BLEJEWSKI v. VEGAMOUR, INC.

• Defendant’s Website is constructed so there is an inaccessible dialog box dialog box is displayed when the homepage opens. This dialog is not labeled and announced as an unlabeled dialog Users must spin the wheel or close the dialog using the “x” button. Keyboardonly users cannot access either element, and none of the elements or content are announced to screen reader users, so they both become trapped and cannot use the Website.
• Additionally, Defendant’s Website has a “one-time purchase” option that is not accessible to screen reader users. Actionable elements, such as the radio buttons, must be in the Tab order. This means a user must be able to navigate to these elements by only using the Tab key. In the case of the GRO Hair Serum, there are two purchase options, each with its own radio
  button. The first is for a one-time purchase and the second button allows users to select a subscription. The problem is that the first radio button is not announced. Instead, focus skips the one-time purchase and jumps to the subscription, so that is the only purchase option users hear. A sighted user could see the first option was skipped, and would then be able to navigate backwards using arrow keys, and select the one-time purchase button. Blind users are unable to do this, and
  there is little indication to alert them that other options are available through different navigation techniques. It is unlikely that screen reader users will know that another option is present.
• The offer of 15% off first orders is not announced. A 15% off promotional
  dialog box is displayed when screen reader users visit the GRO Hair Serum page. This dialog does
  not receive focus, nor is it announced when opened. As the user continues to navigate the page,
  they hear other elements behind the dialog, yet they cannot hear any content in the dialog. The
  image below shows a blue outline which demonstrates the focus was on an element behind the
  dialog.

Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its website was fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with visual disabilities
• A permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and 28 CFR § 36.504(a) which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause them to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 11 above.
• Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive damages, as the Court deems proper
• Payment of costs of suit
• Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505, including costs of monitoring Defendant’s compliance with the judgment (see Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (“Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, may file a fee petition before the Court surrenders jurisdiction. Pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (same)
• The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders. Dated: March 12, 2020