15.  The Defendant is defined as a “public accommodation" because it is an  entity which owns and operates a "Place of Public Accommodation," 42 U.S.C. §  12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. (2) or “[P]laces of public accommodation,” “[A]  bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or  rental establishment.”    16.  The Defendant owns, operates, and controls an internet website known as  www.BurlingtonCoatFactory.com (“website”   or “Defendant’s website”) in which the  general public may view the inventory and order online.  Therefore, according to 42  U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E), the Defendant’s website is itself a “Place of Public  Accommodation” and the website is subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA  and its implementing regulation; 42 U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(E); 28 C.F.R. Part 36.    17.  The website is a place of public accommodation, as the website allows the  general public access the Defendant’s inventory of clothing, accessories, shoes, home  goods and toys. Further, the website offers the ability to order said consumer inventory  online in a substantially similar way as if an individual were to purchase the Defendant’s  inventory of clothing, accessories, shoes, home goods and toys from one of the many1  physical store locations of the Defendant’s related retail store corporations.  As such, the  website is a store, which is a public accommodation; 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E).   19.  Under the ADA, Public Accommodations that utilize the Internet for  communications regarding their programs, goods or services, must offer those  communications through adequate accessible means.   20.  The Defendant’s website allows the general public (consumer) to  efficiently, privately, and conveniently view, order and direct shipment of purchases of  its inventory of clothing, accessories, shoes, home goods and toys.   21.  The Plaintiff utilizes JAWS Screen Reader software (hereinafter  referenced as “screen reader software”), which is the most popular screen reader software  utilized worldwide. Screen reader software allows individuals who are visually impaired  (such as the Plaintiff) to comprehend information available on the internet; thus also  allows such individuals the ability to access and comprehend store/shopping websites.    22.  On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff attempted to utilize the Defendant’s  website to view (with the intent of purchase) the clothing, accessories, shoes, home goods  and toys available for purchase on/through the website. However, the Defendant’s  website did not integrate with Plaintiff’s screen reader software so the Plaintiff could not  use the website.   23.  The Defendant’s website contained (and still contains) a multitude of  programing errors such that it is not compatible with screen reader software and therefore  does not conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (“WCAG 2.0”).   25.  Thus, the Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of  disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, advantages  or accommodations through its website. Thus, Defendant (as a Public Accommodation)  and its website (place of public accommodation) are in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)  and 28 C.F.R. § 36.201. The Defendant has failed to adequately program its website to  accurately and sufficiently integrate with common commercially available screen reader  software utilized by Plaintiff and others with visual disabilities.   26.  As a result of the Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiff Gomez was unable  to use the website, and suffered an injury in fact including loss of dignity, mental  anguish, and other tangible injuries.   27.  Plaintiff Gomez continues to desire to utilize the Defendant’s website, but  he is unable to do so as he is unable to comprehend the Defendant’s website, thus he will  continue to suffer irreparable injury from the Defendants’ intentional acts, policies, and  practices set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court.   29.  The Defendant’s website is\was not designed and programmed to interface  with commercially available screen reader software for disabled individuals who are  visually impaired in the same manner as the website is offered to the general public.     30.  The Defendant’s website is\was so poorly functional for visually impaired  individuals who require screen reader software, that any utilization of the website  contains barriers that prevent full and equal use (of the website) by individuals with  disabilities who are visually impaired.   31.  On information and belief, the Defendant has not designated an employee  as a Web Accessibility Coordinator to insure full and equal use of its website by  individuals with disabilities.    32.  On information and belief, the Defendant has not adopted a Web  Accessibility Policy to insure full and equal use of its website by individuals with  disabilities.    33.  On information and belief, the Defendant has not instituted a Web  Accessibility Committee to insure full and equal use of its website by individuals with  disabilities.    34.  The Defendant’s website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility  Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 Basic Level of web accessibility3.    36.  On information and belief, the Defendant is aware of the access barriers  within its website which prevent individuals with disabilities who are visually impaired  from the means to comprehend the Defendant’s inventory of clothing, accessories, shoes,  home goods, and toys, and\or to purchase said items online from the Defendant.   37.  Such barriers result in discriminatory and unequal treatment of individuals  with disabilities who are visually impaired. Thus, the Defendant has refused to make its  website accessible to individuals with disabilities who are visually impaired.   38.  Enforcement of Plaintiff Gomez’s rights is right and just pursuant to 28  40.  Plaintiff Gomez brings this case as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule  of Civil Procedure Rule 23, in that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable, there are questions of law and fact common to the class [F.R.C.P. Rule  23(a)(1)], the claims and defenses of the representative party is typical of those of the  class [F.R.C.P. Rule 23(a)(3)], and Plaintiff Gomez (as the representative party) will  fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class [F.R.C.P Rule 23(a)(4)].   42.  According to the National Federation for the Blind5, there are over 5  million Americans with visual disabilities; over a half-million Americans with visual  disabilities reside within the state of Florida.    43.  Clearly, the Class of Others Similarly Situated to Plaintiff Gomez which is  to be represented by Plaintiff Gomez is so numerous that a joinder of each individual  member is impracticable; F.R.C.P. Rule 23(a)(1).      44.  Plaintiff Gomez is a representative of the Class due to the fact that he  suffers from a  qualified disability, he is visually impaired and he requires screen reader  software interface in order to comprehend and effectively communicate with public  accommodations on the internet, such as the Defendant’s website   45.  The questions of law and fact relating to the representative Plaintiff are  similar and common to the law and fact questions which would be raised by other  members of the Class if they were individually named plaintiffs herein.    46.  Similarly, the claims and defenses to be raised by and against the parties  herein are typical of the claims or defenses which would be raised by the members of the  Class if they were a party to this action.   48.  The relief sought herein is for the benefit of all members of the Class and  consistent injunctive relief should be provided for each member of the Class.    49.  Prosecution of this matter by individual members of the Class would only  create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications and the establishment of  incompatible standard by defendant and adjudication which may be dispositive of the  interest of the other Class members.    50.  The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class, such  as the degree of non-compliance, which will be raised and adjudicated herein,  predominate over any questions affecting only the individual Plaintiff or individual  members of the Class. As a result, this class action is the optimal method for reaching a  fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy raised herein.    51.  The Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff Gomez and the  members of the Class by denying effective communication through its website.   52.  The Defendant has failed to provide any mechanism by which to  adequately serve visually impaired individuals such as Plaintiff Gomez and others  similarly situated. The Defendant is operating in violation of Plaintiffs’ rights as  protected by the ADA and is entitled to injunctive relief. 42 U.S.C. §12188.    54.  Plaintiff Gomez and others similarly situated will continue to suffer  irreparable injury from Defendant’s intentional acts, policies, and practices set forth  herein unless enjoined by the court.    55.  Notice to the Defendants is not required as a result of the Defendant’s  failure to cure the violations.  56.  Plaintiff Gomez and others similarly situated re-allege and incorporate by  reference the allegations set forth in ¶¶s 1 – 55 above   57.  The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) is landmark civil rights  legislation that is the result of decades of advocacy to improve the lives and role in  society of all persons with disabilities.  The ADA was enacted and effective as of July 26,  1990.  The ADA legislation has been protecting disabled persons from discrimination due  to disabilities for over 25 years.     58.  “Congress enacted the ADA in 1990 to remedy widespread discrimination  against disabled individuals.” PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 674 (2001).     59.   “After thoroughly investigating the problem, Congress concluded that  there was a compelling need for a clear and comprehensive national mandate to eliminate  discrimination against disabled individuals, and to integrate them into the economic and  social mainstream of American life.” PGA Tour, 532 U.S. at 675 (2001) (internal  quotation marks omitted).    61.  Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E) & (F), the Defendant’s website is a  place of public accommodation under the ADA because it is a “sales or rental  establishment” and is also an “other service establishment”.  As such, the Defendant’s  website must be in compliance with the ADA.  However, the Defendant’s website is\was  not in compliance with the ADA.  Plaintiff Gomez suffered an injury in fact because of  the Defendant’s non-compliance.   62.  A sampling review of just part of the Defendant’s website revealed that  the website is not functional for users who are visually impaired, as follows:  ID  Scenario  Issue Description  Assistive  Technology  WCAG 2 Guideline  Defendant  COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION  Plaintiff Andres Gomez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all Other Individuals  Similarly Situated, hereby sue Defendant Burlington Coat Factory Direct Corporation  for  civil rights violations and for injunctive relief, attorney’s fees and costs (including, but  not limited to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to Title III of the Americans with  Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (“ADA”), 28 C.F.R.  Part 36, and allege as follows: 