UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FARM STORES FRANCHISING, LLC,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Windy Lucius, (“Plaintiff”) by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby files this 

complaint and sues Defendant, FARM STORES FRANCHISING, LLC, a foreign limited liability 

company doing business in Florida and alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Windy Lucius brings this action individually against FARM STORES 

FRANCHISING, LLC, (“Defendant”), alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., (hereinafter, “ADA”).

2. Plaintiff is blind. She has been blind for the past nine years. She uses the internet 

to help her navigate a world of goods, products and services like the sighted. The internet, websites 

and mobile applications provide her a window into the world that she would not otherwise have. 

She brings this action against Defendant for offering and maintaining a mobile application

(software that is intended to run on mobile devises such as phones or tablet computers) that is not 

fully accessible and independently usable by visually impaired consumers. The mobile application 

(“app”) at issue is available through the Apple “app store” for download and installation on Apple 
2

devices. (hereinafter, “app”). Defendant developed the app and made it available to millions of 

phone and tablet users in the Apple app store. The app is a service of a place of public 

accommodation.

3. Plaintiff is also an advocate of the rights of similarly situated disabled persons and 

is a “tester” for the purpose of asserting her civil rights and monitoring, ensuring, and determining 

whether places of public accommodation and/or their websites are in compliance with the ADA.

4. Defendant offers its app to the general public from which it sells a variety of 

products ranging from food to grocery items. Defendant’s apps allow mobile device users to shop 

on a mobile platforms through a connection to Wi-Fi or cellular data so that users can make 

purchases, locate stores, and explore product offerings on the go. As such, it has subjected itself 

to the ADA because Defendant’s app is offered as a tool to promote, advertise and sell its products 

from its brick and mortar stores, which are places of public accommodation. As a result, the app 

must interact with Defendant’s stores and the public, and in doing so must comply with the ADA, 

which means it must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities and may not deny full 

and equal enjoyment of the goods and services afforded to the general public.

5. Blind and visually impaired consumers must use the assistive technology on the 

iPhone to access app content. The app must be designed and programmed to work with the assistive 

technology available on the iPhone. Defendant’s app, however, contains digital barriers which 

limit the ability of blind and visually impaired consumers to access it, even with Apple’s assistive 

technology.

6. Defendant’s app does not properly interact with Apple’s assistive technology in a 

manner that will allow the blind and visually impaired to enjoy the app, nor does it provide other 

means to accommodate the blind and visually impaired.
3

7. Plaintiff has been a customer at Defendant’s brick and mortar drive through 

locations. Plaintiff has downloaded and attempted to patronize Defendant’s app in the past and

intends to continue to make further attempts to patronize Defendant’s app. Like the seeing 

community, she would like to be able to pre-shop Defendant’s merchandise, learn about sales or 

discounts, order coupons within the app, and order food for pick up at Defendant’s brick and mortar 

locations. However, unless Defendant is required to eliminate the access barriers at issue and

required to change its policies so that access barriers do not reoccur on Defendant’s app, Plaintiff 

will continue to be denied full and equal access to the app as described and will be deterred from 

fully using Defendant’s app or shopping at the physical locations.

8. Plaintiff continues to attempt to utilize the app and/or plans to continue to attempt 

to utilize the app in the near future. In the alternative, Plaintiff intends to monitor the app in the 

near future, as a tester, to ascertain whether it has been updated to interact properly with screen 

reader software.

9. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations on Defendant’s app and is aware 

that it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize the app as long as those violations exist unless 

she is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

10. Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration and humiliation as the 

result of the discriminatory conditions present at Defendant’s app. By continuing to operate its app 

with discriminatory conditions, Defendant contributes to Plaintiff’s sense of isolation and 

segregation and deprives Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges and/or accommodations available to the general public. By encountering the 

discriminatory conditions at Defendant’s app, and knowing that it would be a futile gesture to 

attempt to utilize the app unless she is willing to endure additional discrimination, Plaintiff is 
4

deprived of the meaningful choice of freely visiting and utilizing the same accommodations readily 

available to the general public and is deterred and discouraged from doing so. By maintaining an 

app with violations, Defendant deprives Plaintiff the equality of opportunity offered to the general 

public.

11. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer direct and indirect injury as a result 

of the Defendant’s discrimination until the Defendant is compelled to comply with the 

requirements of the ADA.

12. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination 

from the Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this app as described above. 

Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination 

in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. Plaintiff desires to access the app to avail herself of the 

benefits, advantages, goods and services therein, and/or to assure herself that this app is in 

compliance with the ADA so that she and others similarly situated will have full and equal 

enjoyment of the app without fear of discrimination.

13. The ADA expressly contemplates the type of injunctive relief that Plaintiffseeks in 

this action. The ADA provides, in part:

[i]n the case of violations of . . . this title, injunctive relief shall include an 

order to alter facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities . . . Where appropriate, injunctive 

relief shall also include requiring the . . . modification of a policy . . .

42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2).

14. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Defendant’s app violates federal law 

as described and an injunction requiring Defendant to modify its app so that it is fully accessible 

to, and independently usable by, blind or visually impaired individuals. Plaintiff further requests 

that the Court retain jurisdiction of this matter for a period to be determined to ensure that 
5

Defendant comes into compliance with the requirements of the ADA and to ensure that Defendant 

has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will, in fact, cause Defendant’s app to 

remain in compliance with the law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

15. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 42

U.S.C. § 12188.

16. Plaintiff’s claims asserted herein arose in this judicial district and Defendant does 

substantial business in this judicial district where it has multiple physical locations.

17. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2) in that 

this is the judicial district in which Defendant resides, and in which a substantial part of the acts 

and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over FARM STORES FRANCHISING, LLC 

pursuant to, inter alia, Florida’s long arm statute F.S. § 48.193, in that Defendant: (a) operates, 

conducts, engages in, and/or carries on a business or business ventures (s) in Florida and/or has an 

office or agency in Florida; (b) has committed one or more tortious acts within Florida; (c) was 

and/or is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within Florida; and/or (d) has purposely 

availed itself of Florida’s laws, services and/or benefits and therefore should reasonably anticipate 

being hailed into one or more of the courts within the State of Florida.

PARTIES

19. Plaintiff, Windy Lucius, is and, at all times relevant hereto, was a resident of the 

State of Florida, Miami-Dade County. Plaintiff is and, at all times relevant hereto, has been legally 

blind and is therefore a member of a protected class under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) and the 

regulations implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq.
6

20. Defendant FARM STORES FRANCHISING, LLC, owns, operates and maintains 

multiple stores called FARM STORES, within the Southern District of Florida, either through 

franchisees, affiliates, partners or other entities. Defendant’s store sells groceries and other goods

to the public. Defendant also offers those items to the public through its app. Defendant’s store is 

a public accommodation and the accompanying app is a service of a public accommodation. They

work collectively and are public accommodations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E).

FACTS

21. Defendant owns, operates and controls an app from which it sells groceries and 

other goods. They sell those same goods from their corresponding brick and mortar stores. 

Defendant’s app also helps users locate stores, view pricing and specials, shop, and a variety of 

other functions.

22. Defendant’s app is a nexus to a place of public accommodation pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E). Therefore, under the ADA, Defendant must ensure that individuals with 

disabilities have access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services offered on its app.

23. Blind and visually impaired individuals may access apps by using accessibility 

features in conjunction with screen reader software that converts text to audio. Screen reader 

software provides the primary method by which a visually impaired person may independently use 

the internet. Unless the app is designed to be accessed with screen reader software, visually 

impaired individuals are unable to fully access app and the information, products, and services 

available through the app.

24. The international app standards organization, W3C, has published WCAG 2.1 A 

and WCAG 2.1 AA (Version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines). WCAG 2.1 A and 

WCAG 2.1 AA provide widely accepted guidelines for making apps accessible to individuals with 

disabilities and compatible with screen reader software. These guidelines have been endorsed by 
7

the United States Department of Justice and numerous U.S. District Courts.

25. Plaintiff is legally blind and uses VoiceOver screen reader software (hereinafter, 

“Plaintiff’s software”) in order to access app content. Plaintiff’s software is themost popular screen 

reader software utilized worldwide by visually impaired individuals for Apple tablets and phones.

26. Despite several attempts, Defendant’s app did not integrate with Plaintiff’s 

software, nor was there any function within the app to permit access for visually impaired 

individuals through other means. Her shopping attempts were rendered futile because the app was 

inaccessible. Therefore, Plaintiff was denied the full use and enjoyment of the goods and services 

available on Defendant’s app as a result of access barriers on the app. For example, VoiceOver 

users cannot select a pickup time. The color selector is not accessible. Fields, such as the quantity 

field, are not labeled.

27. Defendant’s app does not meet the WCAG 2.1 A level of accessibility. As to 

WCAG guideline 1.1.1 – Non-Text Content, the app should provide text alternatives for non-text 

content. Here, the images are announced as a series of numbers and letters which do not give 

context of the image itself. As to WCAG guideline 1.4.1 – Use of Color, the app should not use 

presentation that relies solely on color. Here, the visual color which defines the state of the 

currently selected category is not provided for Voiceover users. A VoiceOver user is not provided 

with the information to know which one is currently selected. As to WCAG guideline 2.4.3 – Focus 

Order, the app should provide focus in a logical order that preserves meaning and operability. 

Here, as a user is navigating between pages, the focus transitions to the element on the screen 

closest to the focused element, which was pressed on the previous screen. The focus is not in an 

intuitive area, like a heading of a section. This means they start some pages in the middle of the 

page, as opposed to the top, and will have to swipe backwards first in order to hear all page content. 
8

As to WCAG guideline 3.3.2 – Labels or Instructions, elements should be labeled and give 

instructions. Here, there is no label for the quantity input field and the accessible text for the 

surrounding buttons do not help to provide context of its purpose. As to WCAG guideline 4.1.2 –

Name, Role, Value, all elements should be built for accessibility. Here, when trying to select a 

later time for pickup, the numbers were focusable but were unresponsive when pressed, so the user 

could not change the time.

28. Defendant’s app does not meet the WCAG 2.1 AA level of accessibility. As to 

WCAG guideline 4.1.3 – Status Messages, if a status message is presented and focus is not set to 

that message then the message must be announced to screen reader users. Here, when an item is 

successfully added to the cart there is a visible status message to confirm, but this message is 

neither announced nor given keyboard focus.

29. By failing to adequately design and program its app to accurately and sufficiently 

integrate with VoiceOver, Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff and others with visual 

impairments on the basis of a disability by denying them full and equal enjoyment of the app, in 

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) and C.F.R. § 36.201.

30. As a result of Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiff was unable to use Defendant’s 

app and suffered an injury in fact including loss of dignity, mental anguish and other tangible 

injuries.

31. The barriers on the app have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access 

multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff from attempting to use Defendant’s app.

32. If Defendant’s app were accessible, Plaintiff could independently research, review 

and purchase food and other grocery items from Defendant’s stores online, as well as utilize the 

otherfunctions on the app.
9

33. Plaintiff believes that although Defendant may have centralized policies regarding 

the maintenance and operation of its app, Defendant has never had a plan or policy that is 

reasonable calculated to make its app fully accessible to, and independently usable by, people with 

visual impairments.

34. Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other visually impaired individuals will 

continue to be unable to independently use Defendant’s app in violation of their rights under the

ADA.

SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION

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

35. The allegations contained in the previous paragraphs are incorporated by reference.

36. Section 302(a) of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides: “No 

individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of a disability in the full and equal enjoyment 

the goods, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public 

accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public 

accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

37. Defendant’s stores are public accommodations and the accompanying app is a 

service of a public accommodations within the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §

12181(7)(E).

38. Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to 

deny individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods,

services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of an entity. 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(A)(i).

39. Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to 
10

deny individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations, which is equal to the opportunities 

afforded to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).

40. Under Section 302(b)(2) of Title III of the ADA, unlawful discrimination also 

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; and 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 good, service, facility, privilege, 

advantage or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue 

burden.

42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (iii); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(a).

41. Title III requires that “[a] public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary 

aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with 

disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1). The regulations set forth numerous examples of “auxiliary 

aids and services,” including “...accessible electronic and information technology; or other 

effective methods of making visually delivered materials available to individuals who are blind or 

have low vision.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b).

42. The acts alleged herein constitute violations of Title III of the ADA, and the 

regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is legally blind and has a disability that

substantially limits the major life activity of seeing within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§

12102(1)(A) and (2)(A), has been denied full and equal access to Defendant’s app. Plaintiff has 
11

not been afforded the goods, services, privileges and advantages that are provided to other patrons 

who are not disabled, and/or has been provided goods, services, privileges and advantages that are 

inferior to those provided to non-disabled persons. These violations are ongoing as Defendant has 

failed to make any prompt and equitable changes to its app and policies in order to remedy its 

discriminatory conduct.

43. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12188 and the remedies, procedures and rights set forth and 

incorporated therein, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and on behalf of others similarly situated 

requests relief as set forth below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated prays for:

a. 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 app is fully accessible to, 

and independently usable by, blind individuals;

b. 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 brings its app into full 

compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing 

regulations, so that its app 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 Defendant to remain fully in compliance 

with the law;

c. Payment of costs of suit;

d. Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR

§ 36.505; and,

e. The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and 

appropriate.
12

Dated: March 24, 2020

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74TH Court, Suite 2201

Miami, FL 33156

T: 305-351-2014

cc@cunninghampllc.com