Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.:

CAROLINE LE GRANDE, an 

individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

SOMA INTIMATES, LLC, 

a Florida Limited Liability Company

d/b/a SOMA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, CAROLINE LE GRANDE, an individual, through undersigned counsel, 

sues Defendant, SOMA INTIMATES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a SOMA

(hereinafter referred to as “Soma”), and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (“ADA”), as amended, 28 

C.F.R. Part 36 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, to prevent discrimination against visually 

disabled individuals, such as Plaintiff, and to provide for equal access to internet websites

in order to obtain information about Defendant’s merchandise.

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question 

jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and the provisions of the ADA. Plaintiff seeks declaratory 

and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 1 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 2 of 17

3. Venue is proper in this Court as all actions complained of herein and injuries 

suffered occurred in the Southern District of Florida.

4. Plaintiff, CAROLINE LE GRANDE is a resident of Hollywood, Florida, is sui 

juris, and is disabled as defined by the ADA and ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12101 (“ADAAA”).

5. Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been visually disabled and suffers 

from Strabismic Amblyopia and Microstravismus which substantially and significantly 

impair her vision. Plaintiff thus is substantially limited in performing one or more major 

life activities, including, but not limited to, utilizing the Defendant’s website with 

information that is not ADA compliant. As such, she is a member of a protected class 

under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)-(2), the regulations implementing the ADA set forth

at 28 CFR §§ 36.101, et seq., and in 42 U.S.C. 3602, § 802(h).

6. Because Plaintiff’s visual disability limits her in the performance of major life 

activities, including sight, she requires assistive technologies, auxiliary aids and services 

for effective communication, including communication in connection with her use of a 

computer.

7. Plaintiff frequently utilizes the internet. Because she is significantly and 

permanently visually disabled, in order to effectively communicate and visualize 

information available on the internet and thereby visualize websites, Plaintiff uses 

commercially available screen reader software to interface with the various websites.

8. Defendant is a Florida limited liability company doing business as Soma, 

authorized to do business and doing business in the State of Florida. 

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 2 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 3 of 17

9. At all times material hereto, Defendant was and still is an organization which 

owns and operates numerous brick and mortar stores within the State of Florida, including 

the Southern District of Florida. At all material times, Defendant offered and offers a 

website that allows individuals to shop, take advantage of special online sales and 

promotions, and order items from the Website. As the owner and operator of retail stores, 

Defendant is defined as a place of “public accommodation” within meaning of Title III, 42 

U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. § 36.104(2.

10. Defendant controls, maintains, and/or operates a website located at: 

https://www.Soma.com (hereinafter the “Website”). Some of the functions of the Website 

are to provide the public with information on the various physical locations of Defendant’s 

stores throughout the United States, within the State of Florida, and within the Southern 

District of Florida; selling its merchandise to the public through the Website; offering 

promotions and sales to online consumers; and, providing pricing information and detailed 

descriptions for its merchandise.

11. The Website also services Defendant’s stores by providing information on 

its available products and branded merchandise, tips and advice, editorials, sales 

campaigns, events, and other information that Defendant is interested in communicating 

to its customers.

12. Because the public can view and purchase Defendant’s merchandise on 

Defendant’s Website that is also offered for sale by Defendant at its physical stores, and 

sign up for an electronic mailer to receiver offers, benefits, exclusive invitations, and 

discounts for its physical stores, the Website is an extension of and gateway to the 

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 3 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 4 of 17

physical stores which are places of public accommodation pursuant to ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 

12181(7)(E). As such, the Website is an intangible service, with privileges and 

advantages of Defendant’s brick and mortar store locations that must comply with all 

requirements of the ADA, must not discriminate against individuals with visual disabilities, 

and must not deny those individuals the same full and equal enjoyment of the services, 

privileges and advantages afforded to the non-disabled general public both online and at 

the physical store locations.

13. Plaintiff is and has been a customer who continues to be interested in 

patronizing Defendant’s physical stores in the near future, once the Website’s access 

barriers alleged herein are remedied. Defendant intends to search Defendant’s Website 

for the brick and mortar store locations; check store hours; review merchandise and 

pricing; sign-up for electronic mail to receive offers, benefits, exclusive invitations, and 

discounts for use at the Website or in Defendant’s physical stores.

14. Defendant has not provided its commercial information in any other digital 

format that is accessible for use by visually impaired individuals who use screen reader 

software.

15. Like most consumers, Plaintiff accesses numerous websites at the same

time to compare merchandise, prices, sales, discounts, and promotions. The failure of 

Defendant’s Website to present an ADA compliant website denies Plaintiff this 

opportunity.

16. Beginning February 26, 2020, Plaintiff attempted on a number of occasions 

to utilize Defendant’s Website to browse through the merchandise and online offers to 

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 4 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 5 of 17

educate herself as to the merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions being offered 

with the intent of making a purchase through the Website or at one of Defendant’s stores.

17. Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that is intended to allow 

individuals who are visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, 

Defendant’s Website contains barriers that prevent full use by visually disabled individuals 

using keyboards and available screen reading software. These barriers are pervasive 

and include, but are not limited to:

a. Site function, like menu drop-down options; not labeled to integrate with the 

screen reader;

b. Empty links;

c. Links not labeled, and;

d. Content is presented with a loss of information.

18. The Website also lacks prompting information and accommodations 

necessary to allow visually disabled individuals who use screen reader software to locate 

and accurately fill-out online forms to purchase Defendant’s merchandise from the 

Website.

19. Plaintiff attempted to locate an “accessibility” notice (e.g., the universal 

symbol for the disabled)1, statement or policy on the Website which would direct her to a 

webpage with contact information for disabled individuals who have questions, concerns, 

1

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 5 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 6 of 17

or are having difficulty communicating with the Website. Plaintiff was unable to do so 

because no such link or notice was provided on the Website at the time of her visits.

20. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left 

her excluded because she was unable to participate in the same online shopping 

experience that provides access to merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions 

provided on the Website and for use in the physical stores, as are the non-visually 

disabled public.

21. Plaintiff intends to use the Website to patronize Defendant’s physical stores, 

but is unable to fully do so as she is unable to effectively communicate with Defendant 

due to her visual disability and the Website’s access barriers. Thus, Plaintiff, as well as 

others with visual disabilities, will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant’s 

intentional acts, omissions, policies, and practices as set forth herein unless ordered by 

this Court to bring the Website into compliance with ADA requirements.

22. Because of the nexus between Defendant’s stores and the Website, and 

the fact that the Website clearly provides support and is connected to Defendant’s stores 

for its operation and use, the Website is an intangible service, privilege and advantage of 

Defendant’s brick and mortar stores that must comply with all requirements of the ADA, 

must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities, and must not deny those 

individuals the same full and equal enjoyment of the services, privileges and advantages 

afforded to the non-disabled public both on-line and at its physical locations, which are 

places of public accommodations subject to the requirements of the ADA.

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 6 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 7 of 17

23. On information and belief, Defendant has not initiated a Web Accessibility 

Policy to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with disabilities.

24. On information and belief, Defendant has not designated an employee as a 

Web Accessibility Coordinator to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals 

with disabilities.

25. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a Web Accessibility 

User Accessibility Testing Group to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals 

with disabilities.

26. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a User Accessibility 

Testing Group to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with disabilities.

27. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted an Automated Web 

Accessibility Testing program.

28. On information and belief, Defendant has not created and instituted a 

Specialized Customer Assistance line or service or email contact mode for customer 

assistance for the visually disabled.

29. On information and belief, Defendant has not created and instituted on the 

Website a page for individuals with disabilities; displayed a link and information hotline; 

and has not created an information portal explaining when and how Defendant will have 

the Website applications and digital assets accessible to the visually disabled community.

30. On information and belief, the Website does not meet the Web Content 

Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 Level AA, or higher versions, of web accessibility.

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 7 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 8 of 17

31. On information and belief, Defendant has not disclosed to the public any 

intended audits, changes, or lawsuits to correct the inaccessibility of the Website to 

visually disabled individuals who want the safety and ability of purchasing Defendant’s 

merchandise offered on its Website, online from their home.

32. Thus, Defendant has not provided full and equal enjoyment of the services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided by and through the 

Website, in contravention of the ADA.

33. Under the ADA, public accommodations must ensure that their places of 

public accommodation provide effective communication for all members of the general 

public, including individuals with disabilities, such as Plaintiff’s.

34. The broad mandate of the ADA is to provide an equal opportunity for 

individuals with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of American civic 

and economic life. That mandate extends to internet shopping websites, such as the 

Website.

35. On information and belief, Defendant is, and at all relevant times has been, 

aware of the barriers to effective communication within the Website which prevent 

individuals with visual disabilities from the means necessary to comprehend information 

presented therein.

36. On information and belief, Defendant is aware of the need to provide full 

access to all visitors to the Website.

37. The barriers that exist on the Website result in discriminatory and unequal 

treatment of individuals who are visually disabled, including Plaintiff.

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 8 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 9 of 17

38. Plaintiff has no adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs 

alleged hereinabove, and this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is her only 

means to secure adequate and complete redress from Defendant’s unlawful and 

discriminatory practices in connection with the Website access and operation.

39. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA is right and just pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

40. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys to represent her in this case 

and has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their services.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE ADA

41. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 40 as if set forth fully herein.

42. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E), Defendant is a public accommodation 

under the ADA because it owns and/or operates the Website, as defined within § 

1218(7)(E) and is subject to the ADA.

43. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E), the Website is covered under the ADA 

because it provides the general public with the ability to locate Defendant’s physical 

stores, purchase merchandise, and sign up for electronic mailers to receive offers, 

benefits, exclusive invitations, and discounts for use at the physical stores. The Website 

thus is an extension of, gateway to, and an intangible service, privilege and advantage of 

Defendant’s physical stores. Further, the Website also serves to augment Defendant’s 

physical stores by providing the public information on the various physical locations of the 

stores and educating the public as to Defendant’s available merchandise sold through the 

Website and in its physical stores.

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 9 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 10 of 17

44. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful 

discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities 

an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities afforded to other 

individuals.

45. Specifically, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(II), 

unlawful discrimination includes, among other things, “a failure to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are 

necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or 

accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that 

making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.”

46. In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III), 

unlawful discrimination also includes, among other things, “a failure to take such steps as 

may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied 

services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the 

absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such 

steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, 

advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden.”

47. Defendant’s Website must be in compliance with the ADA, but it is not, as 

specifically alleged herein above and below. Compliance will not fundamentally alter the 

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 10 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 11 of 17

nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered 

or would result in an undue burden.

48. Because of the inaccessibility of the Website, individuals with disabilities 

who are visually disabled are denied full and equal enjoyment of the information and 

services that Defendant has made available to the public on its Website and at its physical 

stores, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12102, 

et seq.

49. The Website was subsequently visited by Plaintiff’s expert in March, 2020, 

and the expert determination was that the same access barriers that Plaintiff had initially 

encountered still existed as of that date. Defendant thus has made no material changes 

or improvements to the Website to enable its full use, enjoyment and accessibility for 

visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff. When the Website was revisited by Plaintiff’s 

expert, it was also determined the Website still did not have an “accessibility” notice, 

policy or statement. As a result, Defendant has failed to make reasonable modifications 

in its policies, practices, or procedures when such modifications are necessary to afford 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with 

disabilities in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 36.302. The lack of an “accessibility” notice, policy 

or statement and the following additional access barriers on the Website continue to 

render the Website not fully accessible to users who are visually disabled:

a. Site functions like menu drop-down options not labeled to integrate with the 

screen reader;

b. Empty links;

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 11 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 12 of 17

c. Links not labeled; and

d. Content was not presented in a way without losing information.

See, Expert Declaration (with exhibits 2, 3 and 4) and Curriculum Vitae of Robert D. 

Moody (Exhibit 1), attached as Composite Exhibit “A”.

50. More violations may be present on other pages of the Website, which can 

and will be determined and proven through the discovery process in this case.

51. There are readily available, well established guidelines located on the 

internet and elsewhere for making Websites accessible to the visually disabled. These

guidelines have been followed by other large business entities in making their websites 

accessible. Examples of such guidelines include, but are not limited to, adding alt-text to 

graphics and ensuring that all functions can be performed using a keyboard. 

Incorporating such basic components to make the website accessible would neither 

fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor would it result in an undue 

burden to the Defendant.

52. Defendant has violated the ADA – and continues to violate the ADA – by 

denying access to the Website by individuals, such as Plaintiff, with visual disabilities who 

require the assistance of interface with screen reader software to comprehend and 

access internet websites. The violations within the Website are ongoing.

53. The ADA and ADAAA require that public accommodations and places of 

public accommodation ensure that communication is effective and properly integrated 

with screen readers and other auxiliary aids and services.

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 12 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 13 of 17

54. According to 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(1), auxiliary aids and services include 

“voice, text, and video-based telecommunications products and systems”. Indeed, 28 

C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(2) specifically states that screen reader software is an effective 

method of making visually delivered material available to individuals who are blind or have 

low vision.

55. According to 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c), public accommodations must furnish 

appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective 

communication with individuals with disabilities: “In order to be effective, auxiliary aids 

and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a 

way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual with a disability,” 28 

C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1)(ii).

56. Part 36 of Title 28 of the C.F.R. was designed and is implemented to 

effectuate subtitle A of Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

disability by public accommodations, and requires places of public accommodation to be 

designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards 

established by Part 36.

57. As alleged hereinabove, the Website has not been designed to interface 

with the widely and readily available technologies that can be used to ensure effective 

communication, and thus violates the ADA.

58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide an ADA 

compliant Website, with a nexus to its brick and mortar physical store locations, Plaintiff 

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 13 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 14 of 17

has suffered an injury in fact by being denied full access to and enjoyment of Defendant’s 

Website and physical stores.

59. Because of the inadequate development and administration of the Website, 

Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133 and 28 C.F.R. § 

36.303, to remedy the ongoing disability discrimination.

60. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is vested with the authority to 

grant Plaintiff appropriate and necessary injunctive relief, including an order to:

a. Require Defendant to adopt and implement a web accessibility 

policy, to make such policy publicly available and directly link such policy from the 

homepage of the Website to a statement setting forth Defendant’s accessibility policy.

b. Require that during that time period prior to the Website’s being 

readily accessible, to provide an alternative method for individuals with visual disabilities 

to access the information available on the Website until such time that the requisite 

modifications are made.

c. Require Defendant to provide the appropriate auxiliary aids that 

properly integrate with screen readers and other such aids such that individuals with 

visual impairments will be able to effectively communicate with the Website for purposes 

of viewing and locating Defendant’s physical stores and locations, and become informed 

of and purchase Defendant’s merchandise online, and during that time period prior to the 

Website’s being designed to permit individuals with visual disabilities to effectively 

communicate, to provide an alternative method for individuals with visual disabilities to

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 14 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 15 of 17

effectively communicate for such goods and services made available to the general public 

through Defendant’s Website.

d. Require Defendant to take the necessary steps to make the Website 

readily accessible to and usable by visually disabled users to ensure persons with 

disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, and accommodations through the Website.

61. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the undersigned law firm for the filing 

and prosecution of this action and has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their 

services. Plaintiff is entitled to recover her reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and 

expenses pursuant to the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests an entry of judgment in her favor and against 

Defendant for the following relief:

A. A declaration that Defendant’s Website is in violation of the ADA;

B. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to remove barriers 

and come into full compliance with the requirements of the ADA by curing the defects set 

forth herein in order that individuals with visual disabilities can access, and continue to 

access, the Website and effectively communicate with the Website to the full extent

required by Title III of the ADA;

C. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to clearly display 

the universal disabled logo within the Website, wherein the logo (see Fn. 1) would lead 

to a page which would set forth Defendant’s accessibility information, facts, policies, and 

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 15 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 16 of 17

accommodations. Such a clear display of the disabled logo is to ensure that individuals 

who are disabled are aware of the availability of the accessible features of the Website;

D. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to make publicly 

available and directly link from the Website homepage, a statement of Defendant’s 

Accessibility Policy to ensure the persons with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment 

of the Website and shall accompany the public policy statement with an accessible means 

of submitting accessibility questions and problems.

E. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to provide ongoing 

support for web accessibility by implementing a website accessibility coordinator, a 

website application accessibility policy, and provide for website accessibility feedback to 

ensure compliance thereto.

F. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to evaluate its 

policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such reasonable 

time to allow Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures to the Website;

G. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to establish a policy 

of web accessibility and accessibility features for the Website to ensure effective 

communication for individuals who are visually disabled;

H. An Order requiring, by a date certain, that any third-party vendors 

who participate on Defendant’s Website be fully accessible to the visually disabled;

I. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once 

every three months thereafter, to conduct automated accessibility tests of the Website to 

identify any instances where the Website is no longer in conformity with the accessibility 

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 16 of 17
Le Grande vs. Soma Intimates

Complaint

Page 17 of 17

requirements of the ADA and any applicable accessibility guidelines, and further directing 

Defendant to send a copy of each quarterly report to Plaintiff’s counsel for review.

J. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once 

yearly thereafter, to provide mandatory web accessibility training to all employees who 

write or develop programs or code for, or who publish content to, the Website on how to 

conform all web content and services with ADA accessibility requirements and applicable 

accessibility guidelines;

K. An award to Plaintiff of her reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and 

expenses.

L. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

DATED this 3rd day of June, 2020.

MICHAEL J. ROSEN, P.A.

Counsel for Plaintiff

100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3400

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: 305.446.6116

Fax: 305.448.1782

Email: mjr@mjrosenlaw.com

By:__s/Michael J. Rosen_______

Michael J. Rosen

Fla. Bar No.: 183719

Case 0:20-cv-61094-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/03/2020 Page 17 of 17