KLAUS v. VEJO, INC.

• 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 will likely recognize that there are three lines in the top left corner that gives access to the Menu. This button lacks description. When the Plaintiffs hover over this image the screen reader describes it only as “slash/link” leaving the Plaintiffs unable to gain access to the Website’s Menu.
• The Website prevents screen reader users who navigate sequentially through content from accessing some primary content directly. For example, upon selecting one of the products- pictures of the nutrition label are available for review before purchasing the products. When hovering over this image the screen reader reads the image as “pdf- image-document”. Sighted shoppers are able to read and learn about the nutritional information of the products offered unlike shoppers who are not partially sighted, visually impaired, or totally blind.
• Buttons on the Website do not describe their purpose. As a
  result, blind users cannot determine whether they want to select a
  particular button, making navigation an exercise of trial and error. For
  example, the Website contains radio buttons to select a size. The images
  show the size amounts and the prices per pack. This is a necessary
  selection in order to complete the purchase. Shoppers who perceive
  content visually will likely recognize these sizes and select their option.
  Unfortunately, those who cannot perceive content visually will not be able to determine the purpose of these buttons. When the screen reader hovers over these buttons it only reads “radio button check one of two keypad” or “radio button check two of two keypad” Leaving the consumer unable to make a selection properly and complete the purchase.

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