CLARK v. MINNETONKA MOCCASIN COMPANY, INC.

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Karen Clark
    • Filing date: October 28, 2019
    • State of filing: Pennsylvania

    Defendant

    • Name: Minnetonka Moccasin Company, Inc.
    • Website: www.minnetonkamoccasin.com
    • Industry: Apparel
    • Summary: Minnetonka Moccasin Company, Inc. distributes footwear products, including moccasins, fringes, sandals, boots, and slippers for men, women, and kids, as well as hats, handbags, sock and insoles, and accessories.

    Case Summary

    On October 28, 2019, Karen Clark filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against Minnetonka Moccasin Company, Inc.. Plaintiff Karen Clark alleges that www.minnetonkamoccasin.com is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Defendant’s Website is so constructed that when the user visits the homepage, there is an advertisement that gives the user a code to use for free shipping; however, the coupon code for free shipping is not accessible to a screen-reader user
    • Defendant’s Website does not inform screen-reader users of the submenu items

    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 Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Website was 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) which directs 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, blind 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 them to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs is described more fully in paragraph 11 above
    • Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive damages, as the Court deems proper
    • 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) (“Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, may file a fee petition before the Court surrenders jurisdiction. Pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (same)
    • The provision of 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

    Comments