1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Civil Action Number:

JESUS GONZALEZ

Plaintiff,

vs.

THE TJX COMPANIES, INC. 

d/b/a TJ Maxx #1080271 

Defendant.

/

COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby sues 

Defendant The TJX Companies, Inc. doing business as TJ Maxx #1080271 for injunctive 

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”) and 28 C.F.R. Part 36 and alleges:

JURISDICTION

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189. This Court is 

vested with original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331.

2. Venue is proper in the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) in that all 

events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred within the Southern District of Florida and the 

subject premises is located within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. Defendant The TJX Companies, Inc. is authorized to conduct and is

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

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 1 of 10
2

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of the state of Florida. 

Plaintiff has a “qualified disability” under the ADA as he is disabled with neuropathy and 

nerve damage due to radiation and utilizes a wheelchair for mobility. Plaintiff’s disability is 

defined in 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)(A)(2), 28 C.F.R. §36.105(b)(2) and 28 C.F.R. 

§36.105(2)(iii)(D). Plaintiff is also a “tester” to determine whether public accommodations 

are in compliance with the ADA/ADAAG.

5. Defendant The TJX Companies, Inc. (“Defendant”) is a foreign for-profit 

corporation authorized to transact business in the state of Florida. The TJX Companies, Inc. 

is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Farmington, Massachusetts. 

Defendant TJX owns and operates the TJ Maxx, Marshalls, HomeGoods and HomeSense 

discount store chains as well as Sierra department stores. There are over 1,271 TJ Maxx 

retail stores throughout the United States. 

FACTS

6. Defendant owns and operates the TJ Maxx #1080271 discount store within a 

community shopping center located at 7200 SW 117 Avenue Miami, Florida 33183 which 

address also includes TJ Maxx address postal address of 7260 SW 117 Avenue. 

7. As with all TJ Maxx brand discount retail stores, Defendant’s TJ Maxx 

#1080271 store is a place of public accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§12181(7)(E) as 

an “other sales establishment.” Defendant’s TJ Maxx #1080271 store which is the subject 

of this complaint is also referenced as “TJ Maxx (retail store),” “TJ Maxx at SW 117 

Avenue,” “retail store,” or “place of public accommodation.”

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 2 of 10
3

8. As the operator of TJ Maxx brand retail stores which are open to the public, 

Defendant TJX Companies is defined as a “Public Accommodation" within meaning of Title 

III because it is a private entity which owns, or operates retail stores; 42 U.S.C. §12182, 42 

U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(E); 28 C.F.R. §36.104(5).

9. On July 8, 2022, due to frequently being in the area, Plaintiff personally 

visited the store to shop and to test for compliance with the ADA/ADAAG.

10. Due to the fact that he perambulates with the assistance of a wheelchair, 

Plaintiff met barriers to access while patronizing the TJ Maxx retail store. Based on the 

access impediments Plaintiff encountered, Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access by

Defendant.

11. As the owner of over 1,271 TJ Maxx discount stores, Defendant is well 

aware of the ADA and the need to provide for equal access in all areas of its discount stores.

Therefore, Defendant’s failure to reasonably accommodate mobility impaired and disabled 

patrons by insuring that its TJ Maxx at SW 117 Avenue is fully accessible is/was willful, 

malicious, and oppressive and in complete disregard for the Civil Rights of the Plaintiff and 

in violation of 28 C.F.R. §36.302.

12. As a result of Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered loss of 

dignity, mental anguish and other tangible injuries and has suffered an injury-in-fact.

13. Plaintiff continues to desire to patronize and/or test Defendant’s TJ Maxx at 

SW 117 Avenue, but continues to be injured in that he continues to be discriminated against 

due to the barriers to access within that retail store which are in violation of the ADA.

14. Any and all requisite notice has been provided. 

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 3 of 10
4

15. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the civil rights law office of J. Courtney 

Cunningham, PLLC 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 recover those 

attorney’s fees, costs and expenses from Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12205.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF TITLE III OF THE ADA

16. The ADA was enacted and effective as of July 26, 1990 and ADA legislation 

has been protecting disabled persons from discrimination due to disabilities since that time. 

Over 30 years have passed since enactment of the ADA, public accommodations and places 

of public accommodation have had adequate time for compliance. 

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

(i) provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the 

elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

(ii) provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and,

(iii) 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 

by people with disabilities.

42 U.S.C. §12101(b)(1)(2) and (4).

18. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, Plaintiff personally visited the TJ Maxx at 

SW 117 Avenue with the intention of shopping and testing that retail store for compliance 

with the ADA/ADAAG; however, Plaintiff was denied adequate accommodation because, 

as a disabled individual who utilizes a wheelchair for mobility, Plaintiff met barriers to 

access. Therefore, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact. 

19. Defendant has discriminated (and continues to discriminate) against Plaintiff 

by denying full and equal access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations at its TJ Maxx at SW 117 Avenue in 

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 4 of 10
5

derogation of 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. and as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. §12182 et seq. by 

failing to remove barriers to access pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(a)(iv), where such 

removal is readily achievable. 

20. Plaintiff has been unable to, and continues to be unable to, enjoy full and 

equal safe access to, and the benefits of, all the accommodations and services offered at 

Defendant’s TJ Maxx at SW 117 Avenue retail store. 

21. Defendant is governed by the ADA and must be in compliance therewith.

However, Defendant has discriminated against disabled patrons in derogation of 28 C.F.R. 

Part 36.

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

amended), the Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General, promulgated Federal 

Regulations to implement the requirements of the ADA, known as the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (hereinafter “ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. Part 36, under 

which said Department may obtain civil penalties of up to $75,000 for the first violation and 

$150,000 for any subsequent violation.

23. Defendant’s TJ Maxx at SW 117 Avenue retail store is in violation of 42 

U.S.C. §12181 et seq., the ADA and 28 C.F.R. §36.302 et seq., and Defendant is

discriminating against the Plaintiff as a result of inter alia, the following specific violations: 

i. Plaintiff had difficulty opening the men’s restroom door without assistance, as the 

required maneuvering clearance on the pull side of the door (wall section) is not 

provided. The fact that the restroom door does not provide the required maneuvering 

clearance is a violation Section 4.13.6 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.4 of the 

2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design which state that maneuvering clearances 

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 5 of 10
6

shall extend the full width of the doorway and the required latch side or hinge side 

clearance.

ii. Plaintiff had additional difficulty opening the restroom door without assistance, as it 

does not have the required maneuvering clearance on the pull side of the door due to 

the encroaching trash can which encroaches over the required maneuvering

clearance on the pull side of the door. This is a violation of 4.13.6 of the ADAAG 

which delineates maneuvering clearances at doors, specifically as delineated within 

Fig.25(a) and Fig.25(b). Fig.25(a) depicts maneuvering clearance front approach is 

60 inches on the approach and 18 inches to the side. Fig.25(b) depicts that the side 

approach of the pull side of the door requires a minimum of 36 inches to the side and 

60 inches to the approach. This is also a violation of 2010 ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design Section 404.2.4 (swinging doors maneuvering clearance) and 

Section 604.3.1 (water closet clearance shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum 

measured perpendicular from the side wall and 56 inches (1420 mm) minimum 

measured perpendicular from the rear wall).

iii. Plaintiff had difficulty locking the restroom stall door without assistance, as the 

locking hardware is non-compliant and requires grasping and turning of the wrist to 

operate. Failure to provide door hardware which is accessible to the disabled is a 

violation of Section 4.13.9 of the ADAAG and Section 404.2.7 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards for Accessible Design. Section 4.13.9 states that handles, pulls, and 

latches must have hardware in a shape that is easy to grasp with one hand and 

Section 4.27.4 requires controls and operating mechanisms to be operable with one 

hand and not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist, with force 

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 6 of 10
7

required to activate no greater than 5 lbs. Section 404.2.7 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards for Accessible Design states that door hardware must be operable with a 

closed fist or a loose grip and Section 309.4 states that operable parts are to be 

operable with one hand and shall not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of 

the wrist and have a force required to activate no more than 5 pounds.

iv. Plaintiff could not transfer to the toilet without assistance, as the required clear floor 

space was not provided due to the encroaching item (trash can), which encroaches 

over the accessible water closet clear floor space. This is a violation of Section 

4.16.2 of the ADAAG (which specifies the amount of space required at an accessible 

toilet, which includes clear floor space around fixtures) and Section 604.3.1 of the 

2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design which states that water closet clearance 

(floor space) shall be 60 inches (1525 mm) minimum measured perpendicular from 

the side wall and 56 inches (1420 mm) minimum measured perpendicular from the 

rear wall. 

v. Plaintiff could not use the urinal without assistance, as the urinal is mounted too high 

(does not have the required height to the top of the rim). The fact that the urinal does 

not have the required height to top of the rim renders the urinal inaccessible. This is 

a violation of Section 4.18.2 of the ADAAG and Section 605.2 of the 2010 ADA 

Standards for Accessible Design. Section 4.18.2 states that urinals shall be stall-type 

or wall-hung with an elongated rim at a maximum of 17” (430 mm) above the floor. 

Likewise, Section 605.2 states that both the stall-type or the wall-hung type be 

mounted with the rim 17” maximum above the finished floor or ground and shall be 

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 7 of 10
8

131⁄2 inches (345 mm) deep minimum measured from the outer face of the urinal rim 

to the back of the fixture.

vi. Additionally, the urinal was inaccessible to Plaintiff because the urinal is mounted in 

a 31.75" wide and 25.5" deep alcove and therefore does not have the required clear 

floor space. This is a violation of ADAAG Section 4.2.4.2 which states that, if a

clear floor space is located in an alcove or otherwise confined on all or part of three 

sides, additional maneuvering clearances shall be provided as shown in Figs. 4(d) 

and (e). This is also a violation of 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design 

Section 305.7.1 which states that alcoves must be a minimum of 36 inches (915 mm) 

wide where the depth exceeds 24 inches (610 mm).

vii. Plaintiff could not use the toilet paper dispenser without assistance, as the toilet 

paper dispenser is mounted outside the required distance in front of the toilet in 

violation of Section 604.9.6 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. Section 

604.9.6 states that toilet paper dispensers shall comply with Section 309.4 and shall 

be 7 inches (180 cm) minimum and 9 inches (230 cm) maximum in front of the 

water closet measured to the centerline of the dispenser. Furthermore, the outlet of 

the dispenser shall be 14 inches (355 mm) minimum and 19 inches (485 mm) 

maximum above the finished floor. 

viii. Plaintiff was exposed to a cutting/burning hazard as the lavatory sink inside the stall 

does not have wrapped bottom sink pipes. As insulation is non-existent, there is no 

proper insulation protecting users of that sink against the plumbing pipes under the 

sink. This is a violation of Section 4.19.4 of the ADAAG which states that hot water 

and drain pipes under lavatories shall be insulated or otherwise configured to protect 

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 8 of 10
9

against contact. This is also a violation of Section 606.5 of the 2010 ADA Standards 

for Accessible Design, because the lavatory pipes are not wrapped.

ix. Plaintiff could not use the lavatory sink (outside the stall) without assistance, as the 

lavatory sink does not provide knee clearance above the finished floor to the bottom 

leading edge of the fixture at an 8” horizontal projection. This failure is in violation 

of 28 C.F.R. Part 36, Section 4.19.2 of the ADAAG and Section of the 2010 ADA 

Standards for Accessible Design. Section 4.19.2 of the ADAAG states that lavatories 

shall be mounted with the rim or counter surface no higher than 34 in (865 mm) 

above the finished floor, provide a clearance of at least 29 in (735 mm) above the 

finished floor to the bottom of the apron and that knee and toe clearance shall 

comply with Fig. 31 of that section. Section 606.2 states that knee clearance must be 

provided a minimum of 4 inches (610 mm) above the finished floor or ground.

24. Pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. and 28 C.F.R. §36.304, 

Defendant has been required to make its TJ Maxx at SW 117 Avenue retail store accessible 

to persons with disabilities since January 28, 1992 and Defendant has failed to comply with 

this mandate.

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

Plaintiff’s injunctive relief; including an order for Defendant to alter its TJ Maxx at SW 117 

Avenue retail store such that it is made readily accessible to, and useable by, individuals 

with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jesus Gonzalez hereby demands judgment against 

Defendant The TJX Companies, Inc. and requests the following injunctive and declaratory 

relief: 

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 9 of 10
10

a) The Court declare that Defendant has violated the ADA;

b) The Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize 

its policies, practices and procedures toward persons with disabilities, 

c) The Court enter an Order requiring Defendant to alter its TJ Maxx at SW 

117 Avenue retail store such that it becomes accessible to and usable by 

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

d) The Court award reasonable costs and attorneys fees; and 

e) The Court award any and all other relief that may be necessary and 

appropriate. 

Dated this 1st day of September 2022.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Courtney Cunningham

J. Courtney Cunningham, Esq.

J. COURTNEY CUNNINGHAM, PLLC

FBN: 628166

8950 SW 74th Court, Suite 2201

Miami, Florida 33156

Telephone: 305-351-2014

Email: cc@cunninghampllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 1:22-cv-22795-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/01/2022 Page 10 of 10