MUHAMMAD v. SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC.

Plaintiff

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

Defendant

Name: Six Continent Hotels, Inc. Wolf Point Hotel Corporation
Website: www.martplaza.com/
Industry: Hotel, Restaurant and Leisure
Summary: The Holiday Inn Chicago Mart Plaza River North is a downtown Chicago hotel.

Case Summary

On December 20, 2019, Rasul Muhammad filed a Complaint in Illinois Federal court against Six Continent Hotels, Inc. Wolf Point Hotel Corporation. Plaintiff Rasul Muhammad alleges that www.martplaza.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.
The Website does not provide a text equivalent for every non-text element;
The purpose of each link cannot be determined from the link text alone or from the link text and its programmatically determined link context;
Web pages lack titles that describe their topic or purpose;
Headings and labels do not describe topic or purpose;
Keyboard user interfaces lack a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible;
The default human language of each web page cannot be programmatically determined;
Labels or instructions are not always provided when content requires user input;
Text cannot be resized up to 200 percent without assistive technology so that it may still be viewed without loss of content or functionality;
A mechanism is not always available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages;
A correct reading sequence is not provided on pages where the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning;
In content implemented using markup languages, elements do not always have complete start and end tags, are not nested according to their specifications, may contain duplicate attributes, and IDs are not always unique; and
The name and role of all UI elements cannot be programmatically determined; things that can be set by the user cannot be programmatically set; and/or notification of changes to these items is not available to user agents, including assistive technology.

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 SIX CONTINENTS 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 SIX CONTINENTS 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.
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.