UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.:

WINDY LUCIUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FOGO DE CHAO, INC.,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff, WINDY LUCIUS, (“Plaintiff”), hereby sues the Defendant, FOGO DE CHAO, 

INC. (“Defendant”), a foreign corporation 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. 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 

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

Case 1:20-cv-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 1 of 10
2

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

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

place of public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, or leases is located in MiamiDade County.

5. Subsequent to the effective date of the ADA, Defendant constructed, or caused to be 

constructed, a website located at https://fogodechao.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.

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 FOGO DE CHAO, INC., pursuant to, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 1:20-cv-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 2 of 10
3

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.

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; available through for purchase online; restaurant locations, the 

ability to purchase gift cards to use at the physical locations and the ability to make reservations 

for private dining. 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 

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 

Case 1:20-cv-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 3 of 10
4

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 

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[.]”

Case 1:20-cv-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 4 of 10
5

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: The homepage pop-up is announced as an 

unlabeled graphic. Users were unable to hear the text content which appears to be in the form of a 

single, unlabeled image. The Reservation field labels shown in text are not programmatically 

associated to the fields. The result is that users only hear the hint text when they tab to these fields 

and this is problematic. For example, users hear "2" when they navigate to the Party Size 

dropdown. If the selected reservation time is not available then a banner is shown onscreen along 

with a list of available times. Although this is immediately displayed to sighted users, it is not 

immediately communicated to blind users. Instead of hearing the unavailable message and new 

Case 1:20-cv-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 5 of 10
6

time options, a blind user does not hear anything. If they press the Tab key then they will hear the 

Group Dining link. Screen reader users are not notified when errors occur during the reservation 

process. Ex. we could see a text error onscreen when we entered an incorrect date but this was not 

announced. Additionally, users cannot hear the message even if they attempt to navigate to it so 

there is no way to move forward if an error is present since users are not aware of these issues. 

The reservation calendar is not accessible to screen reader users. Users can hear that they're on the 

date field but focus does not extend to the values in the date picker. Users can manually enter a 

date if they can guess the correct format but, if mistakes are made, then they are not notified - only 

text is shown onscreen. 

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, 

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

Case 1:20-cv-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 6 of 10
7

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

such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, 

Case 1:20-cv-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 7 of 10
8

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 for takeout and when it opens for dine-in service. 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 

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

Case 1:20-cv-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 8 of 10
9

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.

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-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 9 of 10
10

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;

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

12205; and,

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

III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Dated: July 29, 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-23147-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/29/2020 Page 10 of 10