Plaintiff
- Name: Benjamin Butler
- Filing Date: February 19, 2026
- Court: United States District Court Southern District of New York
- State: New York
- Attorney Firm: Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC
Defendant
- Name: BF Sleep LLC, d/b/a Big Fig Mattress
- Website: www.bigfigmattress.com
- Industry: Consumer Goods
- Standards Cited: WCAG 2.1
- Summary: Offers mattresses, foundations, bedding, financing options, warranty services, and customer support resources through an interactive retail platform.
Case Summary
According to the complaint, Benjamin Butler, a legally blind individual, is suing BF Sleep LLC, doing business as Big Fig Mattress, for failing to provide an accessible website, www.bigfigmattress.com. The plaintiff alleges that he encountered numerous accessibility barriers while attempting to shop for mattresses, including missing alternative text and unlabeled buttons, which prevented him from completing his purchases. The complaint cites violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York State laws, seeking injunctive relief to compel the defendant to make its website accessible and damages for the alleged discrimination.
Causes of Action
- Violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.
- Violation of the New York State Human Rights Law
- Violation of New York State Civil Rights Law
- Violations of the New York City Human Rights Law
- Declaratory Relief
Key Allegations
- Defendant's website is inaccessible to blind individuals due to multiple barriers.
- Plaintiff encountered missing alternative text, unlabeled buttons, and inaccessible forms.
- Defendant failed to comply with WCAG 2.1 standards, resulting in systemic accessibility issues.
Requested Relief
- Injunctive relief requiring Defendant to make the website accessible to blind individuals.
- Compensatory damages for violations of civil rights under applicable laws.
- Certification of the Class and Sub-Classes.
Proposed Class
All legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access www.bigfigmattress.com and were denied equal access to its digital content, product information, and retailer-locator services due to persistent accessibility barriers during the relevant statutory period.
Jurisdiction & Venue
This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 12182 because Plaintiff’s claims arise under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

