SANTOS v. SHIEKH SHOES, LLC

    Plaintiff

    • Name: Sylvia Santos
    • Filing date: April 4, 2019
    • State of filing: New York

    Defendant

    Case Summary

    On April 4, 2019, Sylvia Santos filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Shiekh Shoes, LLC. Plaintiff Sylvia Santos alleges that www.shiekhshoes.com, www.tiltedsole.com and www.FBRKClothing.com is not accessible.

    Case Details

    Plaintiff alleges issues in its Complaint including the following:

    • Defendant’s Websites do not provide text equivalents for non-text elements. 
    • Websites do not properly label and provide instructions for
      important information in certain fields on the Websites. 
    • Websites do not include sufficiently descriptive labels or
      instructions when content requires a user to submit information or activate particular features Defendant’s Websites lack visual cues to alert Plaintiff to an action she can take on the Websites. 
    • Websites fail to position important information and content before the page scroll.

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

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

    Plaintiff seeks the following relief by way of its Complaint:

     

    • 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), 28 CFR § 36.504(a), N.Y. Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and the laws of New York, 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 11 above.
    • Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive damages, as the Court deems proper;
    • Payment of costs of suit;
    • Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof, including all applicable statutory damages and fines, to Plaintiff for violations of her civil rights under New York State Human Rights Law;
    • 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 Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (“Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, may file a fee petition before the Court surrenders jurisdiction. Pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987), and Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (same);
    • Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate; and
    • An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders.

    Comments