14.  Defendant is a Bakery and Café, where sandwiches, salads, quiches and  assorted house-made beverages (coffee, tea, matcha, and lemonades) can be purchased  both online and in its bakeries.  The company, which originated in France has various  locations in New York City, one in Manhattan at 301/303 6th Avenue, New York, NY  10014 and another location on Long Island at 550 Middle Neck Road, Great Neck, NY  11023.     15.  Defendant’s Website is heavily integrated with plenty of information on  its bakeries. Through the Website, Defendant’s customers are, inter alia, able to: learn  information about Defendant’s bakeries, including their location and hours of operation;  learn about Wholesales, learn information for catering and events; and learn about items  available in the bakeries vs online.    16.  Defendant’s Website is a commercial marketplace.  Through the Website,  one can learn about items available for purchase in bakeries and online; learn about the  purchase items for delivery; and interact with the company’s social media accounts via  links contained on the Website.    17.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff Olsen and other blind or visually-impaired users access to its Website, thereby  -7- denying the facilities and services that are offered and integrated with its bakeries. Due to  its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Website, Plaintiff Olsen and  visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to  Defendant’s bakeries and the numerous facilities, goods, services, and benefits offered to  the public through its Website.   18.  Plaintiff Olsen cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen- reading software. He is, however, a proficient NVDA screen-reader user and uses it to  access the Internet. He has visited the Website on separate occasions using screen- reading software.   19.  During his visits to the Website, the last occurring on or about December  13, 2020, Plaintiff Olsen encountered multiple access barriers that denied him the full  enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the Website, as well as to the facilities,  goods, and services of Defendant’s bakeries. Because of these barriers he was unable to,  substantially equal to sighted individuals:   a.  Know what is on the Website. This is in part due to the non-text  sliding images lacking alt-text describing them. For example, many of the sliding images  throughout the Website, require a two-step process to allow accessibility to navigate the  primary navigation through the screen reader. Plaintiff Olsen also had difficulty learning  about the ingredients used in each product, as the screen reader does not inform the user  of such.  On the Website, a sighted user can easily access the ingredients used for each  particular item on the menu.   b.  Navigating the Website.  This Website was extremely difficult to  navigate with a screen reader. The main navigation links are not clearly labeled, which  -8- caused confusion. Plaintiff Olsen was unable to access the links through the screen  reader, he had to use the “enter” toggle navigator then were brought to a navigation  module that brought them to the main headings. When ordering online, the Plaintiff  Olsen was able to access links, even though they are repeated various times; he was able  to add things to cart. There was no information given as to whether item was added to  cart, through the screen reader. This caused confusion on Plaintiff Olsen because he was  unsure that the item was added to the cart, which caused him to attempt to keep adding  item. The cart was accessible and once in the cart, Plaintiff was able to edit and complete  purchase, even though links were repeated multiple times.    20.  Plaintiff Olsen was denied full and equal access to the facilities and  services Defendant offers to the public on its Website because he encountered multiple  accessibility barriers that visually-impaired people often encounter with non-compliant  websites:  a.  Lack of alt-text for images.    b.  Links use general text like “here” with no surrounding text  explaining the link purpose.   c.  Forms have fields without label elements or title attributes.  d.  Webpages have duplicate IDs which cause problems in screen  readers.  e.  Form field labels are not unique on a page or enclosed in a fieldset  with a legend that makes the label unique.  f.  Headings are not nested correctly.  g.  Webpages have markup errors.  -9- Defendant Must Remove Barriers to Its Website    21.  Due to the inaccessibility of its Website, blind and visually-impaired  customers such as Plaintiff Olsen, 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 Website’s access barriers that Plaintiff Olsen encountered have caused a denial of his  full and equal access in the past, and now deter him on a regular basis from accessing the  Website. These access barriers have likewise deterred him from visiting Defendant’s  bakeries and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals.    22.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff Olsen could  independently navigate it, view goods and service items, learn about the items for sale,  including available sizes, learn about sizing in general, and complete a purchase for  delivery, as sighted individuals do.   23.  Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff Olsen has actual  knowledge of the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently  unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.    24.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Levels A and AA  Guidelines would provide Plaintiff Olsen and other visually-impaired consumers with  equal access to the Website, Plaintiff Olsen 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 Olsen;  -10- b.  Failing to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including Plaintiff  Olsen; 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 Olsen, as a member of a protected class.   25.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   26.  Title III of the ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that  Plaintiff Olsen seeks under 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).   27.  Because its Website has never been equally accessible, and because  Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably calculated to cause its Website to  become and remain accessible, Plaintiff Olsen seeks a permanent injunction under 42  U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to  Plaintiff Olsen to assist Defendant to comply with WCAG 2.1 Levels A and AA  guidelines for its Website:  a.  Remediating the Website to be WCAG 2.1 A and AA compliant;  b.  Training Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the  Website on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.1 A and AA guidelines;  c.  Regularly checking the accessibility of the Website under the  WCAG 2.1 A and AA guidelines;  -11- d.  Regularly testing user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.1 A and AA  guidelines; and,   e.  Developing an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Website, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   28.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies on  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.   29.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff Olsen and other visually impaired  consumers will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating its  rights.   30.  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.   31.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its  discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.  32.  Plaintiff Olsen 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  -12- enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s bakeries during the relevant  statutory period (“Class Members”).   33.  Plaintiff Olsen seeks to certify a State of New York 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 Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s bakeries during the relevant  statutory period (“New York Subclass Members”).   34.  Plaintiff Olsen 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 New York City who have  attempted to access the Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal  enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s bakeries during the relevant  statutory period (“New York City Subclass Members”).   35.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class Members,  New York Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members:  a.  Whether  Defendant’s  bakeries  are  places  of  “public  accommodation”;  b.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “public accommodation” or a  service or good “of a place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA;   c.  Whether Defendant’s Website is a “place or provider of public  accommodation” or an “accommodation, advantage, facility or privilege” under the  NYSHRL or NYCHRL;  -13- 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 Title III of the ADA; and   e.  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.   36.  Plaintiff Olsen’s claims are typical of the Class Members, New York  Subclass Members and New York City Subclass Members: they are all severely visually  impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has violated Title III of the ADA,  NYSHRL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on its Website so it  can be independently accessible to the visually impaired individuals.   37.  Plaintiff Olsen will fairly and adequately represent and protect the Class  and Subclasses’ interests because he has retained and is represented by counsel  competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and because he has no  interests antagonistic to the Class or Subclasses. 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 and Subclasses, making appropriate both  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff, the Class and Subclasses.   38.  Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions common to Class and Subclass Members  predominate over questions affecting only individuals, and because a class action is  superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.  -14-  39.  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.   40.   Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf of the Class Members, repeats  and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   41.  Title III of the ADA prohibits “discriminat[ion] 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).   42.  Defendant’s bakeries are public accommodations under Title III of the  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Its Website is a service, privilege, or advantage of  Defendant’s bakeries. The Website is a service that is integrated with these locations.   43.  Under 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).   44.  Under 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).  -15-  45.  Under 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).   46.  These acts violate Title III of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated  thereunder. Plaintiff Olsen, who is a member of a protected class of persons under Title  III of the ADA, has a physical disability that substantially limits the major life activity of  sight under 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A)-(2)(A). Furthermore, he 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.    47.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff Olsen requests the relief as set forth below.  48.  Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf of the New York Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.  -16-  49.  Defendant’s State of New York bakeries constitute sales establishments  and public accommodations under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendant’s Website is a  service, privilege or advantage of that bakeries. Defendant’s Website is a service that is  by and integrated with those bakeries.   50.  Defendant is subject to NYSHRL because it owns and operates their  bakeries and the Website. Defendant is a “person” under N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   51.  Defendant is violating the NYSHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its  bakeries to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and services that Defendant makes  available to the non-disabled public. N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296(2)(a), 296(2)(c)(i),  296(2)(c)(ii).   52.  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  websites 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 its  business nor result in an undue burden to them.   53.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class because of a disability, violating the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2), in  that Defendant has:  -17- a.  Constructed and maintained a website that is inaccessible to 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.   54.  Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to discriminate  against Plaintiff Olsen and New York Subclass 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 its bakeries 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 New York  Subclass Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   55.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYSHRL, Plaintiff Olsen seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   56.  Plaintiff Olsen is entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for every offense.   57.  Plaintiff Olsen is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   58.  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.  -18- 59.  Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf the New York City Subclass  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   60.  Defendant’s New York City location is a sales establishment and public  accommodation under the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is  a service that is integrated with its establishment.   61.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its bakery  in the New York City and its Website, making it a person under N.Y.C. Admin. Code §  8-102(1).   62.  Defendant is violating the NYCHRL in refusing to update or remove  access barriers to Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with its  bakeries to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This inaccessibility denies blind  patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that Defendant makes  available to the non-disabled public. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-107(4)(a), 8-107(15)(a).   63.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the Subclass because of a disability, violating the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8- 107(4)(a) and § 8-107(15)(a,) in that it 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  -19- c.  Failed to take actions to correct these access barriers in the face of  substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   64.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff Olsen and the New York City Subclass Members because of  disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,  advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of its Website and its 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 the New  York City Subclass will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   65.  As Defendant’s actions violate the NYCHRL, Plaintiff Olsen seeks  injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   66.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to compensatory damages, as well as civil  penalties and fines for each offense. N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-120(8), 8-126(a).   67.  Plaintiff Olsen is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   68.  Under N.Y.C. Admin. 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.  69.  Plaintiff Olsen, individually and on behalf the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   70.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that  Plaintiff Olsen contends, and is informed and believes that Defendant denies, that its  Website contains access barriers denying blind customers the full and equal access to the  -20- goods, services and facilities of its Website and by extension its bakeries, 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.   71.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate now in order that each  of the parties may know its respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant, Its Website And Its Website’s Barriers   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL  