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, operates and controls and 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.   96.  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.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  