KOLESAR v. SWEET LORENS, INC.

• The Website does not provide a text equivalent for non-text elements.
  Providing text alternatives allows the information to be rendered in a variety of ways by a variety
  of users. For example, a person who cannot see a picture, logo, or icon can have a text alternative
  read aloud using synthesized speech. A person who cannot hear an audio file can have a text
  alternative displayed so he can read it.
• The Website fails to sufficiently describe the purpose of all headings and
  button labels. As a result, blind users will have significant difficulty understanding what
  information is contained on pages and how that information is organized. When headings and labels are clear and descriptive, users can find information they seek more easily, and they can
  understand the relationships between different pieces of content.
• Links on the Website do not describe their purpose. As a result, blind users
  cannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link, making navigation an exercise of
  trial and error. 

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

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the start of this action Defendant was in violation 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 Plaintiffs is described more fully in paragraph 11 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 Defendants have complied with the Court’s Orders