JOEL PRICE V. HERITAGE GOLF GROUP, INC.

• Defendant’s Website is not designed with consideration for Universal design.
• Website does not have the indication of website accessibility.
• Electronic document’s flat surfaces do not contain accessible coding.
• Electronic documents have not been provided in HTML or with a text equivalent.

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

• The Court issue a declaratory judgment that Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s rights as guaranteed by the ADA;
• Order requiring Defendant to update its www.tumi.com website to remove barriers in order that individuals with visual disabilities can access the Website and effectively communicate with the Website to the full extent required by Title III of the ADA;
• 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 effectively communicate with Defendant to the full extent required by Title III of the ADA;
• Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and 28 CFR § 36.504(a), enter an Order 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;
• Order requiring Defendant to clearly display the universal disabled logo and sign of website accessibility (standard WCAG 2.0) within its Website. Such a clear display is to insure that individuals who are disabled are aware of the availability of the accessible features of the www.tumi.com website;
• Order compelling Defendant to contract with an independent ADA expert/consultant for the purposes of that ADA expert/consultant review Defendant’s policies, practices and procedures for five years commencing from the date of the Court’s Order to insure that Defendant is in compliance with the ADA;
• Order requiring Defendant to retain an accessibility coordinator and a third party consultant to review and guide Defendant through its accessibility creation and procedures to insure compliance thereto;
• Order requiring Defendant 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;
• Require Defendant engage a (mutually agreed upon) Consultant to perform an automated accessibility audit on a periodic basis to evaluate whether Defendant’s electronic documents continue to be accessible to individuals with visual disabilities;
• The Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate its policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such reasonable time so as to allow Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures to the Website;
• Damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
• Reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees; and
• Such other and further relief as it deems necessary, just and proper.