CLARK v. SPEER LABORATORIES, LLC

• Defendant’s Website contains a matrix to illustrate the purpose of each ointment. However, this is not accessible to screen reader users. Users hear "label" for this image when they navigate to it, but they do not hear the matrix's content.
• The Website’s menu bar is not accessible to screen reader users. All actionable elements, such as links, controls, and form fields, must be accessible by the tab key. Only the first menu item, “home," is accessible by the tab key. If the user presses the tab key after the home menu, the user will exit the menu bar and jump down the page, leaving them unable to access the rest of the menu.
• Defendant’s Website contains a section that describes how to use the product, but this not accessible to the screen reader user. Screen reader users can navigate to and hear each of the five tabs, but they cannot hear the content in those tabs. For example, after opening the “how to use” section, focus jumps to the bottom of the screen. Screen reader users cannot navigate to this section using keyboard commands, so they will not hear this information.

Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq

• 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 Plaintiff 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