MUHAMMAD v. GOBI MONGOLIAN CASHMERE USA CORP.

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Rasul Muhammad
    • Filing date: December 20, 2019
    • State of filing: Illinois

    Defendant

    • Name: Gobi Mongolian Cashmere USA Corp.
    • Website: us.gobicashmere.com
    • Industry: Apparel
    • Summary: Gobi Mongolian Cashmere USA Corp. manufactures and sells men's and women's sweaters, scarves, and other apparel made from Mongolian cashmere.

    Case Summary

    On December 20, 2019, Rasul Muhammad filed a Complaint in Illinois Federal court against Gobi Mongolian Cashmere USA Corp.. Plaintiff Rasul Muhammad alleges that us.gobicashmere.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.1 accessibility standard(s).

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Many features on the Website lacks alt. text, which is the invisible code embedded beneath a graphical image.
    •  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 he or she is expected to insert into the subject field.
    • The Website also contains a host of broken links, which is a hyperlink to a nonexistent 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.

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

    • Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. 
    • Declaratory Relief

    Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

    • A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action GOBI 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 GOBI took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Website is 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 it to
      remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 8 above;
    • An award of costs and expenses of this action;
    • 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;
    • Any prevailing plaintiff that enforces the ADA can utilize its fee shifting statute. 42 USC § 12205. Congress intended it to parallel the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act. 42 USC § 1988; H.R. REP. 101-485, 73. 
    • Specifically, 42 USC § 12205 provides that Courts have the discretion to award attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs for the prevailing party in any action under the ADA.
      The ADA’s legislative history solidifies that under 42 USC § 12205 Congress “intends that the attorney's fee provision be interpreted in a manner consistent with the Civil Rights
      Attorney's Fees Act, including that statute's definition of prevailing party, as construed by the Supreme Court.” H.R. REP. 101-485, 73. The language of the ADA fee shifting
      provision parallels the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act, which provides “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable
      attorney’s fee.” 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The Court’s discretion under these fee shifting provisions to deliver an award of attorney’s fees departs from its typical, broad form. 
    • An order certifying the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and his attorneys as Class Counsel; and
    • Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. 

    Comments