DOUGLASS v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC

• The Digital Platform prevents screen reader users
  from accessing some primary content. For example, Nationstar
  provides a considerable amount of information in the Digital
  Platform’s footer. Consumers who perceive content visually can
  find information regarding Customer Testimonials, Terms of Use, and Complaints. Unfortunately, Nationstar has not developed its Digital Platform so that screen readers can tab to or otherwise access the content in the Digital Platform’s footer. As a result, it is impossible for Mr. Douglass to access the marketing and legal information that Nationstar provides in this area of the Digital Platform.
• After consumers activate or click the Digital Platform’s Menu button, Nationstar displays a pop-up window on the screen. Shoppers who perceive content visually can click various links in this pop-up to access additional content related to, for example, Loan Types, Calculators, and Contact. Unfortunately, because of how Nationstar developed its Digital Platform, screen readers cannot tab to or otherwise access the primary content of this Menu pop-up. Instead, screen readers remain stuck on the unrelated elements in the Digital Platform’s
  underlying page. This barrier makes it unlikely that Mr. Douglass will be able use this important navigational tool independently.
• The Digital Platform helps consumers get prequalified for a mortgage. To do so, consumers must answer various questions. For example, Nationstar asks consumers what
  part of the home-buying process they are in: “I’m just getting
  started,” “I found a home I love,” or “I am under contract.”
  Nationstar displays these options in a slideshow, with each option shown on a separate slide. Nationstar requires the consumers select the slide that best describes their current situation. Unfortunately, screen readers cannot access the slides, making it impossible for Mr. Douglass to complete Nationstar’s online prequalification process.
• Nationstar helps consumers identify the type of
  property they’re interested in purchasing, including Single
  Family Residence, Condominium, Townhouse, and more.
  Nationstar displays information about each property type in a
  pop-up window. Consumers who perceive content visually will
  see the pop-up window and be better informed during the prequalification process. Unfortunately, the Digital Platform does not alert screen readers of this pop-up window. Instead, screen readers remain focused on the content of the Digital Platform’s underlying page, making the pop-up invisible to Mr. Douglass. As a result, it is impossible for him to perceive the helpful information that Nationstar otherwise provides consumers who do not have a visual impairment.
• Nationstar requires consumers to select the
  Property Type they intend to buy. Consumers who perceive
  content visually will see this information displayed in a list. These consumers can select the radio button beside the appropriate property type. Unfortunately, screen readers cannot select a radio button. Instead, their selection changes each time they tab from one button to the next, making it impossible for Mr. Douglass to select anything but the last option in the list. This access barrier bars Mr. Douglass from getting prequalified using Nationstar’s Digital Platform.

Americans with Disabilities Act, 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 Digital Platform is 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 Digital Platform into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its Digital Platform 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 it 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, nominal, and other 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 People
  Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226, 235 (3d Cir. 2008) (“This Court, like other Courts of Appeals, allows fees to be awarded for monitoring and enforcing Court orders and judgments.”); Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898- AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191); Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976- DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11); Amended Order Granting In Part Plaintiffs’ Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs; Denying Administrative Motion To Seal, National Federation of the Blind of California v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No 14-cv-04086-NC (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2019), https://rbgg.com/wp-content/uploads/NFB-v-Uber-Amended-Order-Granting-In-PartPltfs-Motion-for-Attys-Fees-and-Costs-11-08-19.pdf (last accessed Apr. 14, 2020) (finding plaintiffs "are entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with monitoring [defendant's] compliance with the Settlement" of a Title III ADA case);
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate; and
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders.