1

Case Number:__________________-CV-_____________________ 

ANDRES GOMEZ,

 Plaintiff

V.

TRUEWAY INSURANCE CORP., 

Defendant

________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION 

REQUIRING CHANGES TO CORPORATE POLICY AND THE ELIMINATION OF 

DIGITAL ACCESS BARRIERS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) 

ANDRES GOMEZ (“Plaintiff Gomez” or “Plaintiff”), seeks a permanent injunction requiring a 

change in TRUEWAY INSURANCE CORP., (“Defendant” or the “Company”) corporate polices to 

cause Defendant’s website to become, and remain, accessible and in support thereof asserts as follows:

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant and asserts that its website is not accessible

to blind and visually impaired consumers in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (the “ADA”) and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiff 

seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies related to its webbased technologies so that Defendant’s website will become, and will remain, accessible. The website 

at issue is www.truewayins.com (the “Website”).

2. While the increasing pervasiveness of digital information presents an 

unprecedented opportunity to increase access to goods and services for people with perceptual or motor 

disabilities, website developers and web content developers often implement digital technologies without 

regard to whether those technologies can be accessed by individuals with disabilities. This is 

notwithstanding the fact that accessible technology is both readily available and cost effective. As 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 10
2

detailed below, Defendant’s Website is once such instance.

3. Blind and visually impaired consumers must use screen reading software or other assistive 

technologies in order to access website content. 

4. Websites must be designed and maintained so screen reading software and other assistive 

technologies can be integrated into and utilized by disabled individuals.

5. Defendant’sWebsite contains digital barriers which limit the ability of blind and visually 

impaired consumers to access the Website via screen reader software, thus discriminating against 

disabled individuals with visual impairments, like Plaintiff.

6. Plaintiff has patronized Defendant’s Website in the past, and intends to continue to 

patronize Defendant’s Website. 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, Plaintiff will continue to be denied full access to the Website as described, and will be deterred 

from fully using Defendant’s Website and brick and mortar facilities.

7. Furthermore, adherence to an ongoing policy of maintaining accessibility for visually 

impaired users of Defendant’s Website is necessary because websites are typically upgraded and revised 

on a regular basis. If a continuing policy of maintaining accessibility for visually impaired individuals 

is not regularly enforced, it is likely Defendant’s Website will revert back to the inaccessible format 

which discriminated against Plaintiff and others with visual disabilities.

8. Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and seeks a permanent injunction requiring:

a) Defendant retain a qualified consultant acceptable to Plaintiff (“Mutually Agreed 

Upon Consultant”) who shall assist Defendant in improving the accessibility of the

Website so that it complies with version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (“WCAG 2.0 AA”);

b) Defendant works with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to ensure that all 

employees involved in website development and content development be given web 

accessibility training on a periodic basis calculated to achieve ongoing compliance 

with WCAG 2.0 AA;

c) Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to perform an automated 

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 2 of 10
3

accessibility audit on a periodic basis to evaluate whether Defendant’s Website 

continues to comply with WCAG 2.0 AA on an ongoing basis;

d) Defendant works with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to perform end-user 

accessibility/usability testing on a periodic basis with said testing to be performed 

by individuals with various disabilities to evaluate whether Defendants’ Website 

continues to comply with WCAG 2.0 AA on an ongoing basis; and

e) Defendant works with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to evaluate whether the

inaccessible website has been rendered accessible, and whether corporate policies 

related to web- based technologies have been changed in a meaningful manner that 

will cause the website to remain accessible, the website must be reviewed on periodic 

basis using both automated accessibility screening tools and end user testing by 

disabled individuals.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

9. This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 for Plaintiff’s 

claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 12188.

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

substantial business in this judicial district.

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

judicial district in which a substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

PARTIES 

12. Plaintiff Gomez and, at all times relevant hereto, has been a resident of the State of 

Florida. Plaintiff Gomez 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. 

13. Plaintiff is disabled as defined by the ADA as he is substantially limited in performing 

one or more major life activities in that he is limited in using his eyes for accurate sight. As such, 

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 3 of 10
4

Plaintiff is not able to readily utilize the information visually communicated by the Website and utilize 

any interactive applications on the Website without the use of appropriate screen reader software.

14. Plaintiff uses the term “legally blind” or “blind” to refer to persons with visual 

impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction 

of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some people who meet this definition have limited vision, whereas 

others have no vision.

15. Plaintiff is legally blind.

16. Defendant is a for profit company doing significant business in this judicial district.Defendant 

has physical brick and mortar locationsin this judicial district. 

17. Defendant owns, operates and maintains brick and mortar locations in the State of 

Florida which Plaintiff has attempted to frequent, and would successfully do so, if not for the digital 

barriers that impede his access to the location. 

18. Defendant’s physical locations offer goods and services to the public. Defendant also 

offers goods and services to the public through the Website. Defendant’s brick and mortar locations and 

website are integrated and are public accommodations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS

19. The Internet has become a significant source of information and a means for conducting 

everyday activities such as shopping, banking, etc. for both sighted and blind and visually-impaired 

persons, as well as individuals with other perceptual or motor disabilities.

20. Blind individuals may access websites by using keyboards in conjunction with screen 

reader software that converts text to audio. Screen reader software provides the primary method by 

which a blind person may independently use the Internet. 

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 4 of 10
5

21. Unless websites are designed to be read by screen reader software, blind individuals 

are unable to fully access websites and the information, products and services available through the 

website.

22. The international website standards organization, W3C, has published WCAG 2.0 AA. 

WCAG 2.0 AA provides widely accepted guidelines for making websites accessible to individuals 

with disabilities. These guidelines have been endorsed by the United States Department of Justice 

and numerous federal courts as essential for achieving accessibility for individuals with disabilities.

23. Defendant’s Website offers a description of services, promotions and other relevant 

information at the physical establishment and the option to schedule an appointment with a plan 

specialist using information gathered from the website.

24. Defendant’s Website also helps users locate physical establishments, view services 

offered including but not limited to, information on available insurance policies, which Plaintiff is 

entitled to access, enter e-mail and contact information for communication and perform a variety of 

other essential functions.

25. Plaintiff islegally blind and requires use of the screen reader software in order to access the 

Internet, read website content and interact with Defendant’s Website.

26. There is a physical nexus between Defendant’s Website and physical locations operated by 

Defendant in that the Website provides contact information, operating hours and access to servicesfound at 

the physical establishment.

27. Despite several attempts to use and navigate the Website, Plaintiff has been denied the full 

use and enjoyment of the physical locations, goods and services available on the Website as a result of 

access barriers on the site. As a result of Defendant’s access barriers, Plaintiff has been denied 

information that would allow him to access a physical brick and mortar location.

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 5 of 10
6

28. Defendant’s Website is fully accessible to individuals without visual disabilities, and is 

not accessible to individuals, like Plaintiff, with visual disabilities.

29. The barriers at the Website have caused a denial of Plaintiff’sfull and equal access multiple 

times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff from attempting to use Defendant’s website although Plaintiff 

intends to use the website in the future once it becomes accessible.

30. The access barriers at the Website that Plaintiff has encountered include but are not 

limited to, the following:

a) Text equivalent for every non-text element is not provided;

b) Information about the meaning and structure of the Website’s content is not conveyed by more 

than the visual presentation of content;

c) When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading 

sequence cannot be programmatically determined;

d) Web pages do not have titles that describe topic or purpose;

e) Images on the website are not explained to the user with use of a screen reader program; 

31. If the Website were accessible, Plaintiff could independently shop for and research 

services via Defendant’s Website like non-disabled individuals currently can, but because of 

Plaintiff’s disability, Plaintiff cannot.

32. Upon information and belief, Defendant has never had a plan or policy that is reasonably 

calculated to make its Website fully accessible to, and independently usable by blind people.

33. If Defendant had an intention to make its Website fully accessible to, and independently 

usable by blind people, it failed to adequately implement and execute a policy which provides website 

accessibility to visually impaired and disabled individuals.

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 6 of 10
7

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

reasonably anticipates that he will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless and until Defendant is

required to modify its website to correct the discriminatory conditions as set forth herein. 

35. The relief requested serves the public interest and the benefit to Plaintiff and the 

public far outweigh any detriment to Defendant.

36. Without injunctive relief, Plaintiff and other blind individuals will continue to be unable to 

independently use the Website in violation of their rights under the ADA.

37. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of 

this action, and has agreed to pay the undersigned counsel reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses 

from Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § § 12205 and 12117, and Plaintiff is entitled to attorney’s fees, costs, 

and expenses from Defendant.

SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.

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

39. 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 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.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12182(a).

40. Defendant’s physical locations and integrated Website are public accommodations within 

the definition of Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7).

41. There is a physical nexus between Defendant’s Website and physical locations in that the 

Website provides contact information, operating hours, accessto servicesfound at the physical establishment

and the address to the physical locations. 

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 7 of 10
8

42. 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).

43. 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, facilities, 

privileges, advantages or accommodations, which is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals. 

42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).

44. 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); see also 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(a).

45. 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). 

46. The regulation sets forth numerous examples of “auxiliary aids and services,” including 

“...accessible electronic and information technology; or other effective methods of making visually 

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 8 of 10
9

delivered materials available to individuals who are blind or have low vision.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b).

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

promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is legally blind and has disabilities that substantially limit 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 Website because of his disability. 

48. Plaintiff has not been provided services that are provided to other patrons who are not 

disabled, and/or have been provided services that are inferior to the services provided to non-disabled 

persons. Plaintiff has also been denied access to products that are available to non-disabled patrons of 

Defendant.

49. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to remedy its 

discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.

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

incorporated therein, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff 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 and Section 504 of the Federal 

Rehabilitation Act as described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the 

ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its 

Websites are 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 § 36.501 (b)

which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring theWebsite into full compliance 

with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and implementing regulations, so that the

Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals, and which 

further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to ensure 

that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause 

Defendant to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief 

requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in Paragraph 6 above;

c. Payment of litigation expenses and costs;

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 9 of 10
10

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.

Dated: July 1, 2020 Respectfully Submitted,

/ s / A l b e r t o R . L e al

Alberto R. Leal 

Florida Bar No.: 1002345 

The Leal Law Firm, P.A. 

8927 Hypoluxo Rd. #157

Lake Worth, FL 33463 

Phone:561-237-2740 

Facsimile: 561-237-2741 

E-Mail:al@thelealfirm.com

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 1:20-cv-22719-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 10 of 10