DONAHUE v. PENZEYS SPICE COMPANY

• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the item volume, item number, and item price are not assocaited with inputs. The visual select buttons come into focus in normal navigation, however, they are announced independently of the visually associated product information. This makes for a confusing user experience and it may be unclear which option the user is selecting.
• Defendant’s Website’s error message is neither given keyboard-focus nor is it announced to users. If a user provides invalid input for a field, then an error message is displayed, and this prevents the form from being submitted until the correction is made. A user may think that the form is broken since no error is announced or they may erroneously believe the form submitted successfully.
• Defendant’s Website is constructed so that the keyboard focus gets trapped in a loop on the cart page. When a user tabs through the cart page, it refreshes when the user tries to tab past the quantity field. Focus then jumps back to the beginning of that table row and the loop continues to repeat. It is unclear how a keyboard-only or screen-reader user can move past this section since they become stuck in this loop.

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) 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 11 above.
• Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive 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 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.