2. Whether Defendant accepts guide dogs and, if so, if there are any charges associated  with the guide dogs, their policies with respect to guide dogs and if there are any rest areas for  guide dogs.   26.  Defendant’s Website offers features to the public that should allow all consumers  to access the facilities and services that it offers about their hotels. The Website is heavily  integrated with their hotels, serving as their gateway.   27.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, using Defendant’s Website access to  information through their reservation system relating to the availability of ADA compliant rooms  and handicap accessible features of the hotel, and to therefore specifically deny the goods and  services that are offered and integrated with Defendant’s hotels. Due to Defendant’s failure and  refusal to add information through their reservation system relating to its accessibility for  visually-impaired persons on their Website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been  and are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s hotels and the numerous goods, services,  and benefits offered to the public at Defendant’s hotels.   28.  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 Defendant’s  Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   3. Whether the hotels provide a braille and/or large print menu for restaurants and/or  room service and, in the alternative, if they have trained staff to read the menu to blind or vision- impaired guests.   30.  Due to the lack of information relating to the accessibility features of Defendant’s  hotels through the reservation system on the 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 in their hotels. 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 using the services that the hotels offer to the public because of the  lack of information on accessibility through the reservation system on the Website. Plaintiff  intends to visit Defendant’s hotels or book rooms in Defendant’s hotels in the future if the  Plaintiff was able to learn about the accessibility of Defendant’s hotels and guest rooms for blind  and vision-impaired persons through the reservation system on their website and those  accessibility features meet the needs of the Plaintiff.   32.  If the hotels and the Website reservation system were equally accessible to all,  Plaintiff could independently navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted  individuals do.   33.  Through visiting the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the lack of  information on accessibility features available on the reservation system on the Website that  result in making the services and facilities of the hotel inaccessible and independently unusable  by blind and visually-impaired people.   34.  Because simple compliance with the provisions of the ADA relating to providing  information about accessibility features of the hotels and the guest rooms on its Website  reservation system would provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal  access to the services and facilities at Defendant’s hotels, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has  engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including, but not limited to, the failure to provide  information on its Website reservation system sufficient to advise that the hotels are fully ADA  compliant, and for each accessible guest room, to  specify the room type, the type of accessible  facility in the room, and the communications features in the room.   35.  Defendant therefore use standards, criteria or methods of administration that have  the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as alleged herein.   37.  Because Defendant’s Website reservation system has never included the required  information, and because Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to  cause the Website reservation system to include the required information relating to accessibility,  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 the  ADA regulations requiring certain accessibility information to be  included on  Defendant’s Website reservation system. Plaintiff seeks that their permanent  injunction requires Defendant to cooperate with the Agreed Upon Consultant to:  a.  Train Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the Website for  accessibility and compliance to identify and describe accessible features in the hotels and guest  rooms on the Website reservation system and a statement that the hotels are fully ADA  compliant, and for each accessible guest room, to specify the room type, the type of accessible  facility in the room including a detailed description of the features of such facility so that a blind  or visually-impaired person can determine if the features meet such person’s needs, and the  communications features in the room including a detailed description of the communications  features so that a blind or visually-impaired person can independently determine if the features  meet such person’s needs, including, but not limited to:   38.  If the ADA-required information is included on the Website reservation system,  Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually-impaired people could independently determine  through use of the Website if Defendant’s hotels and guest rooms are ADA compliant and if the  facilities described relating the facilities and communications equipment in guest rooms are  acceptable to the Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually-impaired people   4. Whether or not emergency exit signs are complaint with ADAAG3 requirements and  emergency evacuation plans and information are provided in braille and large print.   40.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining the Website and has generated significant revenue from the Website.  These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of including the information required  under the ADA regulations on the Website reservation system in order to make its facilities and  guest rooms equally accessible to visually impaired customers.    41.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers will  continue to be unable to independently use the Website reservation system to obtain information  relating to ADA accessibility of the hotels and their guest rooms, violating their rights.  42.  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 to obtain the ADA-required  accessibility information 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.   43.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, seeks to 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 to obtain the ADA- required information 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.    45.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:  a.  Whether Defendant’s Website reservation system contains the information  on accessibility required under the ADA regulations;   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.   46.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly to the Plaintiff, are  severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant have violated the ADA,  NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to include the ADA-required information on the Website  reservation system so individuals with disabilities can independently assess if Defendant’s hotels  or guest rooms meet the accessibility needs of the Plaintiff and the Class.   48.  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 their litigation.   49.  Judicial economy will be served by maintaining their 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.  5. Whether or not all accessible signage complies with the requirements of the ADAAG.   50.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   51.  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).   53.  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).   54.  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).   55.  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).   57.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  58.  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.   59.  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.”   6. Whether or not the stairs, escalators and elevators comply with ADAAG standards,  such as braille for floor numbers in the elevator and a verbal annunciator for each floor.    60.  Defendant’s physical hotels are located in the State of New York and constitute  places of public accommodation 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 heavily integrated with these physical locations and is a gateway thereto.   61.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. The Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   63.  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."   64.  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.  Readily available, well-established guidelines exist on the Internet for including  the ADA-required information on websites making such websites accessible to the blind and  visually impaired. Incorporating the basic components to make the Website reservation system  include the ADA-required information would neither fundamentally alter the nature of  Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   67.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   68.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate against  Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class 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 their 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 Sub-Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable  harm.   69.  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.   7. Whether or not the hotels have removed or protected protruding objects which protrude  more than 4” into walkways and hallways such as drinking fountains, fire extinguishers, and  planters and if they provide cane detectable warnings for the underside of stairways.    70.  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.   71.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   73.  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.   74.  N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) provides that “It shall be an unlawful  discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager,  superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation, because of  . . . disability . . . directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person, any of  the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof.”   75.  Defendant’s hotels are places of public accommodation within the definition of  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and the Website is a service that is integrated with their  establishments.   76.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates physical locations  in the City of New York and the Website, making the Defendant a person within the meaning of  N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   77.  Defendant is violating N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107(4)(a) in refusing to  update the Website and remove access barriers to its hotels by failing to include the ADA- required information on its reservation system, causing the services integrated with their physical  locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind. The inaccessibility denies blind patrons full  and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Defendant makes available to the non- disabled public.   79.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the 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 does not contain the ADA- required information on its reservation system making their hotels inaccessible to blind class  members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  b.  failed to take actions to correct the lack of the ADA-required information  in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   80.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   81.  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 the Website and their 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.   83.  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 § 8-502.   84.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   85.  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.  86.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class and New York State and City Sub- Classes Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   87.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that the Website does not  contain the ADA-required information on its reservation system denying blind customers the full  and equal access to the goods, services and facilities of the Website and by extension their  physical locations, which Defendant owns, operates 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.   9. Whether or not signage in the hotel can be easily located by blind and vision-impaired  persons with 2” minimum height raised letters and braille characters centered at 60” above the  finished floor to indicate floor numbers, rest rooms, lobby, vending and ice machines and all  other hotel facilities and amenities.   b.  Regularly check the accessibility of the Website and its reservation system  under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;   c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons to  ensure that Defendant’s Website and the reservation system complies under the WCAG 2.0  guidelines; and  d.   Regularly check the hotels and the guest rooms to ensure that the accessibility  features that they describe on its website reservation system are in fact available and properly  maintained.   DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Website and Compliance with  Requirement to Describe Accessibility Features   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  