GATHERS v. AFTCO MFG. CO., INC.

• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the screen-reader and keyboard-only users cannot add some items to the cart. Users must select a size before adding an item to the cart. The size field is an actionable field that is required to be in the tab order, but it is not for this product. Screen-reader users who navigate by this method will never hear that a size field is available. If they switch to an alternate navigation method, such as the arrow keys, then they can hear the size field but not change it. Users can only add this item to their cart if they use the mouse to click the word “one” under the size label in order to add the “Half Dome Beanie” to their cart.
• Defendant’s Website’s error messages are not announced to screen reader users. The fields with errors are not identified to screen reader users. In this case, the user left all fields blank and hit continue. The user did not hear that an error occurred. The user did not hear how to correct any error, or which fields had errors. There was a pop-up message onscreen that lasted for about 3 seconds and was clear to the visual user, however, this pop-up was not announced to screen reader users. Additionally, to a visual user, each field was highlighted in red to indicate an error, but this was not announced. The “Continue to Shopping” button was announced again so it will appear to users like the button is not working. Making just a single error would likely prevent screen reader users from making a purchase.
• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that screen reader users are not notified when they make a selection, nor can they change the color of a product without a mouse. A screen reader user will hear “Color” and then “Black” with no indication that other values are available, and no way to select other colors without a keyboard. The visual user could see onscreen that the new color was selected but it was never announced.

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

• 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 11 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. Aftco 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; and
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders.