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.   21.  Defendant is a Hotelier that operates the EVEN HOTELS as well as the EVEN  HOTELS website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the  goods and services which Defendant offers in connection with its Hotel.   22.  Defendant operates EVEN HOTELS (its “Hotel”) in New York City, at 321 W 35th  Street, New York, NY 10001.   23.  Its Hotel constitutes a place of public accommodation. Defendant’s Hotel provides  to the public important goods and services. Defendant’s Website provides  consumers with access to an array of goods and services including Hotel locations,  information pertaining to room availability and room rates, information about hotel  amenities, including hours of operation, and related goods and services.   24.  Defendant offers the commercial website, www.ihg.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: Hotel  locations, information pertaining to room availability and room rates, information  about hotel amenities, including hours of operation, and related goods and services.   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.   27.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring in August 2018, Plaintiff  encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal access to  the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the  public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods and  services of the Website, as well as to the facilities, goods and services of  Defendant’s physical locations in New York by being unable to learn more  information about Hotel locations, information pertaining to room availability and  room rates, information about hotel amenities, including hours of operation, and  related goods and services.   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, products, 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 locations and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals  because: Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation of  Defendant’s physical Hotels on its Website and other important information,  preventing Plaintiff from visiting the locations to take advantage of the goods and  services that it provides to the public.   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 her 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  physical locations and hours of operation, shop for and otherwise research related  goods and 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.    39.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining their Website and has 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.    41.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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.   42.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 goods and  services offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.    43.  Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 goods and  services offered in Defendant’s physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.    45.  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 has  violated the ADA, NYSYRHL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access  barriers on its Website so either can be independently accessible to the Class.   46.  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.   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.   49.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 Hotels 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 Hotels. The Website is a service that is integrated with  these locations.   52.  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 products, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an  entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i).   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 products, 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.  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.   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 herself and the New York State Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   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 integrated with these physical locations.   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).   61.  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, services  that Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   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.”   64.  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.   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 Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability in the  full and equal enjoyment of the products, 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 Sub-Class 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 her right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   69.  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.   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 herself and the New York State Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   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 . . .”   75.  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.”   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 integrated with these establishments.   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).   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 . . .”   80.  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 ...”   81.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   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 herself and the New York City Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   85.  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.”   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).   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).   90.  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 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.   91.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   93.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her 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 § 8-502.   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 herself 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.   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.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 1281 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW  