29.  Each of Defendant Panera, LLC‟s bakeries and cafés are open to the  general public and as such, are places public accommodation subject to the requirements  of Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulation; 42 U.S.C. §12182, §§s  12181(7)(B) and (E) and 28 C.F.R. Part 36, by virtue of the fact that Defendant operates  bakeries (42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E)) and by virtue of the fact that the Defendant operates  café-casual fast-food restaurants (cafés) which  offer food and drink to the general public  31.  On information and belief, Defendant Panera is well aware of the need to  accommodate their customers who are visually impaired, and is aware of the  requirements of the ADA for effective communication and access.    32.  As a public accommodation, Defendant Panera must provide appropriate  auxiliary aids or services that comply with its effective communication and access  obligations. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. §§s 36.303(a), (c)(1).   33.  Defendant Panera has not provided full and equal access and full and  equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and  accommodations provided by and through its Panera Bread bakeries and cafés located  within the State of Florida and other regions of the United States where they business  operations.   35.  Such barriers have resulted in segregation of individuals with disabilities  who are visually impaired and directly caused a diminished lifestyle and societal  ostraization.   36.  As a public accommodation with many places of public accommodation  within the United States of America, Defendant Panera is well aware of requirements the  need to accommodate their customers who are visually impaired within each of its places  of public accommodation.  Further, the Defendant Panera is aware of the requirements of  the ADA for effective communication and access.   iPad6 Touchscreen Kiosks   38.  The iPad kiosks permit consumers to (i) view the assortment of bakery  items and menu of café food and drink items available for purchase, independently (on  their own), (ii) to select and order bakery, café and drink items, (iii) to direct that said  items be packaged for take-out or set up in trays for eating and drinking in the Panera  bakery and café, and (iv) to purchase of such items.    39.  Defendant Panera has failed to reasonably accommodate the visually  impaired and disabled by developing their news iPad kiosks to include a blind interface  system which employs an audio interface system, a tactile keyboard, and/or interactive  screen reader technology or other auxiliary aids for the visually impaired.    40.  Defendant Panera has failed to provide the minimum ability of the blind to  use Panera technologies like other non-vision impaired customers.   41.  Such failure is not only outrageous conduct, the lack of management  forethought into building these incapability devises amounts to extreme insensitivity, a  malo arbitio, but also  is/was willful, malicious, oppressive, and in complete disregard for  the rights of the Plaintiffs and in violation of 28 C.F.R. §36.303   42.  Barriers to effective communication include (but are not necessarily  limited to) Defendant Panera‟s failure to reasonably accommodate visually impaired  individuals by providing creating their iPad kiosks assistive listening devices (which are  readily accessible and that they be maintained in working condition and available on  request) to individuals who are visually impaired is/was willful, malicious, and  oppressive and in complete disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs and in violation of 28  77.  Defendant Panera, LLC‟s website www.panerabread.com (“website”) is  offered to provide the general public information including but not limited to information  on the various locations of the Defendant Panera Bakeries and Cafés throughout the  United States and within the state of Florida.     79.  Since the Defendant Panera‟s bakeries and cafés are places of public  accommodation and they are serviced by Defendant‟s website, the website is also  characterized as a place of public accommodation (42 U.S.C. §§S 12181(7)(B) and (E)),  and has a direct nexus between the site and its stores.   80.  The website allows the general public access to the food, drink, and  bakery menu, and the ability to purchase food, drink, and bakery items on online in a  substantially similar way as if an individual were to purchase food, drink and bakery  items from one of the Defendant Panera‟s bakery and café locations.  As such, the  website is a service, which is a public accommodation; 42 U.S.C. §§s 12181(7)(B) and  (E) and must comply with the ADA, which means it must not discriminate against  individuals with disabilities and may not deny full and equal enjoyment of the services  afforded to the general public.  As such, Defendant Panera has subjected itself and the  website it has created and maintains, to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).11    82.  Plaintiffs Gomez and Gil are customers of bakeries and cafés such as  Panera Bakeries and Cafés.    83.  Plaintiffs Gomez and Gil frequently utilize the internet. In order to  comprehend information available on the internet and access/comprehend websites,  Plaintiffs Gomez and Gil use commercially available screen reader software to interface  with the various websites.    84.  In order to comprehend Defendant Panera‟s website and to become  informed of the bakery and café locations, menu and bakery items, and to food, drink,  and bakery items online for in store pick up, which the general public may do online,  Plaintiffs Gomez and Gil must use screen reader software.    85.  Both Plaintiffs Gomez and Gill attempted to utilize the Defendant‟s  website.  However, the Defendant‟s website did not integrate with either of the Plaintiff‟s  screen reader software so Plaintiffs Gomez and Gill were barred from accessing the  Defendant‟s website.   86.  The Defendant‟s website does not provide screen reader software or other  means to accommodate the visually impaired, nor does it interface with screen reader  software in order that visually impaired individuals can comprehend the website.    88.  The Defendant‟s website did\does not offer an adequate system to permit a  disabled person with a visual impairment (who requires screen reader software) to  comprehend its website in an effective manner.    89.  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.    90.  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.    91.  On information and belief, the Defendant has not designated an employee  as a Web Accessibility Policy to insure full and equal use of its website by individuals  with disabilities.    92.  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.   93.  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.    95.  On information and belief, the Defendant has not instituted a User  Accessibility Testing Group to insure full and equal use of its website by individuals with  disabilities.   96.  On information and belief, the Defendant has not instituted a Bug Fix  Priority Policy.   97.    On information and belief, the Defendant has not instituted an  Automated Web Accessibility Testing program.   98.  On information and belief, the Defendant has not created and instituted a  Specialized Customer Assistance line, nor service, or email contact mode for customer  assistance for the visually impaired.   PHYSICAL LOCATIONS   