JOEL PRICE vs.CITY OF OCALA, FLORIDA

• By failing to provide electronic documents in accessible format, Defendant has deprived blind and visually impaired individuals of the benefits of its online content, which benefit is afforded to sighted (non-disabled) individuals. As such, Defendant has increased the sense of isolation and stigma that the ADA and Section 504 were meant to redress for individuals with disabilities.
• Defendant’s denial of much of its publicly available online content to blind and visually impaired individuals violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA.

VIOLATIONS OF TITLE II OF THE ADA

COUNT II VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT

• WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joel Price hereby demands judgment against Defendant City of Ocala including a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Rule 57 of the FRCP stating that the Defendant’s practices, policies, and procedures have subjected Plaintiff to discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to permanently enjoin Defendant City of Ocala from any practice, policy and/or procedure which will deny Plaintiff equal access to the services, programs and activities offered by Defendant City of Ocala to residents and visitors and in participating in the government of the City of Ocala, as well as:
• a) issue a declaratory judgment that Defendant has violated the Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;
• b) The Court enter an Order requiring Defendant to update all electronic documents made available to the public to remove barriers in order that individuals with visual disabilities can access the electronic documents to the full extent required by Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act;
• Enter an Order pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12188(a)(2) for permanent injunction which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring the electronic documents which it provides on its electronic media into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that all electronic documents are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind and low sighted 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 Defendant to remain fully in compliance with the law;
• d) Order Defendant to retain a qualified consultant acceptable to Plaintiff (“Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant”) who shall assist it in improving the accessibility of its electronic documents, so they are accessible to individuals with visual disabilities who require those electronic documents to be in accessible format or provided in HTML format;
• e) Order Defendant to engage a (mutually agreed upon) Consultant to perform an automated accessibility audit on a periodic basis to evaluate whether Defendant’s electronic documents to be accessible to individuals with visual disabilities who require those documents to be in accessible format or provided in HTML format;
• f) award damages in an amount to be determined at trial; g) award Plaintiffs’ reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees; and h) award such other and further relief as it deems necessary, just and proper.