1

Case Number:__________________-CV-_____________________ 

ANDRES GOMEZ,

 Plaintiff

V.

VINCE, LLC.

Defendant

________________________________/

COMPLAINT 

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

change in VINCE, LLC. (“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”). Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change 

in Defendant’s corporate policies related to its web-based technologies so that Defendant’s website 

will become, and will remain, accessible. The website at issue is www.vince.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.

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

technologies in order to access website content. Defendant’s Website contains digital barriers which 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 1 of 10
2

limit the ability of blind and visually impaired consumers to access the site.

4. 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.

5. The ADA expressly contemplates the type of injunctive relief that Plaintiff seeks in this 

action. In relevant part, the ADA requires:

[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).

6. Because Defendant’s Website has never been accessible and because Defendant does not 

have, nor has ever had based upon information and belief, a corporate policy that is reasonably 

calculated to cause its Website to become and remain accessible, Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. § 

12188(a)(2) and seeks a permanent injunction requiring:

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

Upon Consultant”) who shall assist it 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) that Defendant work 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) that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to perform an 

automated accessibility audit on a periodic basisto evaluate whether Defendants’ Website continues 

to comply with WCAG 2.0 AA on an ongoing basis;

d) that Defendant work 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,

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 2 of 10
3

e) that Defendant work with the Mutually Agreed Upon Consultant to create an 

accessibility policy that will be posted on the Website, along with an e-mail address and toll 

free phone number to report accessibility-related problems because web-based technologies 

have features and content that are modified on a daily, and in some instances an hourly, 

basis, and a one time “fix” to an inaccessible website will not cause the website to remain 

accessible without a corresponding change in corporate policies related to those web-based 

technologies. To evaluate whether an 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 

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

12188.

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

substantial business in this judicial district.

9. 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 

10. 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. 

11. Defendant VINCE, LLC., is a for profit corporation that transacts business activity on a large 

scale in this judicial district. Defendant operates physical retail stores in the State of Florida and 

specifically at 3101 PGA Boulevard K-215, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 which Plaintiff would

and has intended to frequent if not for the digital access barriers that impede his ability to visit the 

brick and mortar location.

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 3 of 10
4

12. Defendant owns operates and maintains brick and mortar retail stores in the State of 

Florida. Defendant’s retail stores offer goods and services to the public. Defendant also offers goods 

and services to the public through the Website. Defendant’s brick and mortar retail store and website 

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND ALLEGATIONS

13. 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.

14. 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. 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 sites. 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 federalcourts.

15. Plaintiff is permanently blind and uses screen reader software in order to access the

Internet and website content.

16. Through the Website, Defendant offers listings of retail items, pricing of retail items, 

address to the retail store, ability to conduct a transaction on the website and phone number. 

17. However, Defendant’s website is improperly coded as to dis-allow Plaintiff, and others 

with visual disabilities, to adequately access this information as the Website is not compatible with the 

most popular screen reader software. 

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 4 of 10
5

18. If Defendant’s Website were coded properly, Plaintiff would be able to know what the 

retail items are, be able to determine the price of an item, find the closets physical store, determine which 

determine if Plaintiff can afford the items for sale at the store and then travel to said store to utilize the 

currently inaccessible information on the website to patronize the store as a sighted person might.

19. However, because the Defendant’s Website is not accessible to visually impaired 

individuals like Plaintiff, Plaintiff is unable to know what items are featured in the store, unable to 

determine the store location, unable to determine whether he can afford the retail items for sale, unable to 

determine the phone number of the store, and therefore unable to patronize Defendant’s physical store as a 

sighted person might.

20. There is a physical nexus between Defendant’s website and physical store establishment

in that the website provides the telephone contact information, the actual location of store and access to 

descriptions of items found at the location. Plaintiff has been denied access to this information based on 

Defendant’s improperly coded website that is incompatible with Plaintiff’s screen reader software and 

therefore unable to adequately patronize Defendant’s brick and mortar store in a substantially equal manner to 

that of a person with full visual faculties.

21. Despite several attempts to use and navigate the Website, due to the access barriers on the 

Defendant’s Website, Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the facilities, goods and 

services available on the Website and at Defendant’s retail store.

22. The barriers at the Website have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access

multiple times in the past. These digital barriers deter Plaintiff from attempting to use Defendant’s website 

and visiting Defendant’s physical brick and mortar retail store. However, Plaintiff intends to use the 

website in the future and access Defendant’s store once the Website becomes accessible.

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

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 5 of 10
6

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; and,

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

program; 

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

items via Defendant’s website, then utilize that information to visit and shop at Defendant’s brick and 

mortar store.

25. 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.

26. 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. The 

relief requested serves the public interest and the benefit to Plaintiff and the public far outweigh any 

detriment to Defendant.

27. 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.

28. 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, 

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 6 of 10
7

and expenses fromDefendant.

SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATION

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

seq.)

29. The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 31 are re-alleged herein.

30. 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 leasesto), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 12182(a).

31. Defendant’s retail store and integrated website are public accommodations within the 

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

32. There is a physical nexus betweenDefendant’swebsite and physicalstore in that theWebsite 

providesthe contact information of the store, listing of items, and accessto detailed information on the location 

of the store.

33. This information cannot be presented to Plaintiff, and others with visual disabilities, due to 

the inaccessible nature of Defendant’s Website in that the Website is not properly coded to be compatible with 

common screen reader software utilized by Plaintiff and others with visual disabilities.

34. 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).

35. By having a website which is not properly coded to be compatible with common screen 

reader software utilized by Plaintiff and others with visual disabilities, Defendant is in violation of 42 U.S.C. §

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

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 7 of 10
8

36. 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).

37. By having a website which is not properly coded to be compatible with common screen 

reader software utilized by Plaintiff and others with visual disabilities, Defendant is in violation of 42 U.S.C.

§12182(b)(1)(A)(ii).

38. 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).

39. By having a website which is not properly coded to be compatible with common screen 

reader software utilized by Plaintiff and others with visual disabilities, Defendant is in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)-(iii) and 28 C.F.R. §36.303(a).

40. 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

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 8 of 10
9

C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1). The regulation sets 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).

41. By having a website which is not properly coded to be compatible with common screen 

reader software utilized by Plaintiff and others with visual disabilities, Defendant is in violation of 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 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. He 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. Defendant has failed to take any prompt and equitable steps to 

remedy its discriminatory conduct. These violations are ongoing.

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

incorporated therein, Plaintiff requests relief as set forthbelow.

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 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 § 36.504 

(a) which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring the Website into full 

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

Case 1:20-cv-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 9 of 10
10

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 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.

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-22715-UU Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/01/2020 Page 10 of 10