ROMERO v. CAFE BRITT CORPORATION

Plaintiff

Name: Josue Romero
Filing date: October 21, 2020
State of filing: New York

Defendant

Name: Cafe Britt Company
Website: www.cafebritt.com
Industry: Beverages
Summary: Cafe Britt sources, roasts, bags, and sells Costa Rican coffees.

Case Summary

On October 21, 2020, Josue Romero filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Cafe Britt Company. Plaintiff Josue Romero alleges that www.cafebritt.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0, WCAG 2.1 accessibility standard(s).

Case Details

Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

Lack of Alternative Text (“alt-text”), or a text equivalent. Alt-text is an invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image on a website. Web accessibility requires that alt-text be coded with each picture so that screen-reading software can speak the alt-text where a sighted user sees pictures, which includes captcha prompts. Alt- text does not change the visual presentation, but instead a text box shows when the cursor moves over the picture. The lack of alt-text on these graphics prevents screen readers from accurately vocalizing a description of the graphics
Empty Links That Contain No Text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen- reader users;
Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address which results in additional navigation and repetition for keyboard and screen-reader users; and
Linked Images Missing Alt-text, which causes problems if an image within a link contains no text and that image does not provide alt-text. A screen reader then has no content to present the user as to the function of the link, including information contained in PDFs.
The telephone number provided on the website lacks a full description. It is read as a number; however, it does not specify it is a telephone number, thus barring the user from contacting the company for assistance.
The company logo acts as a link designed to take the user from wherever they may be within the Defendant's website to the homepage of that site. For this website, the link is not properly labeled and where the link ("logo") will operate properly (taking the user back to the home page), the missing label prevents the user (visually impaired) to interpret the logo/link and in the case of using a screen reader, the screen reader software cannot properly interpret the logo/link effectively hiding the
purpose of that link from the user.
Site function like Sign in/Register button is mislabeled only giving the
description "button" with no other information as to what the purpose
of the button is.
Link like shopping cart is mislabeled as "zero dollars". Once items are
added to the cart, the information is lost as the items added cannot be confirmed due to lack of accessibility. This flaw creates issues for the interpretation performed by the screen reader, as the user cannot confirm what the purchase is, therefore, bars the user from receiving vital information to complete the transaction.
Site element such as text providing product information is not labeled to integrate with the screen reader. The "shop now" links associated with it is accessible, however, does not contain a description as to what the "shop now" link is for. The lack of description bars the user from fully understanding the information the site is to convey.
Products have text that describe the item, details of the item and price. Product information and pricing is not labeled to integrate with screen reader and therefore, overlooks important information that a customer would require to complete a purchase.
Site element such as contact information for the company is not labeled to integrate with a screen reader. Information such as contact details and business hours are inaccessible, thus barring the user from contacting the business for assistance.
Images exist where it contains promotional or discount information
integrated as part of the image. Neither the image description nor the alternate text properly describes the image but more importantly fails to describe the promotion, discount in any form. The information is lost and thus fails to provide the user sufficient information for deciding if they wish to take advantage of the opportunity presented.

Plaintiff asserts the following cause(s) of action in its Complaint:

VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq
VIOLATIONS OF THE NYSHRL
VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW
VIOLATIONS OF THE NYCHRL
DECLARATORY RELIEF

Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

A preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq., and the laws of New York;
A preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take all the steps necessary to make its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that the Website is readily accessible to and usable by blind individuals;
A declaration that Defendant owns, maintains and/or operates its
Website in a manner that discriminates against the blind and which fails to provide access for persons with disabilities as required by Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, et seq., N.Y.C. Administrative Code § 8-107, et seq., and the laws of New York
An order certifying the Class and Sub-Classes under Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and his attorneys as Class Counsel;
Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory and punitive damages and fines, to Plaintiff and the proposed class and subclasses for violations of their civil rights under New York City Human Rights Law and City Law;
Pre- and post-judgment interest;
An award of costs and expenses of this action together with
reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees; and
Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper