WILSON v. PACIFIC MARKET INTERNATIONAL, LLC

• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the pop-up displayed on the homepage is not announced to screen reader users. A pop-up window is presented when the user visits the homepage. A sighted user is able to see this pop-up, which allows users to sign up to receive exclusive deals, but the pop-up is not announced to the screen reader user. As the user navigates down the page, they can hear other page elements that are behind the pop-up, but they are unable to hear or navigate into the pop-up itself.
• The Website contains a discount code field that is not announced in order. The first page of the cart shows a field where a user can enter a discount code. There is also a field for first responders, teachers, nurses, and military to click so they can receive a discount. Unfortunately, these elements, which are shown at the top of the page for sighted users, are actually the last fields to be announced on the page. In order to receive this discount, a screen reader user must navigate past the “continue to shipping button,” continue past the footer links, and then the discount code field will be announced.
• Defendant’s Website contains product color options that do not have accessible labels. The products in the featured products section each show the available color swatches, however, each product color is announced incorrectly. Each color announces the name of the product followed by “dot dot dot” so screen reader users cannot tell what color options are available.

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 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-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (same);
• 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.