27.  Defendant  offers  the  commercial  website,  WWW.JERSEYSHOREPOWERSPORTS.COM, to the public. The website offers  features which should allow all consumers to access the products and services which  Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The products and services  offered by Defendant include, but are not limited to the following, and the Defendant’s  website allows consumers to find information about: showroom location and hours,  products and/or services offered for sale, technical specifications of its products, prices,  warranties, awards and other vital information needed by prospective consumers in order  to make informed decisions about the Defendant’s products and/or services.   29.  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.   30.  Plaintiff, CEDRIC BISHOP, attended the boat fair at Javits during its sales  exhibition January 23-27, 2019 in order to obtain information from the personal boat,  watercraft and related accessories and/or services sellers presenting and marketing at the  fair, including the Defendant.   31.  Soon after attending the Javits fair, the Plaintiff attempted to access the  Defendant’s website in order to obtain additional information about the Defendant’s  products and services but was thwarted in his efforts to do so due to the inaccessibility of  the Defendant’s website as set forth herein.   34.  By its failure to provide a website that is accessible to the blind or vision   impaired, Defendant intentionally violated federal, state and city statutes and regulations  designed to protect those members of society who are in need of protection by those  various laws.  Defendant Must Remove Barriers To Its Website    35.  Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant’s Website, blind and visually- impaired customers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally  use or enjoy the facilities and services Defendant offers to the public on its 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.    37.  If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently  navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.   38.  Through his 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.   39.  Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines would  provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website,  Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination or with  deliberate indifference, 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;  b.  Failure to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently  intuitive so as to be equally accessible to visually-impaired individuals, including  Plaintiff; 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, as a member of a protected class.   40.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   42.  Because Defendant’s 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 invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and  seeks a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified consultant  acceptable to Plaintiff (“Agreed Upon Consultant”) to assist Defendant to comply with  WCAG 2.0 guidelines for Defendant’s Website. The Website must be accessible for  individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops, tablets and smart phones.  Plaintiff seeks that this permanent injunction requires Defendant to cooperate with the  Agreed Upon Consultant to:  a.  Train Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the Website  on accessibility compliance under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  b.  Regularly check the accessibility of the Website under the WCAG   43.  If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and  visually-impaired people could independently view products and services, locate  Defendant’s showroom and sales exhibits and hours of operation, shop for and otherwise  research related products and services available via the Website such as prices,  warranties, consumer reviews and other vital information.   44.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding  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.    45.  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 their Website  equally accessible to visually impaired customers.    46.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  48.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 Defendant’s  Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of products and  services offered in Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant  statutory period.    49.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, 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 City of New York who have attempted to access Defendant’s  Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of products and  services offered in Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant  statutory period.    51.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the Class. The Class, similarly to the  Plaintiff, are severely visually impaired or otherwise blind, and claim that Defendant has  violated the ADA, NYSHRL and NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access  barriers on its Website so it can be independently accessible to the Class.   52.  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 Defendant has 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.   53.  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 this litigation.   54.  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.  56.  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).   57.  Defendant’s showrooms and sales exhibits at Javits are public  accommodations within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).  Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege, or advantage of Defendant’s physical sales  locations. The Website is a service that is heavily integrated with these locations and is a  gateway thereto.   58.  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).   59.  Under Section 302(b)(1) of 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).   61.  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. Defendant has  failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct. These  violations are ongoing.   62.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  63.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York State Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   65.  Defendant’s physical sales locations are located in the State of New York  and constitutes a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law §  292(9). Defendant’s Website is a service, privilege or advantage of Defendant.  Defendant’s Website is a service that is heavily integrated with these physical locations  and is a gateway thereto.   66.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of  N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   67.  Defendant is violating N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(a) in refusing to update or  remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated  with Defendant’s physical locations to be completely inaccessible to the blind. This  inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities and services that  Defendant makes available to the non-disabled public.   69.  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.”   70.  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  Defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden to Defendant.   72.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   73.  Defendant discriminates, 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 Defendant’s Website and its physical locations  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 State  Sub-Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   74.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of New York State Human  Rights Law and therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the  discrimination.   75.  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.   76.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   77.  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.  78.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the New York City Sub-Class  Members, repeats and realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully  set forth herein.   80.  Defendant’s physical sales locations are public accommodations within  the definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is a service that is  integrated with its establishments.   81.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its  physical sales locations in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person  within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   82.  Defendant is 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 sales locations 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.   84.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the City 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 Defendant 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 not sufficiently  intuitive and/or obvious that it 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.   85.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   86.  As such, Defendant discriminates, and will continue in the future to  discriminate against Plaintiff and members of the proposed City 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 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 members  of the City Sub-Class will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   87.  Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and  therefore Plaintiff invokes his right to injunctive relief to remedy the discrimination.   89.  Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.   90.  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.  91.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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.   92.  An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that   Plaintiff 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 goods,  services and facilities of its Website and by extension its physical sales locations, which  Defendant owns, operates and controls and 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.   93.  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.  DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  