GOMEZ v. VH PHARMACY

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Andres Gomez
    • Filing date: April 28, 2019
    • State of filing: Florida

    Defendant

    • Name: VH Pharmacy
    • Website: www.vhpharmacyrx.com
    • Industry: Pharmaceuticals
    • Summary: VH Pharmacy is a brick and mortar pharmacy in Miami, Florida specializing in compounding medications.

    Case Summary

    On April 28, 2019, Andres Gomez filed a Complaint in Florida Federal court against VH Pharmacy. Plaintiff Andres Gomez alleges that www.vhpharmacyrx.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Text equivalent for every non-text element is not provided;
    • Information about the meaning and structure of the Website’s content is not conveyed by more than the visual presentation of content;
    • When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence cannot be programmatically determined;
    • Web pages do not have titles that describe topic or purpose;
    • Images on the website are not explained to the user with use of a screen reader program.
    • There is no Accessibility Statement regarding a company policy to assist disabled users found on the website.

    Plaintiff asserts the following cause(s) of action in its Complaint:

    • Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 
    • The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

    Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

    • A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act as described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Websites are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals;
    • 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 the Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and implementing regulations, so that the 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 Defendant to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in Paragraph 6 above;
    • Payment of costs of suit;
    • Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR §36.505; and,
    • The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate.

    Comments