JAHODA v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS HOLDING COMPANY

• Buttons on the Website do not describe their purpose. As a result, blind users cannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link, making navigation an exercise of trial and error. For example, consumers who perceive content visually will likely recognize the Website’s Menu icon, and understand that by clicking it, the Website will open its Menu. Unfortunately, this icon is not labeled with sufficiently descriptive alternative text. As a result, when Plaintiffs hover over it, their screen readers do not read “Menu” or “Button”. Because this button is not labeled correctly, Plaintiffs are less likely to locate Defendant’s menu and further navigate Defendant’s website.
• Your webpages prevent screen reader users who navigate sequentially through content from accessing primary content directly. For example, when the screen reader attempts to move sequentially down the menu items under the “Prescriptions” category, the screen reader does not recognize the sub-menu links. Therefore, a blind consumer would have difficulty recognizing that these options were available or have the ability to select these links.

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) 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 it to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 10 above.
• Payment of actual, statutory, 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.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11)
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant have complied with the Court’s Orders