2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired persons  to ensure that Defendants’ Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendants’ Websites, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   24.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendants’ policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendants’ website,  and to therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered and integrated  with Defendants’ dry cleaning and restoration locations. Due to Defendants’ failure and  refusal to remove access barriers to their website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons  have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendants’ dry cleaning and  restoration locations and the numerous goods, services, and benefits offered to the public  through the Website.   25.  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.   28.  Due to the inaccessibility of Defendants’ 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 Defendants offer to the public on their  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.    29.  These access barriers on Defendants’ Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendants’ physical dry cleaning and restoration location, and enjoying them  equal to sighted individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of  operation of Defendants’ physical dry cleaning and restoration locations on their Website  and other important information, preventing Plaintiff from visiting the location to utilize  their services.   30.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   31.  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.   33.  Defendants therefore use standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   34.  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 . . . their 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).   36.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently view service items, locate Defendants’ dry  cleaning and restoration location and hours of operation, shop for and otherwise research  related products and services via the Website.   37.  Although Defendants may currently have centralized policies regarding  maintaining and operating their Website, Defendants lack 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.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  40.  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 Defendants’ Website and as  a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in  Defendants’ physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.   41.  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 Defendants’ Website  and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services  offered in Defendants’ physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.    42.  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 Defendants’ Website  and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services  offered in Defendants’ physical locations, during the relevant statutory period.    44.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly to the  Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendants have  violated the ADA, NYSYRHL or NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers  on their Website so either can be independently accessible to the Class.   45.  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 Defendants have 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.   46.  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 their litigation.   48.   Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class Members, 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.  Defendants’ dry cleaning and restoration locations are a public  accommodation within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).  Defendants’ Website is a service, privilege, or advantage of Defendants’ dry cleaning and  restoration locations. The Website is a service that is integrated with these locations.   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).   54.  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. Defendants have  failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their discriminatory conduct. These  violations are ongoing.   55.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth  and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  56.  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.   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.  Defendants’ physical location is located in the State of New York and  provides services throughout the United States and constitute sales establishments and  public accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9). Defendants’  Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendants. Defendants’ Website is a  service that is by and integrated with these physical location.   59.  Defendants are subject to New York Human Rights Law because they own  and operate their physical location and Website. Defendants are persons within the  meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   60.  Defendants are violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update  or remove access barriers to their Website, causing their Website and the services  integrated with Defendants’ 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 Defendants make available to the non-disabled public.   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  their Website accessible would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendants’  business nor result in an undue burden to Defendants.   65.  Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   66.  Defendants discriminate, 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 goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,  accommodations and/or opportunities of Defendants’ Website and their physical location  under § 296(2) et seq. and/or their implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins  Defendants from continuing to engage in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the Sub- Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   67.  Defendants’ 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.   68.  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.   69.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   70.  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.  71.  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.   72.  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 her 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.  Defendants are subject to New York Civil Rights Law because they own  and operate their physical location and Website. Defendants are persons within the  meaning of N.Y. Civil Law § 40-c(2).   77.  Defendants are violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to  update or remove access barriers to their Website, causing their Website and the services  integrated with Defendants’ 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 Defendants make available to the non-disabled public.   78.  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 . . .”   79.  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 ...”   80.  Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   82.  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.  83.  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.   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.  Defendants’ location is a sales establishments and public accommodations  within the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and their Website is a service that  is integrated with their establishments.   86.  Defendants are subject to NYCHRL because they own and operate their  physical location in the City of New York and their Website, making them persons within  the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   88.  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.  Defendants’ 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 Defendants have:  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.   90.  Defendants have failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   92.  Defendants’ actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore  Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   93.  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.   94.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ 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 Plaintiff prays for judgment as set  forth below.  96.  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.   98.  A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at that time in order that  each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendants’ Barriers on Their Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.  