2. Whether Defendant accepts guide dogs and, if so, if there are any charges  associated with the guide dogs, their policies with respect to guide dogs and if  there are any rest areas for guide dogs.   2.0 guidelines;  c.  Regularly test user accessibility by blind or vision-impaired  persons to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines;  and,   d.  Develop an accessibility policy that is clearly disclosed on  Defendant’s Websites, with contact information for users to report accessibility-related  problems.   3. Whether the hotel provides a braille and/or large print menu for  restaurants and/or room service and, in the alternative, if they have trained  staff to read the menu to blind or vision-impaired guests.   30.  It is, upon information and belief, Defendant’s policy and practice to deny  Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendant’s  website, and to therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered and  integrated with Defendant’s hotel. Due to Defendant’s failure and refusal to remove  access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are  still being denied equal access to Defendant’s hotel and the numerous goods, services,  and benefits offered to the public through the Website.   31.  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.   34.  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, goods, 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.    35.  These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from  visiting Defendant’s physical hotel location, and enjoying them equal to sighted  individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find the location and hours of operation of  Defendant’s physical hotel on its Website and other important information, preventing  Plaintiff from visiting or returning to the location, book a room or make a reservation,  check availability and prices, browse photo gallery, purchase gift cards, details about  guest rooms, meeting and event space, dining and entertainment options, including on- site restaurant, in-room services and lobby lounges and to learn about and other important  information.   37.  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.   38.  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,  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.   39.  Defendant therefore uses standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   41.  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. Plaintiff seeks that their 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.  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.    44.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining their 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.    45.  Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers  will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.  Defendant’s Website and Compliance with  Requirement to Describe Accessibility Features   46.  Defendant owns and operates a hotel in New York. This location also  offers dining and entertainment options, including on-site restaurants, room service and  lobby lounges.   47.  Defendant’s Website offers features to the public that should allow all  consumers to access the facilities and services that it offers about their hotel. The Website  is heavily integrated with their hotel, serving as their gateway.   49.  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 Defendant’s Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.   5. Whether or not all accessible signage complies with the requirements of  the ADAAG.   51.  Due to the lack of information relating to the accessibility features of  Defendant’s hotel through the reservation system on the 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 Defendant offers to the public in their  hotel. 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 using the services that  the hotel offers to the public because of the lack of information on accessibility through  the reservation system on the Website. Plaintiff intends to visit Defendant’s hotel or book  rooms in Defendant’s hotel in the future if the Plaintiff was able to learn about the  accessibility of Defendant’s hotel and guest rooms for blind and vision-impaired persons  through the reservation system on their website and those accessibility features meet the  needs of the Plaintiff.   53.  If the hotel and the Website reservation system were equally accessible to  all, Plaintiff could independently navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction  as sighted individuals do.   54.  Through visiting the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of the lack of  information on accessibility features available on the reservation system on the Website  that result in making the services and facilities of the hotel inaccessible and  independently unusable by blind and visually-impaired people.   55.  Because simple compliance with the provisions of the ADA relating to  providing information about accessibility features of the hotel and the guest rooms on its  Website reservation system would provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired  consumers with equal access to the services and facilities at Defendant’s hotel, Plaintiff  alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, including, but  not limited to, the failure to provide information on its Website reservation system  sufficient to advise that the hotel is fully ADA compliant, and for each accessible guest  room, to  specify the room type, the type of accessible facility in the room, and the  communications features in the room.   56.  Defendant therefore use standards, criteria or methods of administration  that have the effect of discriminating or perpetuating the discrimination of others, as  alleged herein.   58.  Because Defendant’s Website reservation system has never included the  required information, and because Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably  calculated to cause the Website reservation system to include the required information  relating to accessibility, 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 the  ADA regulations  requiring certain accessibility information to be included on  Defendant’s Website  reservation system. Plaintiff seeks that their permanent injunction requires Defendant to  cooperate with the Agreed Upon Consultant to:  a.  Train Defendant’s employees and agents who develop the Website  for accessibility and compliance to identify and describe accessible features in the hotel  and guest rooms on the Website reservation system and a statement that the hotel is fully  ADA compliant, and for each accessible guest room, to specify the room type, the type of  accessible facility in the room including a detailed description of the features of such  facility so that a blind or visually-impaired person can determine if the features meet such  person’s needs, and the communications features in the room including a detailed  description of the communications features so that a blind or visually-impaired person  can independently determine if the features meet such person’s needs, including, but not  limited to:   59.  If the ADA-required information is included on the Website reservation  system, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and visually-impaired people could  independently determine through use of the Website if Defendant’s hotel and guest rooms  are ADA compliant and if the facilities described relating the facilities and  communications equipment in guest rooms are acceptable to the Plaintiff and similarly  situated blind and visually-impaired people   6. Whether or not the stairs, escalators and elevators comply with ADAAG  standards, such as braille for floor numbers in the elevator and a verbal  annunciator for each floor.   60.  Although Defendant may currently have centralized policies regarding  maintaining and operating its Website and the inclusion of information on the Website,  Defendant lacks a plan and policy reasonably calculated to include the ADA-required  information on the Website reservation system to make such information fully and  equally accessible to, and independently usable by, blind and other visually-impaired  consumers.    61.  Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in  developing and maintaining the Website and has generated significant revenue from the  Website. These amounts are far greater than the associated cost of including the  information required under the ADA regulations on the Website reservation system in  order to make its facilities and guest rooms equally accessible to visually impaired  customers.    63.  Plaintiff, on behalf of himself 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 Defendant’s Website to  obtain the ADA-required accessibility information and as a result have been denied  access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s physical  location, during the relevant statutory period.   64.  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 to obtain the ADA-required information and as a result have been denied access  to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s physical locations,  during the relevant statutory period.    65.  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 to obtain the ADA-required information and as a result have been denied access  to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered in Defendant’s physical locations,  during the relevant statutory period.    67.  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 or NYCHRL by failing to include the ADA-required  information on the Website reservation system so individuals with disabilities can  independently assess if Defendant’s hotel or guest rooms meet the accessibility needs of  the Plaintiff and the Class.   69.  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.   7. Whether or not the hotel has removed or protected protruding objects  which protrude more than 4” into walkways and hallways such as drinking  fountains, fire extinguishers, and planters and if they provide cane detectable  warnings for the underside of stairways.   70.  Judicial economy will be served by maintaining their 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.  71.   Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and  realleges every allegation of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   72.  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).   73.  Defendant’s hotel is a place of public accommodation within the definition  of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(A). Defendant’s Website is a service,  privilege, or advantage of Defendant’s hotel. The Website is a service that is integrated  with the Defendant’s hotel and is a gateway thereto.   75.  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).   76.  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).   78.  Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set  forth and incorporated therein, Plaintiff, requests relief as set forth below.  79.  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.   8. Whether or not the guest rooms contain tactile and large print thermostat  controls and talking/large print clocks.   80.  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.”   81.  Defendant’s physical location is located in the State of New York and  constitute a place of 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.   82.  Defendant is subject to New York Human Rights Law because it owns and  operates its physical locations and Website. The Defendant is a person within the  meaning of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(1).   84.  Under N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(2)(c)(i), unlawful discriminatory practice  includes, among other things, “a refusal to make reasonable modifications in policies,  practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford facilities,  privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless such  person can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the  nature of such facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations being offered or  would result in an undue burden."   85.  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.”   87.  Defendant’s actions constitute willful intentional discrimination against  the class on the basis of a disability in violation of the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law §  296(2) in that Defendant has:  a.  constructed and maintained a website that does not contain the  ADA-required information on its reservation system making their hotel inaccessible to  blind class members with knowledge of the discrimination; and/or  b.  failed to take actions to correct the lack of the ADA-required  information in the face of substantial harm and discrimination to blind class members.   88.  Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy  their discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.   89.  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 their physical location  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 Sub- Class Members will continue to suffer irreparable harm.   90.  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.   91.  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.   93.  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.  94.  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.   95.  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.”   96.  Defendant’s location is a place of public accommodation within the  definition of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and the Website is a service that is  integrated with its establishment.   97.  Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates a physical  location in New York and the Website, making the Defendant a person within the  meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).   Defendant’s Barriers on Its Website   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL   VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.   VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL  