1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

Case Number:__________________-CIV-_____________________

RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERMIX HOLDCO INC.

d/b/a Intermix,

Defendant.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Raymond T. Mahlberg (“Plaintiff “or “Mahlberg”), by and 

through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Permanent Injunctive Relief pursuant to 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§s 12181-12189 

(“ADA”), 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202 as well as 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations. Plaintiff states as 

follows.

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question jurisdiction, as 

provided in 28 U.S.C. §1331 and the provisions of the ADA. 

2. Plaintiff is a visually impaired and legally blind person (disabled) who requires 

assistance through screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Plaintiff 

uses the term “blind” or “visually impaired” as legally blind. Disable as defined by ADA and 

Amendment acts of 2008, 42 USC §12101 (ADAAA). 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 20
2

3. In the statutory text, Congress determined that "individuals with disabilities 

continually encounter various forms of discrimination," including "communication barriers". 42 

U.S.C. § 12182(a).

4. Defendant’s adjunct website https://www.intermixonline.com/ and specifically the 

Florida website https://www.intermixonline.com/ (the “Website” or “Defendant’s website”) is 

not fully or equally accessible to blind or visually impaired consumers in violation of the

“ADA.” As a result, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in INTERMIX 

HOLDCO INC. (“Defendant” or “INTERMIX”) policies, practices and procedures so that 

Defendant’s website will become, and remain, accessible to blind. Plaintiff seeks injunctive 

relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, including, but not limited to, court costs and expert fees, 

pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§s 

12181-12189 (“ADA”) and 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a). See also 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 as well as 

ADA 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations.

5. Throughout the ADA, "auxiliary aids and services" refers to techniques and devices 

to overcome barriers in communicating with people who have visual and hearing impairments, 

among other things. See 42 U.S.C. 12103(1). 

6. Implementing these provisions, see 42 U.S.C. § 12186(b), the Attorney General's 

Title III regulations require public accommodations to "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 specifically list "screen reader software," 

"magnification software," and "accessible electronic and information technology" as among the 

auxiliary aids that the statute requires. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(2).

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 20
3

7. Plaintiff is sui juris and he is disabled as defined by the ADA and ADA Amendments 

Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 (“ADAAA”). Defendant’s failure to design, construct, maintain, 

and operate its website https://www.intermixonline.com/ to be fully and equally accessible to and 

independently usable by Plaintiff, constitutes in Defendants’ denial of full and equal access to its 

website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby in conjunction with its 

physical location(s), resulting in a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

8. Defendant owns and operates the website and INTERMIX stores that are located in

Florida. 

9. Plaintiff Raymond T. Mahlberg, a blind veteran of the U.S. military, residing in 

Orlando, Florida brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act in Federal Court. 8. 

Blind and visually impaired citizens must use screen reading software1 or other assistive 

technologies in order to access website content. 

10. Plaintiff cannot use his computer and mobile device browser without the assistance of 

appropriate and available screen reader software to understand websites. 

11. Defendant’s Website contains digital source code barriers where screen-readers for 

the blind do not work. 

12. This case arises out of the fact that Defendant INTERMIX HOLDCO INC. has 

operated its business in a manner and way that effectively excludes individuals who are visually 

impaired from access to Defendants’ https://www.intermixonline.com/ website based upon 

Defendant’s failure to provide auxiliary aids and services for effective communications. 

																																																																		 1 “screen	reader”	is	a	software	application	that	enables	people	with	severe	visual impairments	to	use	a	computer.	

Screen	 readers	 work	 closely	 with	 the	 computer's	 Operating	 System	 (OS)	 to	 provide	 information	 about	 icons,	

menus,	dialogue	boxes,	files	and	folders.

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 20
4

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

14. Plaintiff, a legally blind person, is impeded to access and communicate with 

Defendant effectively and timely such that allowing access to Defendants’ various business 

locations; as such impediment as rendered Defendants’ physical places of accommodation not 

fully accessible to the visually impaired.

15. Plaintiff has attempted to access Defendant’s Website in the past and intends to 

continue to attempt to access Defendant’s Website https://www.intermixonline.com/.

16. 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 Website

https://www.intermixonline.com/, Plaintiff will continue to be denied full access to the 

INTERMIX’s website. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. Plaintiff resides in Orlando, Florida and regularly travels to Palm Beach, to visit his 

friends and family where they go shopping. Defendant has several stores in the State of Florida, 

including stores in South Florida. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), in the 

Southern District of Florida where defendant resides and substantial part of the events giving rise 

to the claims occurred, Personal jurisdiction exists when the Defendant purposefully availed 

itself of the conducting activities within the forum State.

18. Plaintiff’s claims asserted herein arose in this judicial district.

19. Plaintiff is a resident of Orlando, FL 32817. Plaintiff was told that there are several 

INTERMIX stores in his area. 

20. This is an action injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (“ADA”), 28 C.F.R. § 36.201 and to prevent 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 20
5

discrimination, which includes equal access and effective communications with Defendants’ 

business. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 

21. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Defendant has been and 

is committing the acts or omissions alleged herein in the Southern District of Florida that caused 

injury, and violated rights prescribed by the ADA to Plaintiff. A substantial part of the acts and 

omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Southern District of Florida. 

Specifically, on several separate occasions, Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment 

of the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s website in Palm Beach County, Florida. The 

access barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s website have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s 

full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from 

accessing Defendant’s website. Plaintiff would like to become Defendant’s patron and access the 

Defendant’s website in the near future but the barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s 

website have impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered at 

Defendant’s brick-and mortar stores. Defendant INTERMIX is authorized to conduct, and is 

conducting, business within the State of Florida and within the jurisdiction of this court.

THE PARTIES

22. Plaintiff Mahlberg is a resident of the State of Florida. Plaintiff resides in Orlando. 

Mahlberg is legally blind, and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Whereby, he has a 

disability within the meaning of 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). Plaintiff suffered an 

assault to the back of his head in 2004 which caused damage and atrophy of the optic nerve, and 

as a consequence, is legally blind. Plaintiff is a legally blind individual who has a physical 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 20
6

impairment that substantially limits the major life activity of seeing. Accordingly, he has a 

disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Plaintiff is a 

qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), 29 U.S. Code 

§ 794 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 

23. Plaintiff cannot use the computer without the assistance of screen reader software.

Mahlberg is a proficient user of the JAWS and NVDA screen-reader to access the Internet. 

"JAWS,” or "Job Access With Speech" is the most popular screen reading software for 

Windows-based computers. For screen-reading software to work, the information on a website or 

on a mobile application must be capable of being rendered into text. Usually, this means that 

graphics and embedded hyperlinks must include alternative text (known as "alt-text") a 

description of the image that appears when a cursor floats over it or screen-reading software 

detects it. 

24. INTERMIX HOLDCO INC. is a Foreign Profit Corporation. Defendant is the owner

and operator of a chain of stores under the brand name INTERMIX and his merchandise are 

distributed to hundreds of affiliated and authorized retailers. Defendant has several stores in 

Florida, including INTERMIX located at 218 Worth Ave, Palm Beach FL 33480 and	the Town 

Center at Boca Raton in Florida.

25. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant INTERMIX

owns, operates, and/or manages the day-to-day affairs and stores of INTERMIX stores that are

operating within South Florida.

26. Plaintiff believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants INTERMIX corporate 

affiliates and/or related entities, actively engaged in the sale of clothing in various states 

throughout the country, including Florida. 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 20
7

27. Plaintiff is further informed that said company is a foreign profit corporation from 

Italy. Defendant’s headquarters and principal corporate offices located in San FranciscoCalifornia. Said Defendant entities will hereinafter collectively be referred to as “INTERMIX” 

“the Defendant Company” or, where appropriate, “Defendant.”

FACTS

28. Defendant is defined as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title III 

because Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates “[A] bakery, grocery store, 

clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales establishment,” 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(5). 

29. Each of Defendant’s INTERMIX’s stores are open to the public and each is a place 

of Public Accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA and its 

implementing regulation as “[A] bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping 

center, or other sales establishment,” as defined by 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E); §12182, and 28 

C.F.R. Part 36. 

30. INTERMIX stores offer clothing for men and women for sale to the general public.

31. Defendant has control over its website and mobile application, and/or operates its 

web pages, including image and data content. Defendant owns and operate the domain name 

https://www.intermixonline.com/ that is configured for use by mobile devices such as 

smartphones, as well as regular computer laptops and desktops to access Defendant’s website. 

32. One of the functions of Defendant’s website (available in mobile or computer 

version) is to provide the public information on the various locations of Defendant’s stores that 

sell merchandise. The other function of the website is to sell Defendant’s merchandise. 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 20
8

33. Defendant’s Website is offered by Defendant as a way for the public to communicate 

with INTERMIX’s merchandise. Defendant’s Website also permits the public to register and 

create an account allows the general public to order and purchase clothing, provides information 

about its merchandise, and (among other things) provides: customer service, locate stores, buy 

bags and shoes online or at the physical store. 

34. The Website is an integral part of the goods and services offered by Defendant’s 

store, because website and physical stores are heavily integrated, since the website allows the 

public the ability to locate Defendant’s stores, retail locations and sells merchandise.

35. The website is an extension of defendant’s physical stores. By this nexus, between the 

store and the Website is characterized as a Place of Public Accommodation pursuant to Title III, 

42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E) of the ADA. 

36. Plaintiff is a customer of INTERMIX’s clothing merchandise and his intent to buy 

clothing and fashion merchandise from INTERMIX’s stores. Plaintiff is a clothing lover, thru his 

inquiries he learned there are some INTERMIX’s stores in his area. 

37. As a result of Plaintiff being legally blind, before he embarks on any venture from his 

home, he studies the location where he is seeking to patronize through using the Internet. In the 

case of Plaintiff’s investigation of INTERMIX’s store locations, Plaintiff went to defendant’s 

Website to learn (1) how to navigate to and from INTERMIX’s store locations; (2) the cost of 

INTERMIX’s clothing merchandise; (3) times and hours of operation INTERMIX’s stores in his 

area, so he can arrange transportation with the intent of purchasing INTERMIX’s clothing, (4) 

the exclusive online deals (5) and privacy policy.

38. Like most consumers, Plaintiff accesses numerous websites at a time to compare 

features, models, quality and prices.

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 8 of 20
9

39. During the plaintiff’s several visits to the website using JAWS and NVDA

(computer) and Voiceover (mobile) occurring in March 2, 2020 and the last in June 19, 2020, 

the plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the plaintiff full and equal access to 

the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that 

denied the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and services of the website, as well 

as to the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s locations.

40. Plaintiff was impeded to patronize INTERMIX stores by Plaintiff being unable to 

learn about INTERMIX location addresses, hours, fashion available online for sale, and the 

ability to create an online account, read the Return and Privacy Policy, among other things 

readily available to sighted individuals. 

41. Plaintiff called Defendant INTERMIX’s store to inquire about new arrivals of men 

clothing as well to find the location of stores in his area. Defendant’s representative failed to 

fully assist Plaintiff and referred him to its Website. Later, Plaintiff found out that the store he 

called was the one at the Boca Raton Town Center, FL.

42. Following communications with Defendant’s representative, Plaintiff attempted to 

utilize Defendant’s Website as instructed by Defendant’s representative. 

43. Defendant’s Website was inaccessible, so Plaintiff could not (among other things):

a. Find out about INTERMIX’s clothing for sale at the store and online;

b. Locate INTERMIX’s stores;

c. Learn about the INTERMIX’s men clothing and gift card for sale,

d. Learn about INTERMIX’s Privacy Policy;

e. Plaintiff attempted to locate an “Accessibility Notice” on Defendant’s mobile 

and computer website which would direct him to a webpage with contact information for 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 9 of 20
10

disabled individuals who have questions, concerns, or who are having difficulties 

communicating with the business. However, Plaintiff was unable to do so because no such link 

or notice was provided on Defendant’s website.

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT

44. The failure to access the information needed precluded Plaintiff’s ability to patronize 

INTERMIX’s stores because, as a blind individual, Plaintiff needs to plan his outings out in 

detail in order to have the proper financing for a venture, and insure that he arrives at a given 

location.

45. Title III provides that “no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of 

disability” in “any place of Public Accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). As defined in Title 

III, the term “public accommodation” includes a “store and sales establishment” Id. § 

12181(7)(E). Defendant INTERMIX owns and operates stores, the INTERMIX stores.

46. Technology evolves, in these days, consumers are doing most of their shopping 

online. Defendant’s provision of an e-commerce website is an essential part of the services 

offered and is no different than the customer service to the public as part of INTERMIX stores 

services, privileges and benefit to the public. 

47. Title III ADA Part 36 regulation was amended to integrate section 36.303 Auxiliary 

Aids and Services “A public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services 

where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.”

48. By this nexus, the website https://www.intermixonline.com/ is characterized as an 

intangible service, privilege and advantage provided by INTERMIX a place of Public 

Accommodation (INTERMIX’s stores) as defined under the ADA, and thus its website is an 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 10 of 20
11

extension of INTERMIX services, privileges and advantages made available to the general 

public by Defendant through its retail brick and mortar stores.

49. Defendant’s Website is not designed with consideration for WCAG, Accessible Rich 

Internet Applications (ARIA) software language and Universal design2. This means that images 

and embedded hyperlinks must include alternative description text (known as "alt-text") a 

description of the image that appears when a cursor floats over it or screen-reading software 

detects it. The World Wide Web Consortium (the principal standards-setting body for the web) 

has issued a set of "Web Content Accessibility Guide-lines" (WCAG) to assist developers in 

making their websites accessible to blind people and other individuals with disabilities.

50. Plaintiff’s expectation of participating in INTERMIX website, services and privileges 

was eliminated since he could not access Defendant’s https://www.intermixonline.com/ website 

at all to avail himself of the latest services which Defendant offers to the public. 

51. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s website have caused a 

denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a 

regular basis from accessing Defendant’s website https://www.intermixonline.com/.

52. Plaintiff would like to become Defendant’s patron and access the Defendant’s 

website in the near future but the barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s 

https://www.intermixonline.com/ website have impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of 

goods and services offered at Defendant’s brick-and mortar stores.

53. The fact that Plaintiff could not access the Defendant’s Website and could not 

comprehend the electronic pages contained therein, left Plaintiff excluded from accessing 

																																																																		 2

Following	universal	design principles	in	creating	a	website provides	access	to	all	users	regardless	of	their	abilities,	

their	disabilities,	or	 the	limitations	of	 their	equipment	and	software.	Washington	University.	 “Universal	design	is	

the	design	of	products	and	environments	to	be	usable	by	all	people,	to	the	greatest	extent	possible,	without	the	

need	for	adaption	or	specialized	design.”	Kalbag,	Laura	(2017).

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 11 of 20
12

INTERMIX stores, goods and services available from Defendant and further left him with the 

feeling of segregation, rejection, isolation, and unable to participate in his own business 

affairs (such as in this case clothing merchandise) in a manner equal to that afforded to others 

who are not similarly disabled. 

54. Plaintiff’s inability to fully use Defendant’s Website therein has hindered, impeded 

and inhibited Plaintiff’s access to Defendants physical store locations. Plaintiff has suffered as a 

result and has suffered particularized harm and an injury in fact.

55. Plaintiff cannot make proper arrangements for transportation of himself to the 

INTERMIX’s store locations without the ability to know in advance the INTERMIX’s

merchandise, goods and services which service is available online through Defendant’s Website. 

Plaintiff also faces a great degree of uncertainty of how to physically travel to Defendant’s 

INTERMIX’s store location. Plaintiff is effectively denied the ability to physically travel to 

Defendant’s INTERMIX’s store. 

56. Plaintiff has a concrete plan to purchase INTERMIX’s brand merchandise when he is 

treated like other members of the public. Consequently, the Plaintiff is unable to determine the 

cost of Defendant’s goods and services, including becoming informed about the INTERMIX’s

brand merchandise available for purchase. 

57. By denying Plaintiff the opportunity to comprehend INTERMIX’s Website and 

mobile application therein due to Plaintiff’s disability (visual impairment), Defendant has denied 

Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in or benefit from Defendant’s goods and services as 

afforded to the public. 

58. Plaintiff will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant’s omissions, 

policies, and practices set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court. 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 12 of 20
13

59. On information and belief, Defendant has not offered any form of website and mobile 

application in an accessible format for blind or visually impaired individuals. 

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

privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided at its stores and authorized retailers.

61. All Public Accommodations must insure that their Places of Public Accommodation 

provide Effective Communication for all members of the general public, including individuals 

with disabilities.

62. On information and belief, Defendant is aware of the common access barriers and 

barriers to effective communication within its Website and the electronic pages/data therein 

which prevent individuals with disabilities who are visually impaired from the means to 

comprehend the information presented therein. 

63. Defendant and alike retailers are fully aware of need to provide full access to all 

visitors to its Website as Department of Justice published several communications stating that 

the website is an auxiliary-aid of the physical stores and must be accessible. (September 25, 2018 

letter from Assistant Attorney General) and Title III ADA 28 C.F.R. § 36.303.

64. Binding case law increasingly recognize that private entities are providing goods and 

services to the public through the websites that operate as places of Public Accommodation 

under Title III. 

65. A person who cannot see, like the Plaintiff in this case, cannot go to Defendant’s 

website and avail themselves of the same privileges. Thus, the Plaintiff has suffered 

discrimination due to Defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s 

disability.

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 13 of 20
14

66. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs 

alleged hereinabove and this suit for injunctive relief is his only means to secure adequate 

redress from Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory practices. 

67. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of Defendant’s failure to cure the 

violations. Enforcement of the rights of Plaintiff is right and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 

2202. 

68. The Website is also a place of Public Accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E) as the public can purchase INTERMIX’s merchandise online through the Website 

(which meets the definition of “sales establishment‟). 

69. The Department of Justice has provided useful guidance regarding website 

accessibility under the ADA, and the binding and persuasive case law in this district has applied 

the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 or 2.1 to determine accessibility. 

70. Types of website source-code programming errors include (but are not limited to)

source-code errors which are easily identifiable and are prone to making the website

inaccessible, that create empty headings and text fields that create confusion for a user that rely 

on the “TAB” key to navigate a web page. 

71. A sampling review of just part of it revealed that the Website is not functional for 

users who are visually impaired. The Website contains several types of errors, easily identifiable 

and correctable, which occur throughout the Website such as:

a. Each a element must contain text or an img with an alt attribute. WCAG 2.0 A 

F89;

b. img elements must have an accessible name. WCAG 2.0 A F65;

c. All fieldset elements should be labeled with legend elements. WCAG 2.0 A H71;

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 14 of 20
15

d. Content inserted with CSS is not read by some screen readers, and not available 

to people who turn off style sheets. WCAG 2.0 A F87;

e. Form control HTML has no label. WCAG 2.0 A F68.

72. More violations may be present on webpages of the Website, and they will be 

determined and proven through the discovery process and expert audit.

73. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA is right and just pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Title III ADA Subpart E Section 36.501.

74. Plaintiff has retained the law office of Acacia Barros, Esq. and has agreed to pay a 

reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of this cause, including costs and expenses 

incurred. Plaintiff is entitled to have reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses paid by 

Defendant INTERMIX.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

75. 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 

Regulation. 

76. Under Section 302(b)(1) 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). 

77. Under Section 302(b)(1) of Title III of the ADA, it is unlawful discrimination to deny 

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

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 15 of 20
16

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities afforded 

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

78. 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 the 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).

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

regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is a member of a protected class of persons 

under the ADA, has a physical disability that substantially limits the major life activity of sight 

within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A)-(2)(A). Furthermore, Plaintiff has been denied 

full and equal access to the Website, has not been provided services that are provided to other 

patrons who are not disabled, and has been provided services that are inferior to the services 

provided to non-disabled persons. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to 

remedy its discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing. 

80. In addition, Defendant’s representatives within its store locations have referred 

customers to Defendant’s Website. By Defendant’s representatives referring the public visually 

impaired individuals to its Website for basic information needed to shop at a INTERMIX store, 

instead of providing such information at the physical store locations, the Website has been 

rendered an integral part of Defendant’s physical store locations. Thus, the failure of that 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 16 of 20
17

Website contained therein to be accessible to visually impaired individuals impedes visually 

impaired individuals (such as Plaintiff) from access to Defendant’s physical store locations.

81. The ADA applies to the Defendant’s Website, as the Website is a place of Public 

Accommodation for the following reasons: (1) the statutory construction of the ADA 

demonstrates its applicability is not limited to physical “brick and mortar” locations; (2) 

Congress‟ intent was for the ADA to be responsive to changes in technology; and (3) the 

Department of Justice has interpreted the ADA to apply to websites. 

82. No notice is required because 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.

83. Defendant is in violation of the ADA by creating barriers for individuals with 

disabilities who are visually impaired and who require the assistance of interface with screen 

reader software to comprehend and access websites and electronic documents. These violations 

are ongoing.

84. As a result of the inadequate development and administration of Defendant’s 

Website, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12133 and §12188, also 

28 C.F.R. §36.501 to remedy the discrimination.

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

Mahlberg injunctive relief; including an order to:

a) Require Defendant take the necessary steps to make the Website readily 

accessible to and usable by visually impaired users, and during that time 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 17 of 20
18

period prior to the https://www.intermixonline.com/ website’s being readily 

accessible, to provide a temporary alternative method for individuals with 

visual impairments to access the information available on the Website until 

such time that the requisite modifications are made. Title III American with 

Disabilities Act Part 36 Regulation;

b) Require Defendant to provide periodic maintenance of the accessible website 

thru the appropriate auxiliary aids such that individuals with visual 

impairments will be able to always receive effectively communication with 

the Website for purposes of viewing and locating INTERMIX stores and 

becoming informed of and signing up for INTERMIX merchandise online, 

and of viewing electronic documents provided to the public within 

Defendant’s Website; 

c) During the time period prior to the Website’s being designed to permit 

individuals with visual impairments to effectively communicate, requiring 

Defendant to provide an alternative method for individuals with visual 

impairments to effectively communicate so they are not impeded from 

obtaining the goods and services made available to the public. Title III ADA 

Part 36 Regulation.

86. For all of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG hereby demands judgment 

against Defendant “INTERMIX Holdco Inc.” and requests the following injunctive relief 

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 18 of 20
19

permanently enjoin Defendant from any practice, policy and/or procedure which will deny 

Plaintiff equal access to, and benefit from Defendant’s services and goods, as well as the Court:

a. That the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the 

Defendants' website at the commencement of the subject lawsuit is in 

violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 

12181 et seq.; 

b. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendants to continually update and 

maintain their computer version of the defendant’s website and INTERMIX’s

website to ensure that it remains fully accessible to and usable by visually 

impaired individuals; 

c. That the Court issue an Injunctive relief order directing Defendants to alter 

their website to make it accessible to, and useable by, individuals with 

disabilities to the full extent required by Title III of the ADA; 

d. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendants to evaluate and neutralize 

their policies and procedures towards persons with disabilities for such 

reasonable time so as to allow Defendants to undertake and complete 

corrective procedures;

e. That the Court enter an award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205; and Title III of the ADA Section 36.505.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions 

of fact the Complaint raises. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for all claims so triable.

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 19 of 20
20

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 26, 2020.

s/Acacia Barros

Attorney for Plaintiff

ACACIA BARROS, P.A.

Acacia Barros, Esq.

FBN: 106277

11120 N. Kendall Dr., Suite 201

Miami, Florida 33176

Tel: 786-319-0002

ab@barroslawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 26th day of June 2020 that the foregoing document has been

filed using CM/ECF system and will be served via email when Defendant’s counsel 

enters an appearance.

Case 9:20-cv-81012-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 20 of 20