WALTERS v. SIMPLY SKINNY TIES LLC

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Christopher Walters
    • Filing date: September 2, 2020
    • State of filing: New York

    Defendant

    • Name: Simply Skinny Ties LLC
    • Website: www.daziusa.com
    • Industry: Apparel
    • Summary: Simply Skinny Ties LLC owns Dazi, an online retailer of neck ties.

    Case Summary

    On September 2, 2020, Christopher Walters filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Simply Skinny Ties LLC. Plaintiff Christopher Walters alleges that www.daziusa.com is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Defendant’s Website is so constructed that, although it contains an accessibility widget, the Website remains inaccessible. 
    • Defendant’s Website’s form fields do not have accessible labels.
    • The search and cart icons are missing accessible labels. 
    • Labels are available onscreen but they are not programmatically associated to each field. This results in the labels not being announced when a screen reader user tabs to each field. 

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

    • Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 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 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 was 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 them to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 13 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 Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (“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), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (same)
    • The provision of 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.

    Comments