MURPHY v. BOB COCHRAN MOTORS, INC.

• The websites prevent screen reader users who navigate sequentially through content from accessing some primary content directly. For instance, upon visiting the www.cochran.com website for the first time, your company presents a notice in the footer, announcing to shoppers who perceive content visually that "This site uses cookies." Unfortunately, the website does not alert my client’s screen reader to this notification. As a result, my client continued to navigate your website without notice of the cookies you stored on his device.
• Links and buttons on the websites do not describe their purpose. As a result, blind users cannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link or button, making navigation an exercise of trial and error. For example, shoppers who
  perceive content visually will likely recognize the Magnifying Glass, Map Pin, and Telephone icons throughout www.cochransubaru.com and understand that by
  clicking them, the website will redirect them to an online search, map, and contact information, respectively. Unfortunately, these icons are not labeled with sufficiently descriptive alternative text. As a result, when users, like Plaintiff, hover over them, their screen reader reads don't produce any audio output. This makes it impossible for Plaintiff to access these important features.
• After users activate or click the Price Watch button at www.cochranchevrolet.com, the website displays a pop-up window on the center of the screen. Users who
  perceive content visually can submit their First Name, Last Name, Email, and ZIP Code in order to track the price of their potential purchase. Unfortunately, the website fails to focus Plaintiff's screen reader on this pop-up window, making it
  impossible for him to submit the required information. As a result, Plaintiff cannot take advantage of this important feature, potentially forcing him to pay more than
  other car buyers because of his visual impairment.
• The Websites fail to sufficiently describe the purpose of all headings. As a result, blind users will have significant difficulty understanding what information is contained on pages and how that information is organized. When headings are clear
  and descriptive, users can find information they seek more easily, and they can understand the relationships between different pieces of content.
• The Websites do not include sufficiently descriptive labels or instructions when content requires a user to submit information or activate particular features. Without these instructions, screen reader users cannot fully navigate the webpages.
• Elements on the Websites do not have complete start and end tags, are not nested according to their specifications, and may contain duplicate attributes. As a result, screen readers cannot parse the webpages’ content accurately.
• The Websites include user interface components, such as form elements and links, for which the name and role cannot be determined programmatically.

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 

• A judgment declaring from the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of Title III of the ADA, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action reasonably calculated to ensure that its Websites are 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) directing Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its Websites into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its Websites are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with visual disabilities, 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 institutional policies that cause it to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully described in paragraphs 12 through 22 above;
• Payment of actual, statutory, and other damages;
• 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 Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191);
• 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.