BLACHOWICZ v. AGE SCIENCES, INC.

• Defendant’s Website contains a cart icon that is not labeled. The cart icon is announced only as “link” when a user navigates to it. Without a clear information label, screen reader users cannot tell what item they are on.
• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the majority of the elements on the homepage do not receive focus. Keyboard-only users depend on a visible keyboard focus so that they can navigate a website. In this case, the PMD logo shows focus, but the next item to receive focus is at the bottom of the page. None of the other menu items or elements at the top of the page show a keyboard focus.
• Defendant’s Website contains a promotional banner that is not accessible. A pencil banner is shown at the top of the homepage which reads that users can take up to 25% off their order. This is not announced when a screen reader user opens the page, and the user cannot navigate it using the keyboard. The user attempted to navigate back to hear this element, but it never received focus, nor was it announced. The user did hear “blank” announced as she was navigating, but the lack of focus made it difficult to discern which element was blank.

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 is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with visual disabilities
• A permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2), 28 CFR § 36.504(a), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and the laws of New York, 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 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, and punitive damages, as the Court deems proper
• Payment of costs of suit
• Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory damages and fines, to Plaintiff for violations of her civil rights under New York State Human Rights Law
• 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 Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (“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), and Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (same)
• 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.