BURBON v. WRIGHTENBERRY HOSIERY MILLS, INC.

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Luc Burbon
    • Filing date: December 18, 2020
    • State of filing: New York

    Defendant

    • Name: Wrightenberry Hosiery Mills, Inc.
    • Website: www.wrightsock.com
    • Industry: Apparel
    • Summary: Under the Wright Sock brand name, Wrightenberry Hosiery Mills, Inc. manufactures and sells socks for men, women, and children.

    Case Summary

    On December 18, 2020, Luc Burbon filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Wrightenberry Hosiery Mills, Inc.. Plaintiff Luc Burbon alleges that www.wrightsock.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Lack of Alternative Text (“alt-text”), or a text equivalent.
    • Empty Links That Contain No Text 
    • Redundant Links where adjacent links go to the same URL address 
    • Linked Images Missing Alt-text
    • Many pages on the Website also contain the same title elements
    • The Website also contained a host of broken links

    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 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. Exec. Law § 296, 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. Exec. Law § 296, 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 her 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 Sub-Classes for violations of their civil rights under New York State Human Rights Law and City Law
    • Pre- and post-judgment interest
    • An award of costs and expenses of the action
    • 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. See also, Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11)
    • Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

    Comments