JAHODA v. NEW MILANI GROUP, LLC

• Links and buttons on the Website do not describe their purpose. As a result, blind users cannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link or select a particular button, making navigation an exercise of trial and error. For example, shoppers who perceive content visually would recognize the bag icon located on the website and
  understand when clicked on it would redirect them to the checkout platform. Unfortunately, this link does not sufficiently provide alternative text for this image. When Plaintiff hovers over the icon the screen reader only reads “link-diagram”. Because this text is meaningless without
  additional context, Plaintiff is less likely to locate Defendant’s online payment platform and complete a purchase successfully
• The Website provides a five-star rating for many products that Defendant sells. Shoppers who perceive content visually
  can see whether a particular product has one, two, three, four, or five stars, and base their purchasing decisions on this information. Unfortunately, Defendant’s accessibility policies, if any, fail to provide any alternative text for this important rating information. When the user hovers over the review rating, it will read the number of reviews only, not the star rating. As a result, Plaintiff must make his purchasing decisions without the benefit of knowing whether the products he’s researching are well received by other shoppers, information which is otherwise available to shoppers who do not rely on screen reader auxiliary aids to shop online

Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant 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 Defendant 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 10 above.
• Payment of actual, statutory, and other damages, as the Court deems proper
• Payment of costs of suit
• 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. See People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226, 235 (3d Cir. 2008) (“This Court, like other Courts of Appeals, allows fees to be awarded for monitoring and enforcing Court orders and judgments.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11)
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant have complied with the Court’s Orders