JUAN CARLOS GIL V. CITY OF GULF BREEZE, FLORIDA

    Plaintiff

    • Name: JUAN CARLOS GIL
    • Filing date: February 11, 2019
    • State of filing: Florida

    Defendant

    • Name: CITY OF GULF BREEZE FLORIDA
    • Website: www.cityofgulfbreeze.us
    • Industry: Governmental Entity
    • Summary: City of Gulf Breeze, Florida is a municipal government in Santa Rosa County Florida.

    Case Summary

    On February 11, 2019, JUAN CARLOS GIL filed a Complaint in Florida Federal court against CITY OF GULF BREEZE FLORIDA. Plaintiff JUAN CARLOS GIL alleges that www.cityofgulfbreeze.us is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    Website contains electronic documents not in an accessible format for the blind and visually impaired and are not provided in accessible HTML or PDF format.

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

    • Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 
    • The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

    Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

    • 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;
    • 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;
    • 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;
    • 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;
    • Award damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
    • Award Plaintiffs’ reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys’ fees; and
    • Award such other and further relief as it deems necessary, just and proper.

    Comments