Skip to main content
Accessibility.com, LLC
green back ground with gradient accents. The words "Your AI Agents Are Making Decisions. Can Your Security Team Explain Them?" And a "Download the Guide" button.

MURPHY v. SUPERIOR MOTORS, LLC

Filed November 19, 2019

Plaintiff

  • Name: James Murphy
  • Filing date: November 19, 2019
  • State of filing: Pennsylvania

Defendant

  • Name: Superior Motors, LLC
  • Website: www.superiortoyotapa.com
  • Industry: Automobile
  • Summary: Superior Motors, LLC is a Toyota dealer in Erie County, Pennsylvania.

Case Summary

On November 19, 2019, James Murphy filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against Superior Motors, LLC. Plaintiff James Murphy alleges that www.superiortoyotapa.com is not accessible.

Case Details

Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

  • The website prevents screen reader users who navigate sequentially through content from accessing some primary content directly. For example, upon visiting the www.superiortoyotapa.com website for the first time, Defendant presents a pop-up window to shoppers, offering them a "special offer." Shoppers who perceive content visually can tap or click the pop-up window directly to take advantage of this promotion. Unfortunately, the website does not alert Plaintiff’s screen reader to this pop-up window. As a result, he did not receive notice of this promotion, denying him the special offers Defendant otherwise offers to shoppers who are not partially sighted, visually impaired, or totally blind.
  • The website does not include sufficiently descriptive labels or instructions when content requires a user to submit information or activate particular features. Without these instructions, screen reader users cannot fully navigate the webpages. For example, Defendant’s website displays substantial information about each vehicle available for purchase. In fact, shoppers who perceive content visually will note that within each vehicle summary is a link that reads, "(more)" and infer that by clicking this link, Defendant will display additional information. The website, however, does not identify this link and that another action is necessary in a non-visual means. As a result, Plaintiff cannot access the additional information Defendant provides online.
  • The Website does not provide a sufficient text equivalent for many important non-text elements. Providing text alternatives allows the information to be rendered in a variety of ways by a variety of users. A person who cannot see a picture, logo, or icon can have a text alternative read aloud using synthesized speech. For example, the Website uses image files to convey visually available promotions. Unfortunately, Defendant's corporate accessibility policies fail to ensure these images include alternative text to describe available promotions in sufficient detail so that a screen reader user, like Plaintiff, can determine what these images represent.
  • The Website fails to sufficiently describe the purpose of all headings. As a result, blind users will have significant difficulty understanding what information is contained on pages and how that information is organized. When headings are clear and descriptive, users can find information they seek more easily, and they can understand the relationships between different pieces of content.
  • The Website does not include sufficiently descriptive labels or instructions when content requires a user to submit information or activate particular features. Without these instructions, screen reader users cannot fully navigate the webpages.
  • Elements on the Website do not have complete start and end tags, are not nested according to their specifications, and may contain duplicate attributes. As a result, screen readers cannot parse the webpages’ content accurately.
  • The Website includes user interface components, such as form elements and links, for which the name and role cannot be determined programmatically.

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 judgment declaring from the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of Title III of the ADA, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action 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) directing 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, individuals with visual disabilities, 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 institutional policies that cause it to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully described in paragraphs 12 through 22 above
  • 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)
  • 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

PennsylvaniaAutomobile

Promotional banner for the Pentest Readiness checklist download