                   THE PLAINTIFF, THE CLASS AND THE SUBCLASS                           Violation of New York City Human Rights Law                        THE PLAINTIFF, THE CLASS AND THE SUBCLASS    Violation of New York State Human Rights Law                      CLASS AND SUB-CLASS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF                       THE PLAINTIFF, THE CLASS AND THE SUBCLASS                            Violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act                        THE PLAINTIFF, THE CLASS AND THE SUBCLASS    Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law       25.  Plaintiff, for himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, seeks class action   certification pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(2) of all deaf   and hard of hearing individuals in the United States who have been denied equal access to goods   and services of the Defendant’s Website.     26.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks to certify a   New York State subclass under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(2); all   deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the State of New York who have been denied equal   access to goods and services of the Defendant’s Website.     27.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeks to certify a   New York State subclass under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a) and 23 (b)(2); all   deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the City of New York who have been denied equal access   to goods and services of the Defendant’s Website.     28.  The Class is so numerous, being composed of millions of deaf and hard of hearing   individuals, that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law and/or fact   common to the Class and the claims of the Plaintiff are typical of the Class claims.     29.  Common questions of law and fact exist amongst the Class including:                        a.  Whether the Website is a "public accommodation" under the ADA and                             New York laws;                       b.   Whether there was a violation under the ADA due to the barriers that exist                              on the Defendants Website and whether the Plaintiff and the Class                              were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,                              privileges, advantages, or accommodations; and                       c.   Whether there was a violation under New York law due to the barriers that exist                              on the Defendants Website and whether the Plaintiff and the Class                              were denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,                              privileges, advantages, or accommodations.       30.  The Plaintiff’s claims are typical of those of the Class as they both claim that Defendant   violated the ADA, and/or the laws of New York by failing to have its Website accessible.       31.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class members   as the Plaintiff and the Class are both deaf or hard of hearing individuals having the same claims   in the instant matter.     32.  Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted   or refused to act on grounds applicable to the Class making declaratory and injunctive relief   appropriate.     33.  Questions of law or fact common to Class members predominate questions affecting   individual Class members and a class action will fairly and efficiently decide this action.       34.  Counsel for the Plaintiff is experienced representing both Plaintiffs and Defendants in Class   actions.  As such the Class will be properly represented.     35.  Judicial economy will be served by maintaining this lawsuit as a class action as it will   prevent the filing of a multitude of individual lawsuits by people who are deaf or hard of hearing   throughout the United States.     36.  Defendants’ own, operate, control and maintain the Website, which provides important   weather related stories on video, articles and information displays as well as weather predictions.    This content is delivered to millions of people across the United States.   37.  The Website can be viewed by individuals located in New York State in addition to the other   states of the United States and can be reached from computers, tablets and cellphones which can   access the internet.     38.  In order for the deaf and hard of hearing to access video content, a Website must have the   ability to turn voice content into readable content.  Closed captioning is the process by which this   is done.  Without the use of closed captioning, a deaf or hard of hearing individual would have to   have someone present while they are watching a video to interpret and explain the audio content   for them.     39.  Various recommendations and guidelines exist in order to make a website compliant with   the ADA.  Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) are one of those guidelines.    WCAG 2.1 Section 1.2.2 states that “Captions are provided for all prerecorded audio content in   synchronized media, except when the media is a media alternative for text and is clearly labeled   as such”.  Section 508, an amendment to the United States Workforce Rehabilitation Act of   1973, requires all electronic and information technology be accessible to individuals with   disabilities and requires closed captioning for video content.     40.  The Website’s numerous videos which cannot be accessed by deaf and hard of hearing   individuals are in violation of the ADA and New York laws.  Videos include most of the   Website’s trending stories daily in addition to the video the Plaintiff tried to access mentioned   herein.     41.  The Plaintiff desired and attempted to watch a video by www.weather.com meteorologists   entitled “Coldest Artic Outbreak in at Least Two Decades is Expected This Week in Parts of the   Midwest.  There was no closed captioning on the video.  The Defendants access barriers   prevented the Plaintiff from enjoying the goods, services and benefits offered by the Website and   as such denied the Plaintiff equal access.       42.  This lack of closed captioning by the Defendants on their Website prevents not only the   Plaintiff but also the deaf and hard of hearing located in New York State and nationally from   having equal access as non-deaf and hard of earing individuals preventing them from enjoying   the goods, services and benefits offered by the Website.              43.  Defendants have intentionally failed and refused to remove the Website’s barriers of access   by failing to use closed captioning thereby denying equal access to the Plaintiff and the Class and   discriminates against the Plaintiff and the Class in violation of the ADA and New York laws.    44.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs   “1” to “43” as if set forth fully herein.   45.  The Plaintiff is deaf and requires closed captioning to have full and equal access to   audio and audiovisual content and has an impairment that substantially limits one or more of   his major life activities and is therefore an individual with a disability as defined under the   62.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs   “1” to “61” as if set forth fully herein.   63.  At all times relevant to this action, the New York Human Rights Law (“NYHRL”),    Article 15 of the N.Y. Executive Law §§ 290 et. seq. covers the actions of the Defendants.     64.  The Plaintiff, at all times relevant to this action, has a substantial impairment to a major   life activity of hearing and is an individual with a disability under Article 15 of the N.Y.   Executive Law § 292(21).     65.  The Defendant, at all relevant times to this action, owns and operates a place of   accommodation, the Website, within the meaning of Article 15 of the N.Y. Executive Law §   292(9).  Defendant is a person within the meaning of Article 15 of the N.Y. Executive Law   § 292(1).      66.  Pursuant to Article 15 N.Y. Executive Law§ 296(2)(a) “it shall be 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."   67.  Discrimination includes the refusal to adopt and implement reasonable modifications in   policies, practices or procedures when they are necessary to afford, facilities, privileges,   advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities.   Article 15 of the N.Y.   Executive Law§ 296(2)(a), § 296(2)(c)(i).   68.  Defendants actions violate Article 15 of the N.Y. Exec. Law§ 296(2)(a) by discriminating   against the Plaintiff and the Class, including the Subclass by (i) owning and operating the   Website that is inaccessible to deaf and hard of hearing persons; and (ii) by not removing access   barriers to its Website in order to make its videos accessible to the deaf and hard of hearing when   such modifications are necessary to afford facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations   to individuals with disabilities. This inaccessibility denies the deaf and hard-of-hearing full and   equal access to the facilities, goods and services that the Defendants make available to   individuals who are not deaf or hard of hearing. Article 15 of the N.Y. Exec. Law§ 296(2)(c).     69. The Defendants 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.” Article 15 of the N.Y. Exec. Law§ 296(2)(c).     70.  Defendants’ have intentionally and willfully discriminated against the Plaintiff and the   Class in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law, Article 15 of the N.Y. Exe.   Law § 296(2) and this discrimination continues to date.       71.  Absent injunctive relief, Defendants discrimination will continue against the Plaintiff, the   Class and Subclass causing irreparable harm.     72.  Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensatory damages, civil penalties and fines for each and   every discriminatory act in addition to reasonable attorney fees and the costs and disbursements   of this action.  Article 15 of the N.Y. Exe. Law §§ 297(9), 297(4)(c) et seq.  73.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs   “1” to “72” as if  set forth fully herein.     74.  Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y. Civil   Rights Law § 41.     75.  Persons within N.Y.S. are entitled to full and equal accommodations, advantages,   facilities and privileges of 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 of a place of public accommodation, shall directly or indirectly   refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person any of the accommodations,     advantages,   facilities and privileges thereof.  N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40.     76.  No person because of disability, as defined in § of the Executive Law, shall be subjected to   any discrimination in his or her civil rights by person or by any firm, corporation or institution,   or by the state or any agency or subdivision. N.Y. Civ. Rights Law (“CVR”) § 40-c.     77.  § 292 of Article 15 of the N.Y. Executive Law deems a disability a physical, mental or   medical impairment resulting from anatomical, physiological, genetic or neurological   conditions which prevents the exercise of a normal bodily function.  As such the Plaintiff is   disabled under the N.Y. Civil Rights Law.     78.  Defendants’ discriminate against the Plaintiff and the Class under CVR § 40 as   Defendants’ Website is a public accommodation that does not provide full and equal   accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to all persons and discriminates   against the deaf and hard of hearing due to its lack of closed captioning for the death and   hard of hearing.     79.  Defendants intentionally and willfully failed to remove the barriers on their Website   discriminating against the Plaintiff, Class and Sub-Class preventing access in violation of   82.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs   “1” to “81” as if  set forth fully herein.     83.  At all times, the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), New York City   Administrative Code §§ 8-101 et. seq. applied to the conduct of the Defendants as the   Defendants’ own and operate the Website and are persons under the law.       84.  At all times concerning this action the Plaintiff has had a substantial impairment to a   major life activity of hearing and is an individual with a disability under N.Y.C.   Administrative Code § 8-102(16).     85.  At all times concerning this action the Defendants’ Website is a place of public   accommodation as defined in N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-102(9).      86.  “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 the actual or perceived ……. disability …. of any person to   withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations required to make   reasonable accommodations to a disabled individual and may not “refuse, withhold from or   deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof”   N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(4)(a).     87.  The willfull and intentional non-removal of the Website’s barriers of access for the   Plaintiff, the Class and the Subclass by the Defendants discriminate against the deaf and hard of   hearing by denying them full and equal access to the facilities, goods, and services that   Defendants make available to the non-deaf and hard of hearing individuals.      88.  It is discriminatory for the Defendants “not to provide a 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. Administrative   Code§ 8-107(15)(a).   89.  Defendants actions will continue to prevent the Plaintiff, the Class and Subclass from   accessing the Website as the remaining public can and the Plaintiff requests injunctive relief.     90.  Plaintiff is also entitled to compensatory damages for the injuries and loss sustained as a   result of the Defendant’s discriminatory conduct in addition to punitive damages and civil   penalties and fines for each offense, attorney fees, costs and disbursements of this action.    N.Y.C. Administrative Code§ 8-120(8), § 8-126(a) and § 8-502(a).  91.  The Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs   “1” to “90” as if  set forth fully herein.     92.  The Plaintiff claims that the Website contains barriers denying deaf and hard-of-hearing   individuals full and equal access to the goods and services of the Website.     93.  Defendants’ Website fails to comply with applicable laws and the Defendants’ discriminate   against the Plaintiff, the Class and Sub-Class under 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. Administrative Code   § 8-107, et seq.    94.  The Defendants deny these claims.     95.  The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment such that the parties understand and know their   respective rights and obligations.   