56.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and all legally blind individuals who have  attempted to access Defendant’s ATMs (the “Rule 23(b)(3) Class”).   57.  Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of herself and all legally blind individuals who have  attempted to access, or will attempt to access, Defendant’s ATMs (the “Rule 23(b)(2) Class”).   58.  The classes described above are so numerous that joinder of all individual  members in one action would be impracticable.  The disposition of the individual claims of the  respective class members through this class action will benefit both the parties and this Court.   59.  Typicality:  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the  classes.  The claims of the Plaintiff and members of the classes are based on the same legal  theories and arise from the same unlawful conduct.   66.  The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are incorporated by  reference.   67.  Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and the Rule 23(b)(2) Class in that it  has failed to make its ATM banking services fully accessible to, and independently usable by,  individuals who are blind in violation of Section 707 of the 2010 Standards, as described above.   68.  Complying with the ADA and Section 707 of the 2010 Standards would neither  fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s banking services nor result in an undue burden to  Defendant.   69.  Defendant’s conduct is ongoing, and, given that Defendant has not complied with  the ADA’s requirements that public accommodations make ATM services fully accessible to,  and independently usable by, blind individuals—as specifically defined in Section 707 of the  2010 Standards, Plaintiff invokes her statutory right to declaratory and injunctive relief, as well  as costs and attorneys’ fees.   71.  The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are incorporated by  reference.   72.  “Public facilities includes…any other place of public accommodation,  amusement, convenience, or resort to which the general public or any classification of persons  from the general public is regularly, normally, or customarily invited.”  Tex. Hum. Res. Code  Ann. § 121.002(5).   73.  Defendant owns or operates a public facility as defined in § 121.002(5).   74.  The THRC states “[p]ersons with disabilities have the same right as the able- bodied to the full use and enjoyment of any public facility in the state.”  Tex. Hum. Res. Code  Ann. § 121.003(a).   75.  “The discrimination prohibited by [the THRC] includes…a failure to…comply  with Article 9102, Revised Statutes.”8  Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 121.003(d)(1).  Thus, a  violation of the TABA – and the 2012 TAS requirements adopted under the TABA – is a  violation of the Tex. Hum. Res. Code § 121.003(d)(1).     76.  In addition, the failure to “provide auxiliary aids and services necessary to allow  the full use and enjoyment of the public facility” results in discrimination violative of the Tex.  Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 121.003(d)(3).   For Violation Of The THRC, Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 121.001 et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Members of the Rule 23(b)(3) Class)   For Violation Of The ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.  (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Members of the Rule 23(b)(2) Class)  