Skip to main content
Accessibility.com, LLC
a promotional graphic telling you that PCI Compliance is no longer an annual exercise and that continuous monitory must be built in

TENZER-FUCHS v. PIER 1 IMPORTS ONLINE, INC

Filed March 2, 2021

Plaintiff

  • Name: Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs
  • Filing date: March 2, 2021
  • State of filing: New York

Defendant

  • Name: Pier 1 Imports Online Inc.
  • Website: www.pierone.com
  • Industry: Consumer Goods
  • Summary: Pier 1 manufactures and sells home furnishings and decor at retail stores and via its website.

Case Summary

On March 2, 2021, Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Pier 1 Imports Online Inc.. Plaintiff Michelle Tenzer-Fuchs alleges that www.pierone.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.1 accessibility standard(s).

Case Details

Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

  • The issues started on the homepage of the site where Plaintiff immediately found that she was unable to figure out how to navigate to other pages because her reader could not read the page options to her. She could make out a large “Add to Cart” caption at the top of the screen, as well as what appeared to be site options, but none of these were readable to her screen-reader, even when she actually selected the button as opposed to just hovering over them.
  • Even further in the site, Plaintiff quickly found that many features on the Website lacks alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to differentiate what products were on the screen due to the failure of the Website to adequately describe its content.
  • Many features on the Website also fail to add a label element or title attribute for each field. This is a problem for the visually-impaired because the screen reader fails to communicate the purpose of the page element. It also leads to the user not being able to understand what she or she is expected to insert into the subject field. This was an issue on Defendant’s Website particularly in the style- and dimension-selection sections. As a result, Plaintiff and similarly situated visually-impaired users of Defendant’s Website are unable to enjoy the privileges and benefits of the Website equally to sighted users.
  • The Website also contained a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a non-existent or empty webpage. For the visually-impaired this is especially paralyzing due to the inability to navigate or otherwise determine where one is on the website once a broken link is encountered. For example, upon coming across a link of interest, Plaintiff was redirected to an error page. However, the screen-reader failed to communicate that the link was broken. As a result, Plaintiff could not get back to her original search.
  • Further, Defendant’s site was riddled with spontaneous pop-up windows that would randomly appear onscreen and block Plaintiff’s view and ability to navigate the page she was on. Additionally, the large majority of these pop-ups were unreadable to Plaintiff’s NVDA reader, which only added to Plaintiff’s confusion and frustration.

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.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(2) 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 subclasses for violations of their civil rights under New York State and New York City Human Rights Law
  • Pre- and post-judgment interest
  • An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees
  • Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

New YorkConsumer Goods

Application Security Isn’t Optional Anymore.