1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION 

CASE NO.: 

HOWARD COHAN, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF SOUGHT 

BUTTON DONUTS LLC, 

d/b/a DUNKIN DONUTS, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN (“Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby 

files this Complaint and sues BUTTON DONUTS LLC d/b/a DUNKIN DONUTS (“Defendant”), 

for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs (including, but not limited

to, court costs and expert fees) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182 et. seq., and the 2010 Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and alleges as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court is vested with original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1331 for Plaintiff’s claims arising under Title 42 U.S.C. §12182 et. seq., based on Defendant’s 

violations of Title III of the ADA. See also 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202 as well as the 2010 ADA 

Standards. 

2. Venue is proper in this Court, West Palm Beach Division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§1391(B) and the Internal Operating Procedures for the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Florida in that all events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Palm Beach 

County, Florida. 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 1 of 12
2 

PARTIES 

3. Plaintiff, HOWARD COHAN is a resident of the state of Florida residing in Palm 

Beach County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris. 

4. Upon information and belief, Defendant is the lessee, operator, owner and/or lessor 

of the Real Property, which is subject to this lawsuit, and is located at 3098 S. Jog Road, 

Greenacres, Florida 33467 (“Premises”) and is the owner of the improvements where the Premises 

is located. 

5. The Premises is a place of public accommodation. 

6. Defendant is authorized to conduct, and is in fact conducting, business within the 

state of Florida. 

7. Plaintiff is an individual with numerous permanent disabilities including severe 

spinal stenosis of the lumbar spine with spondylolisthesis; severe spinal stenosis of the cervical 

spine with nerve root compromise on the right side; a non-union fracture of the left acromion 

(shoulder); a labral tear of the left shoulder; a full thickness tear of the right rotator cuff; a right 

knee medial meniscal tear; a repaired ACL and bilateral meniscal tear of the left knee; and severe 

basal joint arthritis of the left thumb. As a result of these medical conditions, Plaintiff suffers body 

weakness, mobility limitations, abnormal gate, and abnormal balance. Additionally, his ability to 

lift, reach, bend, stretch, and twist are all substantially restricted. 

8. At the time of Plaintiff’s visit to the Premises on July 15, 2020 (and prior to 

instituting this action), Plaintiff suffered from a “qualified disability” under the ADA and required 

the use of a handicap parking space and the use of other means of accessibility for persons with 

disabilities. Plaintiff personally visited the Premises, but was denied full and equal access and full

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 2 of 12
3 

and equal enjoyment of the facilities, services, goods and amenities within the Premises, even 

though he was a “bona fide patron”. 

9. Plaintiff, in his individual capacity, will absolutely return to the Premises in the 

near future and avail himself to the services offered at the Premises when Defendant modifies the 

Premises or modifies the policies and practices to accommodate individuals who have physical 

disabilities. 

10. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant’s Premises and is 

aware that it would be a futile gesture to return to the Premises as long as those violations exist, 

and Plaintiff is not willing to suffer additional discrimination. 

11. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, direct and indirect injury as a 

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

of the ADA. 

12. Plaintiff would like to be able to be a patron of the Premises in the near future and 

be able to enjoy the goods and services that are available to the able-bodied public, but is currently

precluded from doing so as a result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct as described herein. 

Plaintiff will continue to be precluded from using the Premises until corrective measures are taken 

at the Premises to eliminate the discrimination against persons with physical disabilities. 

13. Completely independent of his personal desire to have access to this place of public 

accommodation free of illegal barriers to access, Plaintiff also acts as a “tester” for the purpose of

discovering, encountering and engaging discrimination against the disabled in public 

accommodations. When acting as a “tester”, Plaintiff employs a routine practice. Plaintiff 

personally visits the public accommodation; engages all of the barriers to access, or at least of 

those that Plaintiff is able to access; tests all of those barriers of access to determine whether and

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 3 of 12
4 

the extent to which they are illegal barriers to access; proceeds with legal action to enjoin such 

discrimination; and subsequently returns to the Premises in the near future to verify its compliance 

or non-compliance with the ADA and to otherwise use the public accommodation as members of 

the able-bodied community are able to do. Independent of other subsequent visits, Plaintiff also 

intends to visit the Premises regularly to verify its compliance or non-compliance with the ADA, 

and its maintenance of the accessible features of the Premises. In this instance, Plaintiff, in 

Plaintiff’s individual capacity and as a “tester”, visited the Premises, encountered barriers to access 

at the Premises, engaged and tested those barriers, suffered legal harm and legal injury and will 

continue to suffer such harm and injury as a result of the illegal barriers to access and the violations 

of the ADA set forth herein. It is Plaintiff’s belief that said violations will not be corrected without 

Court intervention, and thus Plaintiff will suffer legal harm and injury in the near future. 

14. Plaintiff, in his capacity as a tester, will absolutely return to the Premises when 

Defendant modifies the Premises or modifies the policies and practices to accommodate 

individuals who have physical disabilities to confirm said modifications have been completed in 

accordance with the requirements of the ADA. 

VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 

15. Plaintiff adopts and re-alleges the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 14 

above as if fully stated herein. 

16. On July 26, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq. 

Commercial enterprises were provided one and a half (1.5) years from enactment of the statute to 

implement its requirements. The effective date of Title III of the ADA was January 26, 1992, or 

January 26, 1993 if Defendant has ten (10) or fewer employees and gross receipts of $500,000.00 

or less. See 42 U.S.C. §12182; see also 28 C.F.R. §36.508(a). 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 4 of 12
5 

17. Congress found, among other things, that: 

a. some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, and 

this number shall increase as the population continues to grow older; 

b. historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities 

and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against disabled 

individuals continue to be a pervasive social problem, requiring serious attention; 

c. discrimination against disabled individuals persists in such critical areas as 

employment, housing, public accommodations, transportation, communication, 

recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting and access to public services 

and public facilities; 

d. individuals with disabilities continually suffer forms of discrimination, including 

outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, 

transportation, and communication barriers, failure to make modifications to 

existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, 

segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, benefits, or other 

opportunities; and 

e. the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice 

denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to 

pursue those opportunities for which our country is justifiably famous, and costs 

the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from 

dependency and nonproductivity. 

42 U.S.C. §12101(a)(1)-(3),(5) and (9). 

18. Congress explicitly stated that the purpose of the ADA was to: 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 5 of 12
6 

a. provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for elimination of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; 

b. provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities; and 

c. invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the 

fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major 

areas of discrimination faced on a daily basis by people with disabilities. 

42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1)(2) and (4). 

19. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182(7), 28 CFR §36.104 and the 2010 ADA Standards, 

Defendant’s Premises is a place of public accommodation covered by the ADA by the fact it 

provides services to the general public and must be in compliance therewith. 

20. Defendant has discriminated, and continues to discriminate against Plaintiff and 

others who are similarly situated by denying access to and full and equal enjoyment of goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations located at the Premises, as 

prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §12182, and 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., and by failing to remove 

architectural barriers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). 

21. Plaintiff has visited the Premises and has been denied full and safe equal access to 

the facilities, and therefore suffered an injury in fact. 

22. Defendant’s policies, practices, procedures and/or lack of training its staff to 

efficiently and effectively identify and reasonably modify its services creates an environment 

where individuals with disabilities are not provided goods and services in the most integrated way 

possible. 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 6 of 12
7 

23. Plaintiff will return to the Premises in the near future and enjoy the goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations at the Premises on a planned, or a 

spontaneous, full and equal basis. However, Plaintiff is precluded from doing so by Defendant’s 

failure and refusal to provide persons with disabilities with full and equal access to its facilities at 

the Premises. Therefore, Plaintiff continues to suffer from discrimination and injury due to the 

architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA. 

24. Pursuant to the mandates of 42 U.S.C. §12134(a), on July 26, 1991, the Department 

of Justice, Office of the Attorney General promulgated Federal Regulations to implement the 

requirements of the ADA. See 28 CFR §36 and its successor the 2010 ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. Part 36, under which said Department 

may obtain civil penalties of up to $55,000.00 for the first violation and $110,000.00 for each 

subsequent violation.1

25. Based on a preliminary inspection of the Premises, Defendant is in violation of 42 

U.S.C. §12182 et. seq. and the 2010 ADA Standards et. seq., and is discriminating against Plaintiff 

as a result of, inter alia, the following specific violations found in the Outdoor Seating Area: 

a. Failing to provide seating for a person with a disability that has the correct clear 

floor space for forward approach in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§902, 902.2, 305 

and 306 and/or §§4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.32.2 and 4.5 of the 1991 ADA Standards. 

b. Failing to provide a sufficient amount of seating when dining surfaces are provided 

for the consumption of food or drink for a person(s) with a disability in violation of 

1

 Effective April 1, 2014 the civil penalties were increased, based on inflation, from $55,000.00 to 

$75,000.00 for the first violation and from $110,000.00 to $150,000.00 for subsequent violations. 

See 28 C.F.R. §§36 and 85. 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 7 of 12
8 

2010 ADAAG §§226, 226.1, 902, 305 and 306 and/or §5.1 of the 1991 ADA 

Standards. 

26. Based on a preliminary inspection of the Premises, Defendant is in violation of 42 

U.S.C. §12182 et. seq. and the 2010 ADA Standards et. seq., and is discriminating against Plaintiff 

as a result of, inter alia, the following specific violations found in the Unisex Restroom: 

a. Providing grab bars of improper horizontal length or spacing on the back or side 

wall in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§604, 604.5, 604.5.1, 604.5.2, 609 and 609.4 

and/or §§4.26 and 4.26.2 of the 1991 ADA Standards.

b. Failing to provide toilet paper dispensers in the proper position in front of the water 

closet or at the correct height above the finished floor in violation of 2010 ADAAG 

§§604, 604.7 and 309.4 and/or §4.16.6 of the 1991 ADA Standards. 

c. Failing to provide the proper insulation or protection for the plumbing or other 

sharp or abrasive objects under a sink or countertop in violation of 2010 ADAAG 

§§606 and 606.5 and/or §4.24.6 of the 1991 ADA Standards. 

d. Failing to provide proper knee clearance for a person with a disability under a 

counter or sink element in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§306, 306.1, 306.3 and 

306.3.1 and/or §4.24.3 of the 1991 ADA Standards. 

e. Failing to provide a coat hook within the proper reach ranges for a person with a 

disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§603, 603.4 and 308 and/or §§4.25.3, 4.2.5 

and 4.1.3 of the 1991 ADA Standards. 

f. Providing a gate or door with a continuous opening pressure of greater than 5 lbs. 

exceeding the limits for a person with a disability in violation of 2010 ADAAG 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 8 of 12
9 

§§404, 404.1, 404.2, 404.2.9 and 309.4 and/or §4.13.11 of the 1991 ADA 

Standards. 

g. Providing a swinging door or gate with improper maneuvering clearance(s) due to 

a wall or some other obstruction that does not comply with the standards set forth 

in 2010 ADAAG §§404, 404.1, 404.2, 404.2.3, 404.2.4 and 404.2.4.1 and/or 

§§4.13, 4.13.3 and 4.13.6 of the 1991 ADA Standards. 

27. Based on a preliminary inspection of the Premises, Defendant is in violation of 42 

U.S.C. §12182 et. seq. and the 2010 ADA Standards et. seq., and is discriminating against Plaintiff 

as a result of, inter alia, the following specific violations found in the Indoor Seating Area: 

a. Failing to provide seating for a person with a disability that has the correct clear 

floor space for forward approach in violation of 2010 ADAAG §§902, 902.2, 305 

and 306 and/or §§4.2.4, 4.2.5, 4.32.2 and 4.5 of the 1991 ADA Standards. 

b. Failing to provide a sufficient amount of seating when dining surfaces are provided 

for the consumption of food or drink for a person(s) with a disability in violation of 

2010 ADAAG §§226, 226.1, 902, 305 and 306 and/or §5.1 of the 1991 ADA 

Standards. 

28. To the best of Plaintiff’s belief and knowledge, at the time of filing this lawsuit 

Defendant has failed to eliminate the specific violations set forth in paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 

above. 

29. Although Defendant is charged with having knowledge of the violations, Defendant 

may not have had actual knowledge of said violations until this Complaint made Defendant aware 

of same. 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 9 of 12
10 

30. To date, the readily achievable barriers and violations of the ADA still exist and 

have not been remedied or altered in such a way as to effectuate compliance with the provisions 

of the ADA. 

31. As the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises, Defendant is required to 

comply with the ADA. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, existed and were occupied 

prior to January 26, 1992, the owner, lessor, lessee or operator has been under a continuing 

obligation to remove architectural barriers at the Premises where removal was readily achievable, 

as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.402. 

32. To the extent the Premises, or portions thereof, were constructed for occupancy 

after January 26, 1993 the owner, lessor, lessee or operator of the Premises was under an obligation 

to design and construct such Premises such that it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities, as required by 28 C.F.R. §36.401. 

33. Pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et. seq., and 28 CFR §36.304, Defendant 

was required to make the Premises, a place of public accommodation, accessible to persons with 

disabilities by January 28, 1992. As of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Defendant has failed

to comply with this mandate. 

34. Plaintiff has retained undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of this 

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

Defendant, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205. 

35. The violations alleged in paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 above are readily achievable to 

modify in order to bring the Premises or the Facility/Property into compliance with the ADA. 

36. In the instances where the 2010 ADAAG Standards do not apply to the violations 

listed in paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 above, the 1991 ADA Standards apply. 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 10 of 12
11 

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

Plaintiff’s injunctive relief, including entering an Order to alter the Premises to make them readily 

accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA and 

closing the Premises until the requisite modifications are completed. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant and requests the following 

injunctive and declaratory relief: 

1. This Court declare that the Premises owned, operated and/or controlled by 

Defendant is in violation of the ADA; 

2. This Court enter an Order requiring Defendant to alter the Premises and/or its 

facilities to make them accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to 

the full extent required by Title III of the ADA; 

3. This Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize its 

policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such 

reasonable time so as to allow Defendant to undertake and complete corrective 

procedures to the Premises; 

4. This Court award reasonable attorneys’ fees, all costs (including, but not limited to 

the court costs and expert fees) and other expenses of suit to Plaintiff; and 

5. This Court award such other and further relief as it may deem necessary, just and 

proper. 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 11 of 12
12 

Dated: 8/19/2020 

Respectfully submitted by: 

 

BY: /s/ Jason S. Weiss 

Jason S. Weiss 

Jason@jswlawyer.com

Florida Bar No. 356890 

WEISS LAW GROUP, P.A.

5531 N. University Drive, Suite 103 

Coral Springs, FL 33067 

Tel: (954) 573-2800 

Fax: (954) 573-2798 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Case 9:20-cv-81347-DMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 12 of 12