24. It is, upon information and belief, the Defendants' policy and practice to deny the plaintiff,  along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to the defendants' website, and to  therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered and are heavily integrated  with the defendants' locations. Due to the defendants' failure and refusal to remove access  barriers to its website, the plaintiff and other visually-impaired persons have been and are still  being denied equal access to the defendants' locations and the numerous goods, services, and  benefits offered to the public through the website.   25. The plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a computer  without the assistance of screen-reading software. The plaintiff is, however, a proficient JAWS  screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. The plaintiff has visited the website on  separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   26. During the plaintiff’s visits to the website, the last occurring in April 2018, the plaintiff  encountered multiple access barriers that denied the plaintiff full and equal access to the  facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that  denied the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the website, as  well as to the facilities, goods, and services of the defendants' locations in New York by being  unable to learn more information about location addresses and hours, and Products available  for purchase and delivery, among other things readily available to sighted individuals.   28. Due to the inaccessibility of the defendants' website, blind and visually-impaired customers  such as the plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the  facilities, goods, and services the defendant offers to the public on its website. The access  barriers the plaintiff encountered have caused a denial of the plaintiff’s full and equal access  in the past, and now deter the plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing the website.   30. If the website was equally accessible to all, the plaintiff could independently navigate the  website and complete a desired transaction, as sighted individuals do.   31. The plaintiff, through the plaintiff’s attempts to use the website, has actual knowledge of the  access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently unusable by blind and  visually-impaired people.   32. Because simple compliance with WCAG 2.0 would provide the plaintiff and other visually- impaired consumers with equal access to the website, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants  engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including, but not limited to, the following  policies or practices: constructing and maintaining a website that is inaccessible to visually- impaired individuals, including the plaintiff; failing to construct and maintain a website that is  sufficiently intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including  the plaintiff; and 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 the plaintiff, as a  member of a protected class.   33. The Defendants therefore use standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination against others, as alleged herein.   35. Because the defendants' website has never been equally accessible, and because the defendants  lack a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause the defendants' website to become  and remain accessible, the plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and seeks a permanent  injunction requiring the defendants to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to the plaintiff  to assist the defendants to comply with WCAG 2.0 guidelines for the defendants' website. The  website must be accessible for individuals with disabilities who use desktop computers,  laptops, tablets, and smartphones. The plaintiff seeks that this permanent injunction require the  defendants to cooperate with the agreed-upon consultant to: train the defendants' employees  and agents who develop the website on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.0  guidelines; regularly check the accessibility of the website under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons to ensure that the  defendants' website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and develop an accessibility  policy that is clearly disclosed on the defendants' website, with contact information for users  to report accessibility-related problems and require that any third-party vendors who  participate on the defendants' website to be fully accessible to the disabled by conforming with  40. The 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 the defendants' website and as a result have been denied access  to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in the defendants' physical locations,  during the relevant statutory period.   41. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 the defendants' website and as a result have been  denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in the defendants' physical  locations, during the relevant statutory period.   43. Common questions of law and fact exist among the class, including: whether the defendants'  website is a “public accommodation” under the ADA; whether the defendant’s website is a  “place or provider of public accommodation” under the NYSHRL or NYCHRL; whether the  defendants' 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 whether the defendants' 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.   44. The plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class. The class, similarly to the plaintiff, are severely  visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that the defendants violated the ADA,  NYSHRL, and NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on the defendants'  website so it can be independently accessible to the class.   45. The plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class because  the plaintiff has retained and is represented by counsel competent and experienced in complex  class action litigation, and because the plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to the class. Class  certification of the claims is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because the defendants  has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, making appropriate  both declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the plaintiff and the class as a whole.   47. Judicial economy will be served by maintaining this 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.  48. The plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff and the class, repeats and realleges every allegation of  the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   49. 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).   50. The defendants' locations are public accommodations within the definition of Title III of the  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). the defendants' website is a service, privilege, or advantage of the  defendants' locations. The defendants' website is a service that is heavily integrated with these  locations and is a gateway thereto.   51. 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).   53. 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).   55. Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and incorporated  therein, the plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  56. The plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff and the New York State sub-class, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   57. 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.   58. The defendants' 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). The defendants' website is a service, privilege or advantage of the  defendants. The defendants' website is a service that is heavily integrated with these physical  locations and is a gateway thereto.   59. The defendants are subject to the NYSHRL because they own and operate their physical  locations and website. The defendants are persons within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law §  292(1).   61. 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.   62. 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.   63. 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 the defendants' business nor result in an undue burden  to the defendants.   65. The defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   66. The defendants discriminate, and will continue to discriminate against the plaintiff and the  New York State sub-class on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,  services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of the  defendants' website and its physical locations under § 296(2), et seq., and/or its implementing  regulations. Unless the Court enjoins the defendants from continuing to engage in these  unlawful practices, the plaintiff and the New York State sub-class will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   67. The defendants' actions were and are in violation of NYSHRL and therefore the plaintiff and  the New York State sub-class invoke their right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   68. The plaintiff and the New York State sub-class are also entitled to compensatory damages, and  civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c), et seq., for each and every offense.   70. Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth and  incorporated therein, the plaintiff and the New York State sub-class pray for judgment as set  forth below.  71. The plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff and the New York State sub-class, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   72. The plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y. Civil Rights  Law § 41.   73. 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 ….   74. 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. The defendants are subject to NYSCRL because it owns and operates the defendants' physical  locations and website. The defendants are persons within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Rights  Law § 40-c(2).   77. The defendants are violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to the defendants' website, causing the defendants' website and the services  integrated with the defendants' physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind.  This inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and  services that the defendants make available to the non-disabled public.   78. N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41 states 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.   79. Under N.Y. 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. The defendants discriminated, and will continue to discriminate, against the plaintiff and the  New York State sub-class on the basis of disability and the plaintiff and the New York State  sub-class are being directly or indirectly refused, withheld from, or denied the  accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges thereof in § 40, et seq., and/or its  implementing regulations.   82. The plaintiff and the New York State sub-class are entitled to compensatory damages of five  hundred dollars per instance, as well as civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Civil Rights Law  § 40, et seq., for each and every offense.  83. The plaintiff, on behalf of the plaintiff and the New York City sub-class, repeats and realleges  every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   84. 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.   85. The defendants' locations are sales establishments and public accommodations within the  definition of N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(9), and their website is a service that is  heavily integrated with its establishments and is a gateway thereto.   87. The defendants are 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 locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that the defendants make  available to the non-disabled public.   88. The defendants are 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).   89. The defendants' actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against the New York 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 the defendants have: constructed and maintained a website that is  inaccessible to blind class members with knowledge of the discrimination; constructed and  maintained a website that is sufficiently intuitive and/or obvious that is inaccessible to blind  class members; and/or failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   90. The defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   92. The defendants' actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore the plaintiff  and the New York City subclass invokes their right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   93. The plaintiff and the New York City subclass are 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.   94. The plaintiff and the New York City subclass are also entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and  costs.   95. Under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120 and § 8-126 and the remedies, procedures, and  rights set forth and incorporated therein the plaintiff and the New York City subclass pray for  judgment as set forth below.  96. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class, repeats and realleges every allegation of the  preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   98. 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.  ADA   DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   NYCHRL   NYSHRL   NYSCRL  