Plaintiff
- Name: Alyson Slaughter
- Filing date: September 27, 2019
- State of filing: District of Columbia
Defendant
- Name: National Railroad Passenger Corporation
- Website: www.amtrak.com
- Industry: Professional Services
- Summary: The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak, is a passenger railroad service that provides medium and long-distance intercity service in the contiguous United States and to nine Canadian cities
Case Summary
On September 27, 2019, Alyson Slaughter filed a Complaint in District of Columbia Federal court against National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Plaintiff Alyson Slaughter alleges that www.amtrak.com is not accessible.
Case Details
Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:
- Utilizing the Dynamic Font actually takes away the functionality of the mobile website
- Running a search in the search box for that information is not an option either, as the purportedly accessible mobile version of the Amtrak website does not have a search bar – or at least one that Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s Counsel could find.
- If the Font is set at default or is increased by 5 times or less, Plaintiff and other visually impaired individuals cannot see it.
Plaintiff asserts the following cause(s) of action in its Complaint:
- Discrimination Prohibited by the Americans With Disabilities Act Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq., (“Title II: Part A”), and its implementing regulations
- Discrimination Prohibited by the Americans With Disabilities Act Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12162 et seq., (“Title II: Part B, Subtitle ii”), and its implementing regulations
- VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.
- Declaratory Relief 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202
Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:
- A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Amtrak was in violation of the specific requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 12161, et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq. described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, in that Amtrak took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Websites and Apps are and/or remain fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with visual disabilities
- A preliminary and permanent injunction pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., as well as the regulations implementing the ADA and Rehabilitation Act which directs Amtrak to take all steps necessary to bring its Websites and Apps into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, and their respective implementing regulations, so that Amtrak’s Websites & Apps services, and physical locations, are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, visually impaired, legally blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to ensure that Amtrak 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 above in paragraph 13
- For an order certifying the proposed Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, appointing Plaintiff as a class representative and appointing counsel for Plaintiff as lead counsel for the respective class
- Payment of actual, statutory, and other damages, as the Court deems proper; (E) Payment of costs of suit
- Reimbursing all costs, expenses, and disbursements accrued by Plaintiff in connection with this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, pursuant to applicable law and any other basis, including costs of monitoring Amtrak’s compliance with the judgment. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987) (citing Northcross v. Board of Educ., 611 F.2d 624, 637 (6th Cir. 1979) (“Services devoted to reasonable monitoring of the court’s decrees, both to ensure full compliance and to ensure that the plan is indeed working…are compensable services. They are essential to the long-term success of the plaintiff’s suit.”))
- 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
