21.  Defendant is an archery range that operates its archery range as well as the Website  to the public. The archery range is located at 303 5th Ave, New York, New York. Defendant’s  archery range constitutes a place of public accommodation.  Defendant’s archery range provides  to the public important goods and services.  Defendant’s Website provides consumers with access  to an array of goods and services which allow consumers to find information about the archery  range location and hours, information about archery, reservations, tournaments, to inquire about  pricing and other products available online and in the archery range for purchase and view privacy  policies and other goods and services offered by the Defendant.   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.   24.  During Plaintiff’s visits to the Website, the last occurring on September 2, 2019,  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 location in New York by being unable to  learn more information on the location and hours of the archery range, information  about archery,  reservations, tournaments, inquiries about pricing and other products available online and in the  archery range for purchase and view privacy policies and other goods and services offered by  Defendant.   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.    28.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently navigate  the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   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 not 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.   34.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually- impaired people could independently locate Defendant’s archery range’s locations and hours of  operation, shop for and otherwise research related products and services via the Website.   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.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining its Website and has generated significant revenue from the Website.  These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of making its 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 location, 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  location, 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  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 archery range is a place of 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 archery range. The Website is a service that is integrated with these  locations.   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 location 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 location to be completely inaccessible to the blind. Their 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 not sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious and 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 City Sub-Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   70.  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.”   71.  Defendant’s location is a sales establishment and place of public accommodation  within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is a service that is  integrated with its establishment.   73.  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 location 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.   74.  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).   75.  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 not sufficiently intuitive and/or  obvious and 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.   76.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   78.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   79.  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.   80.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   81.  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.  82.  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.   84.  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 NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  