MUHAMMAD v. GOLDEN MILE HOTELS, LLC

    Plaintiff

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

    Defendant

    Case Summary

    On December 20, 2019, Rasul Muhammad filed a Complaint in Illinois Federal court against Golden Mile Hotels, LLC. Plaintiff Rasul Muhammad alleges that www.eurostarshotelcompany.com/EN/eurostars-magnificent-mile.html 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 lack alt.text;
    • Many features on the Website fail to add a label element or title attribute for each field;
    • The Website also contains a host of broken links.

    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 Judgement that at the commencement of this action GOLDEN MILE 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 GOLDEN MILE 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 the Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and implementing regulations, so that the 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 Defendant 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;
    • 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