Skip to main content
Accessibility.com, LLC

MURPHY v. DAVE HALLMAN CHEVROLET, INC.

Filed November 19, 2019

Plaintiff

  • Name: James Murphy
  • Filing date: November 19, 2019
  • State of filing: Pennsylvania

Defendant

  • Name: Dave Hallman Chevrolet, Inc.
  • Website: www.hallmanchevrolet.com
  • Industry: Automobile
  • Summary: Dave Hallman Chevrolet, Inc. is a Chevrolet dealer in Erie, Pennsylvania.

Case Summary

On November 19, 2019, James Murphy filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against Dave Hallman Chevrolet, Inc.. Plaintiff James Murphy alleges that www.hallmanchevrolet.com is not accessible.

Case Details

Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

  • The website allows shoppers to sign up for price drop alerts. After clicking a link, the website displays a pop-up window to shoppers. Shoppers who perceive content visually can type their first name, last name, email, and zip code into the pop-up window's text fields. Unfortunately, Defendant does not notify screen reader users when the pop-up window appears. As a result, Plaintiff is unable to take advantage of this important, cost-saving feature.
  • The website allows shoppers to compare vehicles available for purchase. After clicking a link, the website displays a pop-up window to shoppers. Shoppers who perceive content visually can add up to three vehicles. Unfortunately, Defendant does not notify screen reader users when the pop-up window appears. Nor does it provide additional instruction so that screen reader users can navigate this feature successfully.
  • The Website fails to sufficiently describe the purpose of all headings. As a result, blind users will have significant difficulty understanding what information is contained on pages and how that information is organized. When headings are clear and descriptive, users can find information they seek more easily, and they can understand the relationships between different pieces of content.
  • The Website does not include sufficiently descriptive labels or instructions when content requires a user to submit information or activate particular features. Without these instructions, screen reader users cannot fully navigate the webpages.
  • Elements on the Website do not have complete start and end tags, are not nested according to their specifications, and may contain duplicate attributes. As a result, screen readers cannot parse the webpages’ content accurately.
  • The Website includes user interface components, such as form elements and links, for which the name and role cannot be determined programmatically.

Plaintiff asserts the following cause(s) of action in its Complaint:

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

Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

  • A judgment declaring from the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of Title III of the ADA, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action reasonably calculated to ensure that its Website 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) directing 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, individuals with visual disabilities, 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 institutional policies that cause it to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully described in paragraphs 12 through 22 above
  • 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)
  • 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

PennsylvaniaAutomobile