1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Case Number:__________________-CIV-_____________________ 

RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG,

Plaintiff,

v. 

SHOE CARNIVAL, INC.,

Defendant.

________________________________/ 

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF 

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Raymond T. Mahlberg (“Plaintiff “or “Mahlberg”), by and 

through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Permanent Injunctive Relief pursuant to 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§s 12181-

12189 (“ADA”), 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202 as well as 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations. Plaintiff 

state as follows: 

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question jurisdiction, as

provided in 28 U.S.C. §1331 and the provisions of the ADA. 

2. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person (disabled) who requires

assistance through screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. 

Plaintiff uses the term “blind” or “visually impaired” as legally blind. Disable as defined by 

ADA and Amendment acts of 2008, 42 USC §12101 (ADAAA). 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 1 of 21
2

3. In the statutory text, Congress determined that "individuals with disabilities 

continually encounter various forms of discrimination," including "communication barriers". 

42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

4.Defendant’s adjunct website https://www.shoecarnival.com and specifically the 

Florida website (the “Website” or Defendant’s website) is not fully or equally accessible to 

blind or visually impaired consumers in violation of the “ADA.” As a result, Plaintiff seeks a 

permanent injunction to cause a change in SHOE CARNIVAL INC (“Defendant” or “Shoe 

Carnival”) policies, practices and procedures so that Defendant’s website will become, and 

remain, accessible to blind. Plaintiff seeksinjunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, including, 

but not limited to, court costs and expert fees, pursuant to Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§s 12181-12189 (“ADA”) and 42 U.S.C. 

2000a-3(a). See also 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 as well as ADA 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations. 

5. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, identities, and capacities of all responsible 

parties (defendants) being sued. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the 

true names and capacities if and when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and 

thereupon alleges, that each Defendant sued is legally responsible in some manner for the 

events and happenings alleged herein and that each of Defendant sued here proximately caused 

injuries and damages to Plaintiff as set forth below.

6. Throughout the ADA, "auxiliary aids and services" refers to techniques and devices 

to overcome barriers in communicating with people who have visual and hearing impairments, 

among other things. See 42 U.S.C. 12103(1). 

7. Implementing these provisions, see 42 U.S.C. § 12186(b), the Attorney General's 

Title III regulations require public accommodations to "furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 2 of 21
3

services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities." 

28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1). The regulations specifically list "screen reader software," 

"magnification software," and "accessible electronic and information technology" as among 

the auxiliary aids that the statute requires. 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(b)(2).

8. Plaintiff is sui juris, and he is disabled as defined by the ADA and ADA Amendments 

Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 (“ADAAA”). Defendant’s failure to design, construct, 

maintain, and operate its website https://www.shoecarnival.com to be fully and equally 

accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff, constitutes in Defendants’ denial of full 

and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby 

in conjunction with its physical location(s), resulting in a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

9. Defendant’s website https://www.shoecarnival.com (the “Website” or Defendant’s 

website). Defendant owns and operates the website and several Shoe Carnival stores that are

located in Florida. 

10. Plaintiff Raymond T. Mahlberg, a blind veteran of the U.S. military, residing in 

Orlando, Florida brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act in Federal Court. 

11. Blind and visually impaired citizens must use screen reading software1 or other 

assistive technologies in order to access website content. 

12. Plaintiff cannot use his computer and mobile device browser without the assistance 

of appropriate and available screen reader software to understand websites.

1 “screen reader” is a software application that enables people with severe visual impairments to use a computer. 

Screen readers work closely with the computer's Operating System (OS) to provide information about icons, menus, 

dialogue boxes, files and folders.

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 3 of 21
4

13. Defendant’s Website contains digital source code barriers where screen-readers for 

the blind do not work. 

14. This case arises out of the fact that Defendant Shoe Carnival has operated its 

business in a manner and way that effectively excludes individuals who are visually impaired 

from access to Defendants’ https://www.shoecarnival.com website based upon Defendant’s 

failure to provide auxiliary aids and services for effective communications. 

15. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.

16. Plaintiff, a legally blind person, is impeded to access and communicate with 

Defendant effectively and timely such that allowing access to Defendants’ various business 

locations; as such impediment as rendered Defendants’ physical places of accommodation not 

fully accessible to the visually impaired.

17. Plaintiff has attempted to access Defendant’s Website in the past and intends to 

continue to attempt to access Defendant’s Website https://www.shoecarnival.com.

18. 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

https://www.shoecarnival.com, Plaintiff will continue to be denied full access to the SHOE 

CARNIVAL’s website. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. Plaintiff resides in Orlando, Florida and regularly travels to Broward to visit his 

friends and family where they go shopping. Defendant has stores in the State of Florida, 

including stores in Broward County. Defendant conducts and continues to conduct a substantial 

and significant amount of business in this District.

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 4 of 21
5

20. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, in the Southern District of Florida

where defendant resides and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred.

Personal jurisdiction exists when the Defendant purposefully availed itself of the conducting 

activities within the forum State.

21. Plaintiff’s claims asserted herein arose in this judicial district.

22. Plaintiff is a resident of Orlando, FL 32817. Plaintiff was told that there is a Shoe 

Carnival’ store in his area.

23. This is an action injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (“ADA”), 28 C.F.R. § 36.201 and to prevent 

discrimination which includes equal access and effective communications with Defendants’ 

business. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 

24. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Defendant has been 

and is committing the acts or omissions alleged herein in the Southern District of Florida that 

caused injury, and violated rights prescribed by the ADA to Plaintiff. A substantial part of the 

acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Southern District of Florida. 

Specifically, on several separate occasions, Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment 

of the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s website in Florida. The access barriers 

Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s website have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal 

access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing 

Defendant’s website. Plaintiff would like to become Defendant’s patron and access the 

Defendant’s website in the near future but the barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s 

website have impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered at 

Defendant’s brick-and mortar stores. Defendant SHOE CARNIVAL INC. is authorized to 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 5 of 21
6

conduct, and is conducting, business within the State of Florida and within the jurisdiction of 

this court.

THE PARTIES

25. Plaintiff Mahlberg, is a resident of the State of Florida. Plaintiff resides in Orlando. 

Mahlberg is legally blind, and a member of a protected class under the ADA. Whereby, he has 

a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)-(2), the regulations implementing the 

ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq. and in 42 U.S.C. 3602, §802(h). Plaintiff suffered 

an assault to the back of his head in 2004 which caused damage and atrophy of the optic nerve, 

and as a consequence, is legally blind. Plaintiff is a legally blind individual who has a physical 

impairment that substantially limits the major life activity of seeing. Accordingly, he has a 

disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Plaintiff is a 

qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), 29 U.S. Code 

§ 794 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 21. Plaintiff cannot use the computer without the assistance of 

a screen reader software. Mahlberg is a proficient user of the JAWS screen-reader to access 

the internet." JAWS, or "Job Access With Speech," is the most popular screen reading software 

for Windows-based computers. For screen-reading software to work, the information on a 

website must be capable of being rendered into text. Usually, this means that graphics and 

embedded hyperlinks must include alternative text (known as "alt-text")—a description of the 

image that appears when a cursor floats over it or screen-reading software detects it. 

26. SHOE CARNIVAL INC. is a Foreign Profit Corporation. Defendant is the owner

and operator of a chain of hundreds of stores under the brand name Shoe Carnival and his 

products are distributed to hundreds of affiliated and authorized retailers. Defendant has more 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 6 of 21
7

than 400 nationwide and more than 30 stores in Florida, including the store Shoe Carnival

located at the new Dania Pointe Mall, in Broward, Florida.

27. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant Shoe Carnival

owns, operates, and/or manages the day-to-day affairs and stores of Shoe Carnival stores which 

are operating within Miami-Dade, Broward County, Orange County, including the City of 

Orlando in the State of Florida.

28. Plaintiff believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants Shoe Carnival corporate 

affiliates and/or related entities, actively engaged in the sale of shoes in various states 

throughout the country, including Florida. 

29. Plaintiff is further informed that said companies are organized and existing under, 

and by virtue of, the laws of the state of Indiana. Defendant’s headquarters and principal 

corporate offices located in Evansville, Indiana. Said Defendant entities will hereinafter 

collectively be referred to as “Shoe Carnival” “the Defendant Company” or, where appropriate, 

“Defendant.”

FACTS

30. Defendant is defined as a “Place of Public Accommodation" within meaning of 

Title III because Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates “[A] bakery, grocery 

store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales establishment,” 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(5). 

31. Each of Defendant’s Shoe Carnival’ stores are open to the public and each is a Place 

of Public Accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA and its

implementing regulation as “[A] ... other sales establishment,” as defined by 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E); §12182, and 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 7 of 21
8

32. Shoe Carnival’ stores offer for sale to the general public men and women shoes, 

footwear and accessories.

33. Defendant has control over its website content, design and source-code, and/or

operates his web pages, including image and data content. Defendant owns and operate the 

domain name https://www.shoecarnival.com that is configured for use by mobile devices such 

as smartphones, as well as regular computer laptops and desktops to access Defendant’s 

website.

34. One of the functions of Defendant’s website (available to browse in mobile or 

computer version) is to provide the public information on the various locations of Defendant’s 

stores that sell merchandise. The other function of the website is to sell Defendant’s 

merchandise. 

35. Defendant’s Website is offered by Defendant as a way for the public to 

communicate with Shoe Carnival merchandise. Defendant’s Website also permits the public 

to register and create an account allows the general public to order and purchase men’s’ shoes, 

provides information about its products, and (among other things) provides: customer service, 

locate stores, buy online and pickup at the store.

36. The Website is an integral part of the goods and services offered by Defendant’s 

store, because website and physical stores are heavily integrated, since the website allows the 

public the ability to locate Defendant’s stores, retail locations and sells merchandise.

37. The website is an extension of defendant’s physical stores. By this nexus, between 

the store and the Website is characterized as a Place of Public Accommodation pursuant to 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 8 of 21
9

38. Plaintiff is a customer of Shoe Carnival brand merchandise since he owns a ShoeCarnival shoe and his intent to continue buying fashion footwear. Plaintiff frequently buys

fashion shoes, and thru his inquiries he learned there are some Shoe Carnival’s stores in his 

area. 

39. As a result of Plaintiff being legally blind, before he embarks on any venture from 

his home, he studies the location where he is seeking to patronize through using the internet. 

In the case of Plaintiff’s investigation of Shoe Carnival’s store locations, Plaintiff went to 

defendant’s Website to learn (1) how to navigate to and from Shoe Carnival’s store locations

open during Covid-19 in his area; (2) the cost of Shoe Carnival’s men shoes ; (3) times and 

hours of operation Shoe Carnival’s stores in his area, so he can arrange transportation with the 

intent of purchasing Shoe Carnival’s merchandise, (4) purchase of exclusive online deals (5) 

register online (create an account), (6) and read the privacy policy, (7) find and read the notice 

of accessibility.

40. Like most consumers, Plaintiff accesses numerous websites at a time to compare 

features, models, quality, and prices.

41. During the plaintiff’s several visits to the website using JAWS and NVDA 

(computer) and Voiceover (cell-phone browsing) occurring in March 20, 2020 and the last in 

August 15, 2020, the plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the plaintiff full 

and equal access to the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available 

to the public; and that denied the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the facilities, goods, and 

services of the website, as well as to the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s locations 

in South Florida, specially near his home.

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 9 of 21
10

42. Plaintiff was impeded to patronize Shoe Carnival’s stores by Plaintiff being unable 

to learn about Shoe Carnival’s location addresses, hours, men shoes fashion and offers

available online for sale, and the ability to create an online account, read the Return and Privacy 

Policy, among other things readily available to sighted individuals. 

43. Plaintiff called Defendant Shoe Carnival’s store to inquire about new arrivals of 

men shoe fashion, as well to find the location of stores near his home. However, Defendant’s 

representative failed to fully assist Plaintiff and referred him to its Website. 

44. Following communications with Defendant’s representative, Plaintiff attempted to 

utilize Defendant’s Website as instructed by Defendant’s representative. 

45. Defendant’s Website was inaccessible, so Plaintiff could not (among other things):

a. Find out about Shoe Carnival’s men shoes available online and at the 

store;

b. Locate Shoe Carnival’s stores near Plaintiff’s home;

c. Learn about buying Shoe Carnival’s men sneakers, fashion shoes, since 

Plaintiff appreciates fashion and purchase shoes in a regular basis;

d. Plaintiff attempted to locate an “Accessibility Notice” on Defendant’s 

computer website which would direct him to a webpage with contact 

information for disabled individuals who have questions, concerns, or 

who are having difficulties communicating with the business. However, 

Plaintiff was unable to do so because no such link or notice was provided 

on Defendant’s website.

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 10 of 21
11

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT

46. The failure to access the information needed precluded Plaintiff’s ability to 

patronize Shoe Carnival’s stores because, as a blind individual, Plaintiff needs to plan his 

outings out in detail in order to have the proper financing for a venture, and insure that he 

arrives at a given location. 

47. Title III provides that “no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of 

disability” in “any Place of Public Accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). As defined in Title 

III, the term “public accommodation” includes a “store and sales establishment” Id. § 

12181(7)(E). Defendant Shoe Carnival’s Inc owns and operates stores, the Shoe Carnival.

48. Technology evolves, in these days, consumers are doing most of their shopping 

online. Defendant’s provision of an e-commerce website is an essential part of the services 

offered and is no different than the customer service to the public as part of Shoe Carnival’s

stores services, privileges and benefit to the public. 

49. Title III ADA Part 36 regulation was amended to integrate section 36.303 Auxiliary 

Aids and Services “A public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and 

services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.”

50. By this nexus, the website https://www.shoecarnival.com is characterized as an 

intangible service, privilege and advantage provided by Shoe Carnival a Place of Public 

Accommodation (Shoe Carnival’ stores) as defined under the ADA, and thus its website is an 

extension of Shoe Carnival services, privileges and advantages made available to the general 

public by Defendant through its retail brick and mortar stores.

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 11 of 21
12

51. Defendant’s Website is not designed with consideration for WCAG, Accessible 

Rich Internet Applications (ARIA) software language and Universal design2

. This means that 

images and embedded hyperlinks must include alternative description text (known as "alttext") a description of the image that appears when a cursor floats over it or screen-reading 

software detects it. The World Wide Web Consortium (the principal standards-setting body 

for the web) has issued a set of "Web Content Accessibility Guide-lines" (WCAG) to assist 

developers in making their websites accessible to blind people and other individuals with 

disabilities.

52. Plaintiff’s expectation of participating in Shoe Carnival website, services and 

privileges was eliminated since he could not access Defendant’s 

https://www.shoecarnival.com website at all to avail himself of the latest services which 

Defendant offers to the public. 

53. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s website have caused a 

denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on 

a regular basis from accessing Defendant’s website https://www.shoecarnival.com. 

54. Plaintiff would like to become Defendant’s patron and access the Defendant’s 

website in the near future but the barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s 

https://www.shoecarnival.com website has impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of 

goods and services offered at Defendant’s brick-and mortar stores.

2

Following universal design principles in creating a website provides access to all users regardless of their abilities, 

their disabilities, or the limitations of their equipment and software. Washington University. “Universal design is the 

design of products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need 

for adaption or specialized design.” Kalbag, Laura (2017).

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 12 of 21
13

55. The fact that Plaintiff could not access the Defendant’s Website and could not 

comprehend the electronic pages contained therein, left Plaintiff excluded from accessing Shoe 

Carnival stores, goods and services available from Defendant and further left him with the 

feeling of segregation, rejection, isolation, and unable to participate in his own business 

affairs (such as in this case purchasing shoes) in a manner equal to that afforded to others who 

are not similarly disabled. 

56. Plaintiff’s inability to fully use Defendant’s Website therein has hindered, impeded 

and inhibited Plaintiff’s access to Defendants physical store locations. Plaintiff has suffered as 

a result and has suffered particularized harm and an injury in fact.

57. Plaintiff cannot make proper arrangements for transportation of himself to the Shoe 

Carnival’s store locations without the ability to know in advance the Shoe Carnival’s

merchandise, goods and services which service is available online through Defendant’s 

Website. Plaintiff also faces a great degree of uncertainty of how to physically travel to 

Defendant’s Shoe Carnival’s store location. Plaintiff is effectively denied the ability to 

physically travel to Defendant’s Shoe Carnival’s store. 

58. Plaintiff has a concrete plan to purchase Shoe Carnival’s brand merchandise when 

he is treated like other members of the public. Consequently, the Plaintiff is unable to determine 

the cost of Defendant’s goods and services, including becoming informed about the Shoe 

Carnival’s brand merchandise available for purchase. 

59. By denying Plaintiff the opportunity to comprehend Shoe Carnival’s website

therein due to Plaintiff’s disability (visual impairment), Defendant has denied Plaintiff the 

opportunity to participate in or benefit from Defendant’s goods and services as afforded to the 

public. 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 13 of 21
14

60. Plaintiff will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant’s omissions, 

policies, and practices set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court. 

61. On information and belief, Defendant has not offered any form of website in an 

accessible format for blind or visually impaired individuals. 

62. Thus, Defendant has not provided full and equal enjoyment of the services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided at its stores and authorized 

retailers.

63. All Public Accommodations must insure that their Places of Public

Accommodation provide Effective Communication for all members of the general public, 

including individuals with disabilities.

64. On information and belief, Defendant is aware of the common access barriers and 

barriers to effective communication within its Website and the electronic pages/data therein 

which prevent individuals with disabilities who are visually impaired from the means to 

comprehend the information presented therein. 

65. Defendant and alike retailers are fully aware of need to provide full access to all 

visitors to its Website as Department of Justice published several communications stating that 

the website is an auxiliary-aid of the physical stores and must be accessible. (September 25, 

2018 letter from Assistant Attorney General) and Title III ADA 28 C.F.R. § 36.303.

66. Binding case law increasingly recognize that private entities are providing goods 

and services to the public through the websites that operate as “Places of Public 

Accommodation” under Title III. 

67. A person who cannot see, like the Plaintiff in this case, cannot go to Defendant’s 

website and avail themselves of the same privileges. Thus, the Plaintiff has suffered 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 14 of 21
15

discrimination due to Defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for 

Plaintiff’s disability. 

68. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs 

alleged hereinabove and this suit for injunctive relief is his only means to secure adequate 

redress from Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory practices. 

69. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of Defendant’s failure to cure the 

violations. Enforcement of the rights of Plaintiff is right and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 

2202. 

70. The Website is also a Place of Public Accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E) as the public can purchase Shoe Carnival’s merchandise online through the 

Website (which meets the definition of “sales establishment‟). 

71. The Department of Justice has provided useful guidance regarding website 

accessibility under the ADA, and the binding and persuasive case law in this district has applied 

the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 or 2.1 to determine accessibility. 

72. Types of website source-code programming errors include (but are not limited to)

source-code errors which are easily identifiable and are prone to making the website

inaccessible, that create empty headings and text fields that create confusion for a user that rely 

on the “TAB” key to navigate a web page. 

73. A sampling review of just part of it revealed that the Website is not functional for 

users who are visually impaired. The Website contains several types of errors, easily 

identifiable and correctable, which occur throughout the Website such as:

a. img elements must have an accessible name. WCAG 2.0 F65.

b. All fieldset elements should be labeled with legend elements. WCAG 2.0 H71.

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 15 of 21
16

c. The visual label must appear in the accessible name of links and controls. WCAG 

2.0 A F96.

d. Duplicate id - the same ID is used on more than one element. WCAG 2.0 A 4.1.1

e. Content inserted with CSS is not read by some screen readers, and not available to 

people who turn off style sheets. WCAG 2.0 F87.

74. More violations may be present on webpages of the Website, and they will be 

determined and proven through the discovery process and expert audit. 

75. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA is right and just pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Title III ADA Subpart E Section 36.501.

76. Plaintiff has retained the law office of Acacia Barros, Esq. and has agreed to pay a 

reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of this cause, including costs and expenses 

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

Defendant Shoe Carnival’s.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

77. Part 36 of Title 28 of the C.F.R. was designed and is implemented to effectuate 

subtitle A of Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by 

Public Accommodations and requires Places of Public Accommodation to be designed, 

constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by Part 36

Regulation. 

78. Defendant’s Website has not been designed to interface with the widely and readily 

available technologies that can be used to ensure effective communication.

79. As delineated above and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), Defendant is a Public 

Accommodation under the ADA because it owns and/or operates the 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 16 of 21
17

https://www.shoecarnival.com website which is defined within §12181(7)(E), and is subject to

the ADA.

80. In addition, Defendant’s representatives within its store locations have referred 

customers to Defendant’s Website. By Defendant’s representatives referring the public 

/visually impaired individuals to its Website for basic information needed to shop at a Shoe 

Carnival’s store, instead of providing such information at the physical store locations, the 

Website has been rendered an integral part of Defendant’s physical store locations. Thus, the 

failure of that Website contained therein to be accessible to visually impaired individuals 

impedes visually impaired individuals (such as Plaintiff) from access to Defendant’s physical 

store locations.

81. The ADA applies to the Defendant’s Website, as the Website is a Place of Public 

Accommodation for the following reasons: (1) the statutory construction of the ADA 

demonstrates its applicability is not limited to physical “brick and mortar” locations; (2) 

Congress‟ intent was for the ADA to be responsive to changes in technology; and (3) the 

Department of Justice has interpreted the ADA to apply to websites. 

82. No notice is required because under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class 

of individuals with disabilities an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodation, which is equal to the 

opportunities afforded to other individuals.

83. Unlawful discrimination includes “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, 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 17 of 21
18

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)(A)(II). 

84. Unlawful discrimination also includes “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)(III).

85. Defendant is in violation of the ADA by creating barriers for individuals with 

disabilities who are visually impaired and who require the assistance of interface with screen 

reader software to comprehend and access websites and electronic documents. These violations 

are ongoing.

86. As a result of the inadequate development and administration of Defendant’s 

Website, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12133 and §12188, also 

28 C.F.R. §36.501 to remedy the discrimination.

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

Plaintiff Mahlberg injunctive relief; including an order to:

a) Require Defendant take the necessary steps to make the Website readily 

accessible to and usable by visually impaired users, and during that time 

period prior to the https://www.shoecarnival.com website’s being readily 

accessible, to provide a temporary alternative method for individuals with 

visual impairments to access the information available on the Website until 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 18 of 21
19

such time that the requisite modifications are made. Title III American with 

Disabilities Act Part 36 Regulation. 

b) Require Defendant to provide periodic maintenance of the accessible 

website thru the appropriate auxiliary aids such that individuals with visual 

impairments will be able to always receive effectively communication with 

the Website for purposes of viewing and locating Shoe Carnival’s stores and 

becoming informed of and signing up for Shoe Carnival’s merchandise 

online, and of viewing electronic documents provided to the public within 

Defendant’s Website. 

c) During the time period prior to the Website’s being designed to permit 

individuals with visual impairments to effectively communicate, requiring 

Defendant to provide an alternative method for individuals with visual 

impairments to effectively communicate so they are not impeded from 

obtaining the goods and services made available to the public. Title III ADA 

Part 36 Regulation.

88. For all of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG hereby demands judgment 

against Defendant “SHOE CARNIVAL INC.” and requests the following injunctive relief 

permanently enjoin Defendant from any practice, policy and/or procedure which will deny 

Plaintiff equal access to, and benefit from Defendant’s services and goods, as well as the Court:

a. That the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the 

Defendants' website at the commencement of the subject lawsuit is in 

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 19 of 21
20

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

12181 et seq.; 

b. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendants to continually update 

and maintain their computer version of the defendant’s website and Shoe 

Carnival’s website to ensure that it remains fully accessible to and usable by 

visually impaired individuals; 

c. That the Court issue an Injunctive relief order directing Defendants to alter 

their website to make it accessible to, and useable by, individuals with 

disabilities to the full extent required by Title III of the ADA; 

d. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendants to evaluate and 

neutralize their policies and procedures towards persons with disabilities for 

such reasonable time so as to allow Defendants to undertake and complete 

corrective procedures;

e. That the Court enter an award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation 

expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205; and Title III of the ADA Section 

36.505.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions 

of fact the Complaint raises. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial for all claims so triable.

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 20 of 21
21

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated this 19th day of August 2020.

s/Acacia Barros

Attorney for Plaintiff

ACACIA BARROS, P.A.

Acacia Barros, Esq.

FBN: 106277

11120 N. Kendall Dr., Suite 201

Miami, Florida 33176

Tel: 305-639-8381

ab@barroslawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 19th day of August 2020 that the foregoing document

has been filed using CM/ECF system and will be served via email

when Defendant/Defendant’s counsel enters an appearance.

Case 0:20-cv-61679-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/19/2020 Page 21 of 21