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  defendant’s website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and develop an accessibility  policy that is clearly disclosed on the defendant’s website, with contact information for users  to report accessibility-related problems and require that any third-party vendors who  participate on the defendant’s website to be fully accessible to the disabled by conforming with  23. The defendant’s website is offered to the public. The website offers features that should allow  all consumers to access the goods and services that the defendant offers through their physical  locations, including, but not limited to, features that allow consumers to find information about  location addresses and hours, services offered and services available for online purchase.   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 November 2017, 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 defendant’s locations in New York by being  unable to learn more information about location addresses and hours, services offered and  services available for online purchase.   28. Due to the inaccessibility of the defendant’s website, blind and visually-impaired customers  such as the plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the  facilities 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.   29. These access barriers on the defendant’s website have deterred the plaintiff from visiting the  defendant’s physical locations, and enjoying them equal to sighted individuals because: the  plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation of the defendant’s locations on  its website, preventing the plaintiff from visiting the locations to view and purchase products  and/or services. The plaintiff intends to visit the Defendant’s locations in the near future if the  plaintiff could access the defendant’s website.   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 defendant  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 Defendant therefore use standards, criteria or methods of administration that have the  effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination against others, as alleged herein.   34. The ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that the plaintiff seeks in this action. In  relevant part, the ADA requires:  In the case of violations of … this 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).   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 defendant’s website and as a result have been denied access  to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in the defendant’s 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 defendant’s website and as a result have been  denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in the defendant’s physical  locations, during the relevant statutory period.   42. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself 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 the defendant’s website and as a result have been  denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in the defendant’s physical  locations, during the relevant statutory period.   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 defendant violated the ADA,  NYSHRL, and NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access barriers on the defendant’s  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 defendant  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.   46. Alternatively, class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because fact and  legal questions common to the class 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.   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 defendant’s locations are public accommodations within the definition of Title III of the  ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). the defendant’s website is a service, privilege, or advantage of  the defendant’s locations. The defendant’s 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).   52. 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).   54. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and the regulations  promulgated thereunder. The 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, the 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. The defendant failed to take any prompt and equitable steps  to remedy its discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   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 defendant’s 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 defendant’s website is a service, privilege or advantage of the  defendant. The defendant’s website is a service that is heavily integrated with these physical  locations and is a gateway thereto.   59. The defendant is subject to the NYSHRL because they own and operate their physical locations  and website. The defendant is persons within the meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   60. The 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 the defendant’s  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 defendant makes  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 its website accessible would  neither fundamentally alter the nature of the defendant’s business nor result in an undue burden  to the defendant.   65. The defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their discriminatory  conduct. These violations are ongoing.   66. The defendant discriminates, 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  defendant’s website and its physical locations under § 296(2), et seq., and/or its implementing  regulations. Unless the Court enjoins the defendant 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 defendant’s 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.   69. The plaintiff and the New York State sub-class are also entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees  and costs.   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.   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.   75. The defendant’s New York physical locations are sales establishments and public  accommodations within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2). The defendant’s  website is a service, privilege or advantage of the defendant and the defendant’s website is a  service that is heavily integrated with these establishments and is a gateway thereto.   76. The defendant is subject to NYSCRL because it owns and operates the defendant’s physical  locations and website. The defendant is persons within the meaning of N.Y. Civil Rights Law  § 40-c(2).   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.   80. The defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory  conduct. These violations are ongoing.   81. The defendant 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.   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 defendant’s 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.   86. The defendant is subject to NYCHRL because they own and operate its physical locations in  the City of New York and their website, making them persons within the meaning of N.Y.C.  Administrative Code § 8-102(1).   87. The 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 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 defendant makes  available to the non-disabled public.   89. The defendant’s 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 defendant has: 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 defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their discriminatory  conduct. These violations are ongoing.   91. As such, the defendant discriminated, and will continue to discriminate, against the plaintiff  and the New York City subclass on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of  the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations and/or opportunities of  the defendant’s website and establishments under § 8-107(4)(a) and/or its implementing  regulations. Unless the Court enjoins the defendant from continuing to engage in these  unlawful practices, the plaintiff and the New York City subclass will continue to suffer  irreparable harm.   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.   97. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties in that the plaintiff  contends, and is informed and believes that the defendant denies, that the defendant’s 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 locations, which the  defendant own(s), operate(s) and control(s), 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.   ADA   DECLARATORY RELIEF   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   NYCHRL   NYSCRL   NYSHRL  