1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION

Case Number:__________________-CIV-_____________________

RAYMOND T. MAHLBERG,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHICO'S FAS, 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 

states 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-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 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.chicos.com/ and specifically the 

Florida website https://www.chicos.com (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 CHICOS 

FAS INC. (“Defendant” or “CHICOS”) policies, practices and procedures so that 

Defendant’s website will become, and remain, accessible to blind. Plaintiff seeks injunctive 

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. 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). 

6. 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 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).

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 2 of 21
3

7. 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.chicos.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”). 

8. Defendant owns and operates the website and CHICOS stores that are

located in Florida. 

9. 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. 8. Blind and visually impaired citizens must use screen reading software1 or 

other assistive technologies in order to access website content. 

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

assistance of appropriate and available screen reader software to understand websites. 

11. Defendant’s Website contains digital source code barriers where screenreaders for the blind do not work. 

12. This case arises out of the fact that Defendant CHICOS FAS Inc. has 

operated its business in a manner and way that effectively excludes individuals who are 

visually impaired from access to Defendants’ https://www.chicos.com/ website based upon 

Defendant’s failure to provide auxiliary aids and services for effective communications. 

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-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 3 of 21
4

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

14. 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.

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

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

16. 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.chicos.com/, Plaintiff will continue to be denied full access to the 

CHICOS’s website. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17. Plaintiff resides in Orlando, Florida and regularly travels to Palm Beach, 

Broward and Miami to visit his friends where they go shopping. Defendant has several 

stores in the State of Florida, including stores in Miami, Sunrise and Fort Lauderdale. Venue 

is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), in the Southern District of Florida where defendant 

resides and 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.

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

19. Plaintiff is a resident of Orlando, FL 32817. Plaintiff was told that there are 

several CHICOS stores in his area. 

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 4 of 21
5

20. 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. 

21. 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 Orange County and Dade County, 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 CHICOS is authorized to conduct, and is 

conducting, business within the State of Florida and within the jurisdiction of this court.

THE PARTIES

22. 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 5 of 21
6

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. 

23. Plaintiff cannot use the computer without the assistance of screen reader 

software. Mahlberg is a proficient user of the JAWS and NVDA 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 or on a mobile application 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. 

24. CHICOS FAS INC. is a Foreign Profit Corporation. Defendant is the 

owner and operator of a chain of stores under the brand name CHICOS and his 

merchandise are distributed to hundreds of affiliated and authorized retailers. Defendant 

has several stores in Florida, including CHICOS located at Sunrise Sawgrass Mall in 

Florida.

25. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant 

CHICOS owns, operates, and/or manages the day-to-day affairs and stores of CHICOS

stores that are operating within South Florida.

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 6 of 21
7

26. Plaintiff believes, and thereon alleges, that defendants CHICOS corporate 

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

throughout the country, including Florida. 

27. Plaintiff is further informed that said company is a Florida profit 

corporation. Defendant’s headquarters and principal corporate offices located in Fort 

Myers, FL. Said Defendant entities will hereinafter collectively be referred to as 

“CHICOS” “the Defendant Company” or, where appropriate, “Defendant.”

FACTS

28. Defendant is defined as a “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). 

29. Each of Defendant’s CHICOS’s 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] bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, 

shopping center, or other sales establishment,” as defined by 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E); 

§12182, and 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

30. CHICOS stores offer for sale to the general public men and women clothing.

31. Defendant has control over its website and mobile application, and/or 

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

the domain name https://www.chicos.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. 

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 7 of 21
8

32. One of the functions of Defendant’s website (available 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. 

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

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

to register and create an account allows the general public to order and purchase clothing, 

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

service, locate stores, buy bracelet, ring, necklace online or at the physical store. 

34. 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.

35. 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. 

36. Plaintiff is a customer of CHICO’s clothing merchandise and his intent to

buy fashion clothing from CHICO’s stores. Plaintiff is a fragrance lover, thru his inquiries 

he learned there are some CHICO’s stores in his area. 

37. 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 CHICO’s store locations, Plaintiff went 

to defendant’s Website to learn (1) how to navigate to and from CHICO’s store locations; 

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 8 of 21
9

(2) the cost of CHICO’s clothing merchandise; (3) times and hours of operation CHICO’s

stores in his area, so he can arrange transportation with the intent of purchasing CHICO’s 

clothing, (4) the exclusive online deals (5) and privacy policy.

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

compare features, models, quality and prices.

39. During the plaintiff’s several visits to the website using JAWS (computer) 

and Voiceover (mobile) occurring in March 16, 2020 and the last in June 29, 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.

40. Plaintiff was impeded to patronize CHICO’sstores by Plaintiff being unable 

to learn about CHICO’s location addresses, hours, fashion clothing 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. 

41. Plaintiff called Defendant CHICO’s store to inquire about new arrivals of 

men clothing as well to find the location of stores in his area. Defendant’s representative 

failed to fully assist Plaintiff and referred him to its Website. Later, Plaintiff found out 

that the store he called was the one at Sawgrass Mills Mall in Sunrise, FL.

42. Following communications with Defendant’s representative, Plaintiff 

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

43. Defendant’s Website was inaccessible, so Plaintiff could not (among other 

things):

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 9 of 21
10

a. Find out about CHICOS’ clothing for sale at the store and online;

b. Locate CHICOS’ stores;

c. Learn about the CHICOS gift card for sale,

d. Learn about CHICOS Privacy Policy;

e. Plaintiff attempted to locate an “Accessibility Notice” on Defendant’s mobile and 

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.

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT

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

patronize CHICOS 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.

45. 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 CHICOS owns and operates stores, the 

CHICOS stores.

46. 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 

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 10 of 21
11

the services offered and is no different than the customer service to the public as part of 

CHICOS stores services, privileges and benefit to the public. 

47. 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.”

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

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

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

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

public by Defendant through its retail brick and mortar stores.

49. 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 "alt-text") 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 Guidelines" (WCAG) to assist developers in making their websites accessible to blind people 

and other individuals with disabilities.

2Following 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-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 11 of 21
12

50. Plaintiff’s expectation of participating in CHICOS website, services and 

privileges was eliminated since he could not access Defendant’s https://www.chicos.com

website at all to avail himself of the latest services which Defendant offers to the public. 

51. 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.chicos.com. 

52. 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.chicos.com website and mobile application have impeded 

Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered at Defendant’s brickand mortar stores.

53. 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 CHICOS 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 clothing merchandise) in a manner equal to 

that afforded to others who are not similarly disabled. 

54. 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.

55. Plaintiff cannot make proper arrangements for transportation of himself to 

the CHICOS’ store locations without the ability to know in advance the CHICOS’

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 12 of 21
13

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 CHICOS’ store location. Plaintiff is effectively denied the ability to 

physically travel to Defendant’s CHICOS’ store. 

56. Plaintiff has a concrete plan to purchase CHICOS’ 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 CHICOS’ brand merchandise available for purchase. 

57. By denying Plaintiff the opportunity to comprehend CHICOS’ Website and 

mobile application 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. 

58. Plaintiff will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant’s 

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

59. On information and belief, Defendant has not offered any form of website 

and mobile application in an accessible format for blind or visually impaired individuals. 

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

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

authorized retailers.

61. 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.

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 13 of 21
14

62. 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. 

63. 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.

64. 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. 

65. 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 discrimination due to Defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable 

accommodation for Plaintiff’s disability.

66. 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. 

67. 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. 

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 14 of 21
15

68. The Website is also a place of Public Accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E) as the public can purchase CHICOS’ merchandise online through the 

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

69. 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. 

70. 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. 

71. 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. All image elements must have an alt attribute. WCAG 2.0 A F65;

b. Each element must contain text or an img with an alt attribute. WCAG 2.0 

A F89;

c. ARIA control has no label. WCAG 2.0 A F68;

d. All onclick handlers should have an equivalent onkeyup or onkeydown

handler. WCAG 2.0 A F54;

e. Button elements containing only an img must have an alt attribute on the 

img WCAG 2.0 A F65.

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 15 of 21
16

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

be determined and proven through the discovery process and expert audit.

73. 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.

74. 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 CHICOS.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

75. 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. 

76. 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). 

77. 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 accommodation, 

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 16 of 21
17

which is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(A)(ii). 

78. 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).

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

regulations promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff, who is a member of a protected class of 

persons under the ADA, has a physical disability that substantially limits the major life 

activity of sight within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)(A)-(2)(A). Furthermore, 

Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to the Website, has not been provided 

services that are provided to other patrons who are not disabled, and has 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. 

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 CHICOS store, instead of providing such information at the physical store locations, 

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 17 of 21
18

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. 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.

84. 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.

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

grant Plaintiff Mahlberg injunctive relief; including an order to:

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 18 of 21
19

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.chicos.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 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 CHICOS stores and becoming informed of and signing up for CHICOS 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.

86. 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 “CHICOS FAS Inc.” and requests the following injunctive relief 

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

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 19 of 21
20

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 

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 

CHICOS’ 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.

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 07, 2020.

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 20 of 21
21

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 7th day of July 2020 that the foregoing document has been filed

using CM/ECF system and will be served via email when Defendant’s counsel enters an 

appearance.

Case 0:20-cv-61384-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2020 Page 21 of 21