Camacho V ST Rose
Camacho V ST Rose
Camacho V ST Rose
situated, asserts the following claims against Defendant COLLEGE OF ST. ROSE as
follows.
screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff uses the terms
“blind” or “visually-impaired” to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the
legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or
equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others
have no vision.
people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and
according to the American Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000
-1-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 2 of 31
4. Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against COLLEGE OF ST. ROSE
(“Defendant”) for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-
impaired people. Defendant’s denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered thereby and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act
consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause
website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
6. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12181, as Plaintiff’s claims arise under Title III of the ADA, 42
U.S.C. § 12181, et seq., 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
Plaintiff’s New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law Article 15, (“NYSHRL”)
and New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq.,
(“NYCHRL”) claims.
8. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) and (2) because
-2-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 3 of 31
business in this District, Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, and a
been and is committing the acts or omissions alleged herein in the Southern District of New
York that caused injury, and violated rights the ADA and RA prescribes to Plaintiff and to
other blind and other visually impaired-consumers. A substantial part of the acts and
omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District: on separate occasions,
Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services
of Defendant’s Website while attempting to access Defendant’s website from his home in
New York after attending the Defendant’s exhibit in New York, NY. ST. ROSE’S main
campus is located in Albany, New York. These access barriers that 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 visiting Defendant’s school. This includes, Plaintiff attempting to
obtain information about Defendant’s school as hereinafter set forth in more detail.
Defendant regularly and systematically markets and solicits to prospective students in order
to encourage them to apply to and ultimately register and attend Defendant’s school and
thereby generate revenue for the Defendant. Defendant’s marketing campaign consists of
inter alia sending Defendant’s representatives (usually affiliated with Defendant’s Office
-3-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 4 of 31
students in New York City and the rest of New York State. Upon information and belief, a
substantial number of students attending Defendant’s school are from New York State.
12. The Javits Convention Center, located in New York, NY (“Javits”) is a large
public gathering and is a place of public accommodations within the definitions set forth
has, for a number of years, sponsored college fairs or exhibits at Javits at least annually
which the Defendant set up and maintained a booth with sales or admissions representatives
of the Defendant in order to market and solicit prospective students from the New York
New York State by various means including, but not limited to, exhibiting at college fairs
in New York City and utilizing their website in conjunction therewith constitutes doing
business in New York and subjects the Defendant to personal jurisdiction in this District.
THE PARTIES
-4-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 5 of 31
member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)-(2), and
the regulations implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq., under the
RA, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. and the regulations implementing the RA set forth at 34
19. Upon information and belief, Defendant is and was, at all relevant times
herein, chartered or incorporated by The Regents of the University of the State of New
York pursuant to Education Law §216 with its main campus located in Albany, NY.
Defendant operates COLLEGE OF ST. ROSE as well as the COLLEGE OF ST. ROSE
courses of learning in the State of New York and throughout the United States. Defendant
is, upon information and belief, licensed to do business and is doing business in the State
of New York.
20. This school and its exhibits at Javits constitute places of public
information about: school location and hours, curriculum and programs of instruction,
academic calendars, course and admission prerequisites, cost of tuition, available financial
aid, career services, accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer credits, textbooks, and
other vital information needed by prospective students in order to make informed decisions
-5-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 6 of 31
advantage that is heavily integrated with Defendant’s physical school and its exhibits at
NATURE OF ACTION
22. The Internet has become a significant source of information, a portal, and a
tool for conducting business, doing everyday activities such as shopping, learning, banking,
researching, as well as many other activities for sighted, blind and visually-impaired
persons alike.
23. In today’s tech-savvy world, blind and visually-impaired people have the
ability to access websites using keyboards in conjunction with screen access software that
vocalizes the visual information found on a computer screen or displays the content on a
reading software is currently the only method a blind or visually-impaired person may
independently access the internet. Unless websites are designed to be read by screen-
reading software, blind and visually-impaired persons are unable to fully access websites,
and the information, products, and services contained thereon. An accessibility notice is
put on a website by the creator thereof to showcase that the website is working diligently
computers and devices have several screen reading software programs available to them.
Some of these programs are available for purchase and other programs are available
without the user having to purchase the program separately. Job Access With Speech,
-6-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 7 of 31
otherwise known as “JAWS” is currently the most popular, separately purchased and
be capable of being rendered into text. If the website content is not capable of being
rendered into text, the blind or visually-impaired user is unable to access the same content
26. The international website standards organization, the World Wide Web
Consortium, known throughout the world as W3C, has published version 2.0 of the Web
guidelines for making websites accessible to blind and visually-impaired people. These
guidelines are universally followed by most large business entities and government
agencies to ensure their websites are accessible. Many Courts have also established WCAG
27. Non-compliant websites pose common access barriers to blind and visually-
impaired persons. Common barriers encountered by blind and visually impaired persons
b. Title frames with text are not provided for identification and
navigation;
-7-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 8 of 31
g. If the content enforces a time limit, the user is not able to extend,
h. Web pages do not have titles that describe the topic or purpose;
i. The purpose of each link cannot be determined from the link text
alone or from the link text and its programmatically determined link context;
programmatically determined;
context;
automatically cause a change of context where the user has not been advised before using
the component;
input, which include captcha prompts that require the user to verify that he or he is not a
robot;
elements do not have complete start and end tags, elements are not nested according to
-8-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 9 of 31
their specifications, elements may contain duplicate attributes and/or any IDs are not
unique;
programmatically determined; items that can be set by the user cannot be programmatically
set; and/or notification of changes to these items is not available to user agents, including
assistive technology.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
public. The website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the services
which Defendant offers in connection with their physical locations. The services offered
by Defendant include, but are not limited to the following, which allow consumers to find
information about: school location and hours, curriculum and programs of instruction,
academic calendars, course and admission prerequisites, cost of tuition, available financial
aid, career services, accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer credits, textbooks, and
29. 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 services that are offered and are heavily integrated
with Defendant’s school and exhibits at college fairs. Due to Defendant’s failure and
refusal to remove access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons
-9-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 10 of 31
have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant’s school and the numerous
30. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who cannot use a
proficient JAWS screen-reader user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited
31. Plaintiff, Jason Camacho, attended the NACAC college fair at Javits on
Nov. 5, 2018 in order to obtain information from the college exhibitors presenting and
32. Soon after attending the Javits fair, Mr. Camacho attempted to access the
Defendant’s website in order to obtain additional information about the Defendant’s school
but was thwarted in his efforts to do so due to the inaccessibility of the Defendant’s website
access barriers that denied Plaintiff full and equal access to the facilities and services
offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full
enjoyment of the facilities and services of the Website, as well as to the facilities and
services of Defendant’s physical school location by being unable to learn more information
about: school location and hours, curriculum and programs of instruction, academic
calendars, course and admission prerequisites, cost of tuition, available financial aid, career
services, accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer credits, textbooks, and other vital
-10-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 11 of 31
accessibility barriers for blind or visually-impaired people that include, but are not limited
requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that screen-reading software can speak
the alt-text where a sighted user sees pictures, which includes captcha prompts. Alt-text
does not change the visual presentation, but instead a text box shows when the keyboard
scrolls over the picture. The lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from
prospective students of the Defendant are unable to determine what is on the website,
browse, look for: school location and hours, curriculum and programs of instruction,
academic calendars, course and admission prerequisites, cost of tuition, available financial
aid, career services, accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer credits, textbooks, and
of the link to not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and
screen-reader users;
which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users;
and
-11-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 12 of 31
within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. A screen reader then
has no content to present the user as to the function of the link, including information
contained in PDFs.
36. By its failure to provide a website that is accessible to the blind or vision
principles to eliminate bias toward the disabled as well as federal, state and city statutes
and regulations designed to protect those members of society who are in need of protection
37. NACAC maintains a business relationship with the New York Daily News
newspaper which publishes full page advertisements for the NACAC college fairs at Javits
and an onsite guide to the exhibitors which is distributed free of charge to attendees at the
college fairs. Exhibitors, such as the Defendant, may participate in the New York Daily
service to aid in their marketing efforts to prospective students in order to increase their
1
https://www.nacacnet.org/globalassets/documents/advocacy-and-ethics/statement-of-principles-of-good-
practice/spgp_10_1_2016_final.pdf last accessed Nov. , 2018.
-12-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 13 of 31
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.
40. These access barriers on Defendant’s Website have deterred Plaintiff from
visiting Defendant’s school and enjoying the services offered by the Defendant equal to
sighted individuals because: Plaintiff was unable to find information about: school location
and hours, curriculum and programs of instruction, academic calendars, course and
accreditation, faculty, campus security, transfer credits, textbooks, and other vital
the Defendant’s school. Plaintiff intends to visit Defendant's school in the near future if he
41. If the Website was equally accessible to all, Plaintiff could independently
navigate the Website and complete a desired transaction as sighted individuals do.
42. Through his attempts to use the Website, Plaintiff has actual knowledge of
the access barriers that make these services inaccessible and independently unusable by
43. 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:
-13-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 14 of 31
and,
alleged herein.
45. The ADA expressly contemplates the injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks in
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).
46. 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
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
-14-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 15 of 31
seeks that this permanent injunction requires Defendant to cooperate with the Agreed Upon
Consultant to:
2.0 guidelines;
to ensure that Defendant’s Website complies under the WCAG 2.0 guidelines; and,
problems and require that any third party vendors who participate on its Website to be fully
47. If the Website was accessible, Plaintiff and similarly situated blind and
school, shop for and otherwise research related services available via the Website such as
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
49. Defendant has, upon information and belief, invested substantial sums in
-15-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 16 of 31
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
will continue to be unable to independently use the Website, violating their rights.
51. 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 and as
a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of services offered in Defendant’s
physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.
52. 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 services offered in
Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.
53. 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 services offered in
Defendant’s physical locations and on its website, during the relevant statutory period.
54. Common questions of law and fact exist amongst Class, including:
-16-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 17 of 31
the ADA;
55. 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, RA, NYSHRL and NYCHRL by failing to update or remove access
56. 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
23(b)(3) because fact and legal questions common to Class Members predominate over
-17-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 18 of 31
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.
58. 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
59. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges
60. 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).
61. Defendant’s school and it’s exhibits at Javits are public accommodations
within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Defendant’s Website
-18-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 19 of 31
12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).
64. Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination
42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii).
65. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and the
persons under the ADA, has a physical disability that substantially limits the major life
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
-19-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 20 of 31
66. Under 42 U.S.C. § 12188 and the remedies, procedures, and rights set forth
67. 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.
68. 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
person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the
69. Defendant’s physical exhibit locations are located in the State of New York
and constitutes a public accommodation within the definition of N.Y. Exec. Law § 292(9).
Website is a service that is heavily integrated with these physical locations and is a gateway
thereto.
70. 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
remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated with
-20-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 21 of 31
inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities and services that
person can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the
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
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
-21-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 22 of 31
State Sub-class on the basis of a disability in violation of the NYSHRL, N.Y. Exec. Law §
76. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their
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,
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
78. 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.
and fines under N.Y. Exec. Law § 297(4)(c) et seq. for each and every offense.
-22-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 23 of 31
81. 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.
82. 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.
83. Plaintiff served notice thereof upon the attorney general as required by N.Y.
84. 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
85. 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
within the definition of N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2). Defendant’s Website is a service,
-23-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 24 of 31
privilege or advantage of Defendant and its Website is a service that is heavily integrated
87. Defendant is subject to New York Civil Rights Law because it owns and
operates its physical locations and Website. Defendant is a person within the meaning of
88. Defendant is violating N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 40-c(2) in refusing to update
or remove access barriers to its Website, causing its Website and the services integrated
inaccessibility denies blind patrons full and equal access to the facilities, goods and
89. N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 41 states that “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
90. Under NY 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 ...”
91. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its
-24-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 25 of 31
against Plaintiff and New York State Sub-Class Members on the basis of disability are
regulations.
instance, as well as civil penalties and fines under N.Y. Civil Law § 40 et seq. for each and
every offense.
94. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, repeats and realleges
disability in the United States … shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
education; or (B) a local educational agency…, system of career and technical education,
-25-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 26 of 31
ACT of 1973, § 504, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is a
member of a protected class of persons under the RA, 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
against Plaintiff and the Class Members on the basis of disability in the full and equal
opportunities of Defendant’s Website and its physical locations under the RA and/or its
implementing regulations. Unless the Court enjoins Defendant from continuing to engage
in these unlawful practices, Plaintiff and the Class Members will continue to suffer
irreparable harm.
deliberate indifference.
the Defendant.
103. 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.
-26-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 27 of 31
unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor,
privileges thereof.”
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(9), and its Website is a service that is integrated with its
establishments.
106. Defendant is subject to NYCHRL because it owns and operates its physical
locations in the City of New York and its Website, making it a person within the meaning
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
persons with disabilities . . . any person prohibited by the provisions of [§ 8-107 et seq.]
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. Admin.
Code § 8-107(15)(a).
-27-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 28 of 31
City Sub-Class on the basis of a disability in violation of the N.Y.C. Administrative Code
110. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy their
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,
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
112. Defendant’s actions were and are in violation of the NYCHRL and therefore
and fines under N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-120(8) and § 8-126(a) for each offense as
-28-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 29 of 31
115. 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.
116. 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
117. 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 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., N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. and The
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 504 et seq. prohibiting discrimination against the blind.
that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court grant the following relief:
-29-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 30 of 31
violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., The
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq. N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., N.Y.C.
all the steps necessary to make its Website into full compliance with the requirements set
forth in the ADA and the RA, and its implementing regulations, so that the Website is
Website in a manner that discriminates against the blind and which fails to provide access
for persons with disabilities as required by Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§
12182, et seq., The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law §
296, et seq., N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107, et seq. and the laws of New York
d. An order certifying the Class and the State and City Sub-Classes
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class
proof, including all applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines, to Plaintiff and
the proposed class for violations of their civil rights under The Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
-30-
Case 1:18-cv-10764-ALC Document 1 Filed 11/17/18 Page 31 of 31
h. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions
s/ Jeffrey M. Gottlieb
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb
-31-