UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

Plaintiff, WINDY LUCIUS, (“Plaintiff”), hereby sues the Defendant, BURGERFI 

INTERNATIONAL, LLC (“Defendant”), a foreign limited liability company doing business in 

Florida, for Injunctive Relief, and attorney’s fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (“ADA”).

1. Plaintiff is a Florida resident, livesin Miami-Dade County, issui juris, and qualifies 

as an individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA, Chapter 11-A of the Miami-Dade County 

Code of Ordinances and the Florida Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff is blind and therefore unable to fully 

engage in and enjoy the major life activity ofseeing.

2. Plaintiff also utilizes the internet. Plaintiff is unable to read computer materials 

and/or access and comprehend internet website information without software specially designed

forthe visually impaired. Specifically, Plaintiff utilizesthe JAWS Screen Reader software, which is 

one of the most popular reader Screen Reader Software ("SRS") utilized worldwide.

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 

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 1 of 11
2

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

4. Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation as 

defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104, the 

Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances and the Florida Civil Rights Act. The place of public

accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, or leases is located in Miami-Dade County.

5. Subsequent to the effective date of the ADA, the Miami-Dade County Code of 

Ordinances and the Florida Civil Rights Act, Defendant constructed, or caused to be constructed, a 

website located at http://www.burgerfi.com (hereinafter “website”). Defendant is the owner, 

operator, lessor and/or lessee of the website. This website supports, is an extension of, is in 

conjunction with, is complementary and supplemental to, the above-referenced public

accommodation. This website provides information about Defendant's public accommodation,

including information about the special sales, goods,services, accommodations, privileges, benefits

and facilities available to patrons at physical locations. On information and belief, Defendant also 

continually and/or periodically updates and maintains the website.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

6. Venue lies in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and 

Local Rule 3.1, in that the original transaction or occurrence giving rise to this cause of action 

occurred in this District.

7. This Court has personal jurisdiction over BURGERFI INTERNATIONAL, 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 

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 2 of 11
3

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.

8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, this Court has been given 

original jurisdiction over actions which arise from the Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202 

and supplemental jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

COUNT ONE - VIOLATION OF

TITLE III OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILTITIES ACT

9. The website is an extension of Defendant's place of public accommodation. By and 

through this website, Defendant extends its public accommodation into individual persons' homes, 

portable devices and personal computers wherever located. The website is a service, facility, 

privilege, advantage, benefit and accommodation of Defendant's place of accommodation. The

website also provides access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or 

accommodations of the place of public accommodation. For example, the website provides a menu 

of items served in the restaurant; restaurant locations, the ability to make reservations online. As 

such, the website has integrated with and is a nexus to the brick and mortar location. Therefore, it 

is governed by the following provisions:

a. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(a) provides: “No individual shall be discriminated 

against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, 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.”

b. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(A)(i) provides: “It shall be discriminatory to 

subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such 

individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial 

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 3 of 11
4

of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity[.]”

c. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides: “Itshall be discriminatory to 

afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such 

individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with the 

opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or

accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals[.]”

d. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii) provides: “Itshall be discriminatory to 

provide an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such 

individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements with a good, 

service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is different or separate from that

provided to other individuals, unless such action is necessary to provide the individual or class of

individuals with a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other 

opportunity that is as effective as that provided to others[.]”

e. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(B) provides: “Goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages, and accommodations shall be afforded to an individual with a disability in 

the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual.”

f. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(1)(C) provides: “Notwithstanding the existence 

of separate or different programs or activities provided in accordance with this section, an

individual with a disability shall not be denied the opportunity to participate in such programs or

activitiesthat are notseparate or different.”

g. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(ii) describes as discrimination: “a failure to 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 4 of 11
5

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[.]”

h. 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(iii) describes as discrimination: “a failureto 

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[.]”

10. As the owner or operator of the subject website, Defendant is required to comply 

with the ADA and the provisions cited above. This includes an obligation to create and maintain a

website that is accessible to and usable by visually impaired persons so that they can enjoy full and 

equal access to the website and the content therein, including the ability to place orders through 

the website for pickup at a designated location.

11. Plaintiff attempted to access and/or utilize Defendant's website, but was unable to, 

and she continues to be unable to enjoy full and equal access to the website and/or understand the

content therein because numerous portions of the website do not interface with and are not

readable by SRS. More specifically, features of the website that are inaccessible to the visually 

impaired include, but are not limited to, the following: Required fields are not indicated on the 

form. Skip navigation is not available when a user navigates to the Rewards page. This section 

allows users to view their balance, sign-up, login, etc. but Skip Navigation is not available. The 

Menu item is announced as "blank." The Login and Signup buttons are not announced. Keyboard 

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 5 of 11
6

only and screen-reader users cannot access these items. When there are missing or incomplete 

fields, users receive the same generic error message for all conditions. If a field is blank or 

incomplete, the user will not receive a notice informing them of the specific field and the specific 

issue. Instead, the user receives a note to fill in the contact information but it does not describe the 

specific fields or what issues must be overcome. The quantity field is not labeled. The slider at the 

bottom of the Rewards page contains images with text, but users only hear that a generic image is

present. None of the text in the image, including dollar amounts, status, or redemption amounts, 

are announced. The Choose Location link causes a dialog to open. This dialog is not announced 

nor is the content read to screen-reader users. A user who attempts to choose a new location will 

not be able to move forward since they are not aware that the dialog box is present.

12. Plaintiff continues to attempt to utilize the website and/or plans to continue to 

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

website in the near future, as a tester, to ascertain whether it has been updated to interact properly 

with screen reader software.

13. As more specifically set forth above, Defendant has violated the above cited 

provisions of the ADA by failing to interface its website with software utilized by visually 

impaired individuals. Thus, Defendant has violated the following provisions either directly or 

through contractual, licensing or other arrangements with respect to Plaintiff and other similarly 

situated individuals on the basis of their disability:

a. by depriving them of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of its place of public accommodation (42 

U.S.C. § 12182(a));

b. in the denial of the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, 

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 6 of 11
7

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(i));

c. in affording them the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, 

service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other 

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

d. by providing them a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or 

accommodation that is different or separate from that provided to other individuals, unlesssuch

action is necessary to provide the individual or class of individuals with a good, service, facility, 

privilege, advantage, or accommodation, or other opportunity that is as effective as that provided

to others (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii));

e. by failing to afford them goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 

and accommodations in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual (42 

U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(B));

f. notwithstanding the existence of separate or different programs or activities 

provided in accordance with this section, by denying them the opportunity to participate in such

programs or activitiesthat are notseparate or different.(42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(C));

g. by 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 (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(ii)); and,

h. by a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that they are not 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 7 of 11
8

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)(iii)).

14. Plaintiff has certain dietary restrictions. She would like to be a customer at 

Defendant’s brick and mortar location but before she goes to the restaurant, she would like to 

determine what is available for her dining selections that would meet her dietary restrictions. In 

that regard, Plaintiff continues to attempt to utilize the website and/or plans to continue to attempt 

to utilize the website on a monthly basis to order food and make online reservations for in store 

dining.

15. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's website and is aware 

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

unless she is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

16. Plaintiff hassuffered, and continuesto suffer,frustration and humiliation asthe result 

of the discriminatory conditions present at Defendant's website. By continuing to operate its 

website 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 website, and knowing that it would be a futile gesture to 

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

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 a 

website with violations, Defendant deprives plaintiff the equality of opportunity offered to the 

general public.

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

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 8 of 11
9

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

requirements of the ADA.

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

from the Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this website 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 website to

avail herself of the benefits, advantages, goods and services therein, and/or to assure herself that

this website is in compliance with the ADA so that she and others similarly situated will have full 

and equal enjoyment of the website without fear of discrimination.

19. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated will continue to suffer such 

discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief provided by the ADA as requested 

herein.

20. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm. 

Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees, costs and

litigation expensesfrom the Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR 36.505.

21. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant Plaintiff 

Injunctive Relief, including an order to require the Defendant to alter its website to make it readily 

accessible to and usable by Plaintiff and other persons with vision impairment.

22. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the undersigned 

counsel for the filing and prosecution of this action. Plaintiff is entitled to have her reasonable

attorneys' fees, costs and litigation expenses paid by Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205.

COUNT TWO – NEGLIGENCE PER SE

23. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraph 1 through 22 of 

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 9 of 11
10

this complaint as if fully stated herein.

24. Under the ADA, Chapter 11-A of the Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances and 

the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 Defendant had a duty provide equal access to, and full and 

equal enjoyment of a public accommodation and services provided by Defendant.

25. Defendant willfully and knowingly breached this duty by failing to provide equal 

access to and full and equal enjoyment of specified public accommodation and services to Plaintiff, 

and has thus discriminated against Plaintiffs as a result thereof. 

26. As a result, Plaintiff was emotionally distraught and embarrassed on numerous 

occasions.

27. As a proximate cause of Defendant’s failure to maintain non-discriminatory 

policies and procedures, the Plaintiff has suffered harm due to Defendant’s actions and inactions. 

Specifically, Plaintiff has been unable to use the Defendant’s digital services and enjoy 

Defendant’s public accommodation because Defendant has failed to comply with laws and 

regulations intended to protect Plaintiff from unlawful discrimination (the Americans with 

Disabilities Act; Chapter 11-A of the Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances; and the Florida 

Civil Rights Act of 1992).

28. If Defendant had complied with these laws designed to protect Plaintiff from 

discrimination on the basis of disability, Plaintiff would not have suffered these harms.

29. Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for the damages resulting in Defendant’s 

breach of this duty.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:

a. TheCourt issue a DeclaratoryJudgment that determinesthat theDefendant's 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.;

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 10 of 11
11

b. TheCourt issue a DeclaratoryJudgment that determinesthat theDefendant's website 

is in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 

et seq.;

c. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant has violated the ADA by 

failing to monitor and maintain its website to ensure that it is readily accessible to 

and usable by persons with vision impairment;

d. That this Court issue an Order directing Defendant to alter its website to make it 

accessible to, and useable by, individuals with disabilities to the full extent required 

by Title III of the ADA within 90 days of the Court entering an order;

e. That this Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize its 

policies and procedures towards persons with disabilities for such reasonable time 

so as to allow Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures;

f. That this Court enter an Order directing Defendant to continually update and 

maintain its website to ensure that it remains fully accessible to and usable by 

visually impaired individuals;

g. That this Honorable Court grant monetary damages to compensate the Plaintiff 

for the costs incurred when Defendant wrongfully failed to provide a service 

that was equally accessible to persons with vision disabilities to compensate for 

the emotional distress, embarrassment and experienced due to Defendant’s 

breach of its duties; 

h. An award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

12205; and,

i. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under Title 

III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dated: June 26, 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

Case 1:20-cv-22661-DPG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/26/2020 Page 11 of 11