NELLON v. MAROLINA OUTDOOR INC.

• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the product option colors are not labeled. The search result page contains the image, title, price, and colors for each item. Screen reader users cannot hear any of the color values. Instead, the name of the product is repeated. The product name is already repeated three times before a user gets to the color section. They will then hear the name repeated another five times, once for each color, for a total of eight times that the name is repeated for a single product which creates a confusing experience. Some products, such as the Huk Next Level 10.5 short has nine different colors so users will hear product names repeated in excess of ten times in some cases.
• Defendant’s Website does not have accessible product color or size selection for the products. Both size and color are actionable elements that are required to be in the tab order but are not. Screen-reader users will not hear these elements under normal navigation. If the user used more advanced techniques, then they can hear the labels but not the options nor can they make a selection. 
• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that error messages are not communicated to screen reader users which could prevent a purchase. The fields with errors are not identified to screen reader users. Making just a single error would prevent screen reader users from making a purchase. For example, if the screen reader user leaves all of the fields blank and presses “continue”, the user will receive no error message or suggestion, the website will not let the user know which fields have the error, and although there are visual cues (such as red highlighted fields), these are not announced to the user. 

Title III of the ADA, 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. 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.