WRIGHT et al v. PARAGON APPAREL et al

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Demieli Wright Karen Clark
    • Filing date: May 1, 2019
    • State of filing: Pennsylvania

    Defendant

    • Name: Paragon Apparel
    • Website: www.paragonapparel.net
    • Industry: Apparel
    • Summary: Paragon Apparel is an online retailer which sells clothing, artwork, accessories, and other products related to films, pop-culture, and different lifestyle groups

    Case Summary

    On May 1, 2019, Demieli Wright Karen Clark filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against Paragon Apparel . Plaintiff Demieli Wright Karen Clark alleges that www.paragonapparel.net is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Website offers discounts to those who perceive material visually which it does not offer to the visually-disabled due to the inaccessibility of the website.
    • Lack of alt-text
    • The feature which allows consumers to purchase Defendant’s products – the order form – is inaccessible.

    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 is 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 it to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief Plaintiffs request is described more fully in paragraph 12 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 Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (“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), and Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (same)
    • 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