1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

VICTOR ARIZA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

DESIGN WITHIN REACH, INC.,

a foreign for-profit corporation,

Defendant.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA, through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant DESIGN 

WITHIN REACH, INC., a foreign for-profit corporation, and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, costs, and 

litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (“ADA”), as amended, and 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

This is also an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and 

litigation expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of the Miami-Dade County 

Code of Ordinances, §§11A-19(a)(1), 11A-19(a)(3)(c) and (d), 11A-24(1), and 11A-24(2)

(“Miami-Dade Code”).

 2. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 

U.S.C. §1331, and the provisions of the ADA. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202. In addition, this Court has supplementary jurisdiction 

over Plaintiff’s state law claim for violation of the Miami-Dade Code pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 1 of 25
2

3. Venue is proper in this Court as all actions complained of herein and injuries and 

damages suffered occurred in the Southern District of Florida.

4. Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA is a resident of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is sui juris, 

and is disabled as defined by the ADA and ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 

(“ADAAA”), and the Miami-Dade Code, §11A-2(17)(a).

5. Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been blind and visually disabled in that he 

suffers from optical nerve atrophy, a permanent eye disease and medical condition that 

substantially and significantly impairs his vision and limits his ability to see. Plaintiff thus is 

substantially limited in performing one or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, 

seeing, accurately visualizing his world, and adequately traversing obstacles As such, he is a 

member of a protected class under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)-(2), the regulations 

implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§36.101, et seq., 42 U.S.C. §3602(h), and the MiamiDade Code, §11A-2(17)(a). Plaintiff further is an advocate of the rights of similarly situated 

disabled persons and is a “tester” for the purposes of asserting his civil rights and monitoring, 

ensuring, and determining whether places of public accommodation and/or their respective and 

associated websites are in compliance with the ADA, the Miami-Dade Code, and any other 

applicable disability laws, regulations, and ordinances. 

6. Because he is blind and visually disabled, Plaintiff cannot use his computer without 

the assistance of appropriate and available auxiliary aids, screen reader software, and other 

technology and assistance. Screen reader software translates the visual internet into an auditory 

equivalent. At a rapid pace, the software reads the content of a webpage to the user. “The screen 

reading software uses auditory cues to allow a visually impaired user to effectively use websites. 

For example, when using the visual internet, a seeing user learns that a link may be ‘clicked,’ 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 2 of 25
3

which will bring him to another webpage, through visual cues, such as a change in the color of the 

text (often text is turned from black to blue). When the sighted user's cursor hovers over the link, 

it changes from an arrow symbol to a hand. The screen reading software uses auditory -- rather 

than visual -- cues to relay this same information. When a sight impaired individual reaches a link 

that may be ‘clicked on,’ the software reads the link to the user, and after reading the text of the 

link says the word ‘clickable.’...Through a series of auditory cues read aloud by the screen reader, 

the visually impaired user can navigate a website by listening and responding with his keyboard.” 

Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, 17-CV-767, 2017 WL 6542466, at *6-7 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 

2017).

7. Defendant is a foreign for-profit corporation authorized to do business and doing 

business in the State of Florida. Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls retail stores selling 

home furnishings, including one of the stores that Plaintiff intended to patronize in the near future 

located 4141 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite 102, Miami, Florida. 

8. Plaintiff’s visual disability limits him in the performance of major life activities, 

including sight, and he requires assistive technologies, auxiliary aids, and services for effective 

communication, including communication in connection with his use of a computer. 

9. Plaintiff frequently accesses the internet. Because he is significantly and 

permanently blind, to effectively communicate and comprehend information available on the 

internet and thereby access and comprehend websites, Plaintiff uses commercially available screen 

reader software to interface with the various websites.

10. At all times material hereto, Defendant was and still is an organization that owns, 

operates, and/or controls retail stores selling home furniture under the name “Design Within 

Reach”. Each “Design Within Reach” store is open to the public. As the owner and operator of 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 3 of 25
4

these retail stores, Defendant is defined as a place of “public accommodation" within meaning of 

the ADA because Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates “a bakery, grocery 

store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment,” per 

42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(2). Defendant also is defined as a “place of public 

accommodation” under the Miami Dade Code because it is a private entity which owns and/or 

operates “[a] bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales 

or rental establishment,” per Miami-Dade Code §11A-20(e). 

11. Because Defendant is a store open to the public, each of Defendant’s physical stores 

is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182, 

§12181(7)(E), and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, and a place of public 

accommodation subject to the requirements of Miami-Dade Code §11A-20(e). 

12. Defendant also controls, maintains, operates, and/or is directly linked to and 

financially benefits from an adjunct website, https://www.dwr.com (the “Website”). One of the 

functions of the Website is to provide the public information on the locations of Defendant’s stores 

through a “store locator” feature that identifies physical store locations that sell Defendant’s 

merchandise throughout the United States and within the State of Florida. Defendant also sells to 

the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a point of sale for merchandise 

available in, from, and through Defendant’s network of physical stores (but not necessarily the 

physical store that Plaintiff intended to patronize).

13. The Website also services Defendant’s physical stores by providing information on 

available products, services, tips and advice, editorials, sales campaigns, events, and other 

information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers.

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 4 of 25
5

14. Because the Website allows the public the ability to secure information about the 

locations of Defendant’s physical stores, purchase merchandise also available for purchase in and 

from the physical stores, purchase gift cards to purchase merchandise both online and in the 

physical stores, and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive online offers, benefits, invitations, 

and discounts for use online and in the physical stores, the Website has a nexus to, and is an 

extension of and gateway to, the goods, services, privileges, and advantages of Defendant’s 

physical stores, which are places of public accommodation under the ADA and the Miami-Dade 

Code. As an extension of and service, privilege, and advantage provided by a place of public 

accommodation as defined under the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code, the Website is an extension 

of the services, privileges, and advantages made available to the general public by Defendant at 

and through its brick-and-mortar locations and businesses. Furthermore, the Website is a 

necessary service and privilege of Defendant’s physical stores in that, as a point of sale for 

Defendant’s stores, it enables users of the Website to make online purchases of Defendant’s 

merchandise and gift cards that are also available from and in its physical stores.

15. Because the public can view and purchase Defendant’s merchandise through the 

Website that are also offered for sale in Defendant’s physical stores, thus having the Website act 

as a point of sale for Defendant’s merchandise also sold in the physical stores, purchase gift cards

to purchase merchandise both online and in the physical stores, and sign up for an emailer to 

receive exclusive online offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the 

physical stores, the Website is an extension of, and gateway to the physical stores, which are places 

of public accommodation pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), and pursuant to the

Miami-Dade Code, §11A-20(e). As such, the Website is a necessary service, privilege, and 

advantage of Defendant’s brick-and-mortar stores that must comply with all requirements of the 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 5 of 25
6

ADA and the Miami-Dade Code, must not discriminate against individuals with visual disabilities, 

and must not deny those individuals the same full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, 

services, privileges, and advantages afforded the non-visually disabled public both online and in 

the physical stores.

16. At all times material hereto, Defendant was and still is an organization owning,

operating, controlling, and/or linking to and financially benefitting from the Website. Since the 

Website is open to the public through the internet, by this nexus the Website is an intangible 

service, privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s brick-and-mortar stores that must comply with 

all requirements of the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code, must not discriminate against individuals 

with visual disabilities, and must not deny those individuals the same full and equal access to and 

enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, and advantages as are afforded the non-visually 

disabled public both online and in the physical stores. As such, Defendant has subjected itself and 

the Website to the requirements of the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code.

17. Plaintiff is and has been a customer who is interested in patronizing, and intends to 

patronize in the near future once the Website’s access barriers are removed or remedied, 

Defendant’s physical stores (including the store located at 4141 NE 2nd Avenue, Suite 102, Miami, 

Florida), and to search for the brick-and-mortar stores, check store hours and merchandise pricing, 

purchase merchandise and gift cards, and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive offers, 

benefits, invitations, and discounts for use on the Website or in Defendant’s physical stores. In 

the alternative, Plaintiff intends to monitor the Website in the near future as a tester to ascertain 

whether it has been updated to interact properly with screen reader software. 

18. The opportunity to shop and pre-shop Defendant’s merchandise, purchase gift 

cards, and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive online offers, benefits, invitations, and 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 6 of 25
7

discounts for use both online and in the physical stores from his home are important and necessary 

accommodations for Plaintiff because traveling outside of his home as a blind and visually disabled 

individual is often a difficult, hazardous, frightening, frustrating, and confusing experience. 

Defendant has not provided its business information in any other digital format that is accessible 

for use by blind and visually disabled individuals using the screen reader software.

19. Like many consumers, Plaintiff accesses a number of websites at a time to help plan 

his store visits and to compare merchandise, prices, sales, discounts, and promotions. Plaintiff 

may look at several dozens of sites to compare features, discounts, promotions, and prices.

20. In the months of April 2021 and April 2022, Plaintiff attempted on a number of 

occasions to utilize the Website to browse through the merchandise and online offers to educate 

himself as to the merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions being offered, learn about the 

brick-and-mortar stores, check store hours, and check merchandise pricing with the intent to make

a purchase through the Website or in one of the physical stores. Plaintiff also attempted to access 

and utilize the Website in his capacity as a tester to determine whether it was accessible to blind 

and visually disabled persons such as himself who use screen reader software to access and 

navigate company websites.

21. Plaintiff utilizes available screen reader software that allows individuals who are 

blind and visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant’s Website 

contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals 

using keyboards and available screen reader software. These barriers are pervasive and include, 

but are not limited to: 

a. Home page button is mislabeled as the company name with no

explanation as to its purpose;

b. Choose an item and the description and price are inaccessible when

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 7 of 25
8

navigating with a keyboard;

c. Some text throughout the site is not labeled to integrate with a screen

reader;

d. At the header of the website, on the country button, the country’s names are 

mislabeled as “USD and CAD” with no other description; and

e. On the Locations link, once selected, on Find a DWR Store page, the 

information like, the city’s name, address, and telephone number preceding 

“View Details” are not labeled.

22. The Website also lacks prompting information and accommodations necessary to 

allow visually disabled individuals who use screen reader software to locate and accurately fill 

out online forms to purchase Defendant’s merchandise from the Website.

23. Plaintiff attempted to locate an “accessibility” notice, statement, or policy on the 

Website that would direct him to a webpage with contact information for disabled individuals who 

have questions or concerns about, or who are having difficulties communicating with, the Website. 

Although the Website appeared to have an “accessibility” statement displayed, that “accessibility” 

statement still could not be effectively accessed by, and continued to be a barrier to, blind and 

visually disabled persons, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff, thus, was unable to receive any meaningful 

or prompt assistance through the “accessibility” statement to enable him to quickly, fully, and 

effectively navigate the Website.

24. The fact that Plaintiff could not communicate with or within the Website left him 

feeling excluded, as he is unable to participate in the same shopping experience, with the same 

access to the merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions, as provided at the Website and in the 

physical stores as the non-visually disabled public.

25. Plaintiff desires and intends, in the near future once the Website’s access barriers 

are removed or remedied, to patronize Defendant’s physical stores and to use the Website, but he 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 8 of 25
9

is presently unable to fully do so as he is unable to effectively communicate with Defendant due 

to his severe blindness and the Website’s access barriers. Alternatively, as a tester using screen

reader software, Plaintiff is unable to effectively access, navigate, and communicate with 

Defendant through the Website due to his severe blindness and the Website’s access barriers. 

Thus, Plaintiff, as well as others who are blind and with visual disabilities, will suffer continuous 

and ongoing harm from Defendant’s intentional acts, omissions, policies, and practices as set forth 

herein unless properly enjoined by this Court.

26. Because of the nexus between Defendant’s retail stores and the Website, and the 

fact that the Website clearly provides support for and is connected to Defendant’s retail stores for 

its operation and use, the Website is an intangible service, privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s 

brick-and-mortar stores that must comply with all requirements of the ADA and the Miami-Dade 

Code, must not discriminate against individuals with disabilities, and must not deny those 

individuals the same full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, and 

advantages as afforded the non-visually disabled public both online and in the physical stores, 

which are places of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA and the MiamiDade Code.

27. On information and belief, Defendant has not initiated a Web Accessibility Policy 

to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with disabilities.

28. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a Web Accessibility 

Committee to ensure full and equal use of Website by individuals with disabilities.

29. On information and belief, Defendant has not designated an employee as a Web 

Accessibility Coordinator to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with 

disabilities.

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 9 of 25
10

30. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a Web Accessibility User 

Accessibility Testing Group to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with 

disabilities.

31. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a User Accessibility 

Testing Group to ensure full and equal use of the Website by individuals with disabilities.

32. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted a Bug Fix Priority Policy.

33. On information and belief, Defendant has not instituted an Automated Web 

Accessibility Testing program. 

34. Defendant has not created and instituted a Specialized Customer Assistance line or 

service or email contact mode for customer assistance for the visually disabled.

35. Defendant has not created and instituted on the Website a page for individuals with 

disabilities, nor displayed a link and information hotline, nor created an information portal 

explaining when and how Defendant will have the Website, applications, and digital assets 

accessible to the visually disabled or blind community.

36. The Website does not meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 

2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility.

37. Defendant has not disclosed to the public any intended audits, changes, or lawsuits 

to correct the inaccessibility of the Website to visually disabled individuals who want the safety 

and privacy of purchasing Defendant’s merchandise offered on the Website from their homes.

38. Thus, Defendant has not provided full and equal access to and enjoyment of the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided by and through 

the Website in contravention of the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code.

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 10 of 25
11

39. Further, public accommodations under the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code must 

ensure that their places of public accommodation provide effective communication for all 

members of the general public, including individuals with visual disabilities such as Plaintiff.

40. The broad mandates of the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code are to provide equal 

opportunity for individuals with disabilities to participate in and benefit from all aspects of 

American civic and economic life. That mandate extends to internet shopping websites, such as 

the Website at issue in the instant action. 

41. Defendant is, and at all relevant times has been, aware of the barriers to effective 

communication within the Website which prevent individuals with visual disabilities from the 

means to comprehend information presented therein.

42. Defendant is, and at all relevant times has been, aware of the need to provide full 

access to all visitors to the Website.

43. The barriers that exist on the Website result in discriminatory and unequal 

treatment of individuals with visual disabilities, including Plaintiff.

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

alleged hereinabove, and this suit for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is his only means 

to secure adequate and complete redress from Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory practices 

in connection with its website access and operation.

45. Notice to Defendant is not required under the ADA because of Defendant’s failure 

to cure the violations. As to the Miami-Dade Code, Plaintiff has exhausted all available 

administrative remedies and brings this action within 90 days of issuance of a right-to-sue notice 

by the Director of the Miami-Dade Commission on Human Rights (“MDCHR”), as provided by 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 11 of 25
12

the Miami-Dade Code, §11A-24. A copy of the MDCHR’s right-to-sue notice is attached as 

Exhibit ”A” 

46. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA and the Miami-Dade Code is right 

and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202.

47. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorneys to represent him in this case and 

has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their services.

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE ADA

48. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 47 as if set forth fully herein.

49. Defendant is a public accommodation under the ADA as defined within 

§12181(7)(E) and thus is subject to the ADA.

50. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), the Website is covered under the ADA 

because it provides the general public with the ability to locate and learn about Defendant’s stores, 

purchase merchandise that is also available for purchase in the physical stores, purchase gift cards 

to purchase merchandise online and in the physical stores, and sign up for an emailer to receive 

exclusive online offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use both online and in the physical 

stores. The Website thus is an extension of, gateway to, and intangible service, privilege, and 

advantage of Defendant’s physical stores. Further, the Website also serves to augment 

Defendant’s physical stores by providing the public information about the physical stores and by 

educating the public as to Defendant’s available merchandise sold through the Website and in the 

physical stores.

51. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 12 of 25
13

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.

52. Specifically, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(II), unlawful 

discrimination 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.”

53. In addition, under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(2)(A)(III), unlawful 

discrimination includes, among other things, “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.”

54. Defendant’s Website must comply with the ADA, but it does not as specifically 

alleged hereinabove and below.

55. Because of the inaccessibility of the Website, individuals with visual disabilities 

are denied full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, information, and services that 

Defendant has made available to the public on the Website and in its physical stores in violation 

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

56. The Website was subsequently visited by Plaintiff’s expert in April 2021, January 

2022, and April 2022, and the expert determination was that the same access barriers that Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 13 of 25
14

had initially encountered, as well as numerous additional access barriers, existed. Despite being a 

defendant in several prior ADA website cases, one or more of which resulted in confidential 

settlements that obligated Defendant to remediate the Website to make it accessible to the blind 

and visually disabled, Defendant has made insufficient material changes or improvements to the 

Website to enable its full use and enjoyment by, and accessibility to, blind and visually disabled 

persons such as Plaintiff. Also when the Website was visited by the expert, the Website appeared 

to have an “accessibility” statement displayed on its home page; however, that “accessibility” 

statement was tested and still could not be effectively used or accessed by, and continued to be a 

barrier to, blind and visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff. Defendant thus has failed to make 

reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, or procedures when such modifications are 

necessary to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to 

individuals with disabilities, in violation of 28 C.F.R. §36.302. The lack of a viable and effective 

“accessibility” notice, policy, or statement and the numerous access barriers as set forth in the 

Declaration of Plaintiff’s expert, Robert D. Moody, attached hereto as Composite Exhibit “B” and 

the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference, continue to render the Website not 

fully accessible to users who are blind and visually disabled, including Plaintiff. 

57. More violations may be present on other pages of the Website, which can and will 

be determined and proven through the discovery process in this case.

58. There are readily available, well-established guidelines on the internet for making 

Websites accessible to the blind and visually disabled. These guidelines have been followed by 

other large business entities in making their websites accessible. Examples of such guidelines 

include, but are not limited to, adding alt-text to graphics and ensuring that all functions can be 

performed using a keyboard. Incorporating such basic components to make the Website accessible 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 14 of 25
15

would neither fundamentally alter the nature of Defendant’s business nor would it result in an 

undue burden to Defendant.

59. Defendant has violated the ADA -- and continues to violate the ADA -- by denying 

access to the Website by individuals such as Plaintiff with visual disabilities who require the 

assistance of interface with screen reader software to comprehend and access internet websites. 

These violations within the Website are ongoing.

60. The ADA requires that public accommodations and places of public 

accommodation ensure that communication is effective. 

61. According to 28 C.F.R. §36.303(b)(1), auxiliary aids and services include “voice, 

text, and video-based telecommunications products and systems”. Indeed, 28 C.F.R. 

§36.303(b)(2) specifically states that screen reader software is an effective method of making 

visually delivered material available to individuals who are blind or have low vision.

62. According to 28 C.F.R. §36.303(c), public accommodations must furnish 

appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with 

individuals with disabilities: “In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided 

in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and 

independence of the individual with a disability,” 28 C.F.R. §36.303(c)(1)(ii).

63. 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.

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 15 of 25
16

64. As alleged hereinabove, the Website has not been designed to interface with the 

widely and readily available technologies that can be used to ensure effective communication, and 

thus violates the ADA.

65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide an ADA 

compliant website, with a nexus to its brick-and-mortar physical store locations, Plaintiff has 

suffered an injury in fact by being denied full access to, enjoyment of, and communication with 

Defendant’s Website and its physical stores. 

66. Because of the inadequate development and administration of the Website, Plaintiff 

is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12133 and 28 C.F.R. §36.303, to remedy the 

ongoing disability discrimination. 

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

Plaintiff appropriate and necessary injunctive relief, including an order to: 

a) Require Defendant to adopt and implement a web accessibility policy to make publicly 

available and directly link from the homepage of the Website to a functional statement as to the 

Defendant’s policy to ensure persons with disabilities have full and equal access to and enjoyment 

of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations through the Website.

b) Require Defendant to take the necessary steps to make the Website readily accessible 

to and usable by blind and visually disabled users, and during that time period prior to the 

Website’s being made readily accessible, provide an alternative method for individuals with visual 

disabilities to access the information available on the Website until such time that the requisite 

modifications are made, and 

c) Require Defendant to provide the appropriate auxiliary aids such that individuals with 

visual disabilities will be able to effectively communicate with the Website for purposes of 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 16 of 25
17

viewing and locating Defendant’s physical stores and becoming informed of and purchasing 

Defendant’s merchandise, and during that time period prior to the Website’s being designed to 

permit individuals with visual disabilities to effectively communicate, to provide an alternative 

method for individuals with visual disabilities to effectively communicate for such goods and 

services made available to the general public through the Website. 

68. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses 

pursuant to the ADA. To that end, Plaintiff has been obligated to retain the undersigned counsel 

for the filing and prosecution of this action and has agreed to pay them a reasonable fee for their 

services. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in his favor and against Defendant for 

the following relief:

A. A declaration that Defendant’s Website is in violation of the ADA;

B. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to update the Website, and continue 

to monitor and update the Website on an ongoing basis, to remove barriers in order that 

individuals with visual disabilities can access, and continue to access, the Website and 

effectively communicate with the Website to the full extent required by Title III of the 

ADA; 

C. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to clearly display the universal 

disabled logo within the Website, wherein the logo1 would lead to a page which would 

state Defendant’s accessibility information, facts, policies, and accommodations. Such 

1 or similar.

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 17 of 25
18

a clear display of the disabled logo is to ensure that individuals who are disabled are 

aware of the availability of the accessible features of the Website;

D. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to provide ongoing support for web 

accessibility by implementing a website accessibility coordinator, a website application 

accessibility policy, and providing for website accessibility feedback to ensure 

compliance thereto;

E. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to evaluate its policies, practices and 

procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such reasonable time to allow 

Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures to its Website;

F. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to establish a policy of web 

accessibility and accessibility features for the Website to ensure effective 

communication for individuals who are visually disabled;

G. An Order requiring, by a date certain, that any third-party vendors who participate on 

Defendant’s Website to be fully accessible to the visually disabled;

H. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once yearly thereafter, to 

provide mandatory web accessibility training to all employees who write or develop 

programs or code for, or who publish final content to, the Website on how to conform 

all web content and services with ADA accessibility requirements and applicable 

accessibility guidelines;

I. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once every three months 

thereafter, to conduct automated accessibility tests of the Website to identify any 

instances where the Website is no longer in conformance with the accessibility 

requirements of the ADA and any applicable accessibility guidelines, and further 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 18 of 25
19

directing Defendant to send a copy of the twelve (12) quarterly reports to Plaintiff’s 

counsel for review;

J. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to make publicly available and directly 

link from the Website homepage, a statement of Defendant’s Accessibility Policy to 

ensure the persons with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of the Website and 

shall accompany the public policy statement with an accessible means of submitting 

accessibility questions and problems; 

K. An award to Plaintiff of her reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses; and

L. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 

COUNT II – VIOLATION OF THE MIAMI-DADE CODE

69. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 47 and 56 through 58 as if set forth fully 

herein.

70. The Miami-Dade Code provides specifically for a private right of action for any 

persons aggrieved by violations of the Miami-Dade Code public accommodations provisions per 

§11A-24(1), upon the exhaustion of administrative remedies provided by the Miami-Dade Code 

and the issuance of a right-to-sue notice by the Director of the MDCHR.

71. Defendant is a public accommodation under the Miami-Dade Code as defined 

within §11A-20(e) and thus is subject to Article III, Chapter 11A, §§11A-19 through 11A-24 of 

the Miami-Dade Code.

72. Pursuant to §11A-20(e), the Website is covered under the Miami-Dade Code 

because it provides the general public with the ability to locate and learn about Defendant’s stores, 

purchase merchandise that is also available for purchase in the physical stores, purchase gift cards 

to purchase merchandise both online and in the physical stores, and sign up for an emailer to 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 19 of 25
20

receive exclusive online offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use both online and in the 

physical stores. The Website thus is an extension of, gateway to, and intangible service, privilege, 

and advantage of Defendant’s physical stores. Further, the Website also serves to augment 

Defendant’s physical stores by providing the public information about the physical stores and by 

educating the public as to Defendant’s available merchandise sold through the Website and in the 

physical stores.

73. Under §11A-19(a)(1) of the Miami-Dade Code, it is unlawful discrimination to To 

“refuse, withhold or deny to a person any services, access, advantages, goods, facilities or 

privileges of a public accommodation.”

74. Under §11A-19(a)(3)(c) of the Miami-Dade Code, unlawful discrimination 

includes, among other things, a “[f]ailure 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, 

service, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.”

75. In addition, under §11A-19(a)(3)(d) of the Miami-Dade Code, unlawful 

discrimination includes, among other things, a “[f]ailure 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.”

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 20 of 25
21

76. Defendant’s Website must comply with the Miami-Dade Code, but it does not as 

specifically alleged herein.

77. Because of the inaccessibility of the Website, individuals with visual disabilities 

are denied full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, information, and services that 

Defendant has made available to the public on the Website and in its physical stores in violation 

of the Miami-Dade Code, specifically §§11A-19(a)(1), 11A-19(a)(3)(c) and (d).

78. Defendant has violated the Miami-Dade Code -- and continues to violate the 

Miami-Dade Code -- by denying access to the Website by individuals such as Plaintiff with visual 

disabilities who require the assistance of interface with screen reader software to comprehend and 

access internet websites. These violations within the Website are ongoing.

79. The Miami-Dade Code requires that public accommodations and places of public 

accommodation ensure that communication is effective.

80. As alleged hereinabove, the Website has not been designed to interface with the 

widely and readily available technologies that can be used to ensure effective communication, and 

thus violates the Miami-Dade Code.

81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide a Miami-Dade 

Code compliant website, with a nexus to its brick-and-mortar physical store locations, Plaintiff has 

suffered an injury in fact by being denied full access to, enjoyment of, and communication with 

Defendant’s Website and its physical stores.

82. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide a Miami-Dade 

Code compliant website, with a nexus to its brick-and-mortar physical store locations, Plaintiff has 

suffered, and will continue to suffer, emotional distress, frustration, and humiliation due to the 

discriminatory conditions and access barriers present on the Website. By continuing to operate the 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 21 of 25
22

Website with discriminatory conditions, Defendant contributes to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and 

segregation, and deprives Plaintiff the full and equal access to and enjoyment of Defendant’s 

goods, services, and benefits available to the non-visually disabled, general public. By 

encountering the discriminatory conditions at the Website and knowing that it would be a futile 

gesture to attempt to utilize the Website unless he is willing to endure additional discrimination, 

Plaintiff is deprived of the meaningful choice to freely visit and utilize the same stores or the 

Website readily available to the non-visually disabled public and is deterred and discouraged from 

doing so. By maintaining a website with access barriers and violations, Defendant deprives 

Plaintiff from the equal access to, and same participation in and benefits from, Defendant’s goods 

and services available on the Website and in the physical stores as the non-visually disabled public.

83. Plaintiff thus has suffered and will continue to suffer direct and indirect injury as a 

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

requirements of the Miami-Dade Code.

84. Because of the inadequate development and administration of the Website, Plaintiff 

is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to the Miami-Dade Code §11A-24(2) to remedy the ongoing 

disability discrimination. 

85. Pursuant to the Miami-Dade Code §11A-24(2), this Court is vested with the 

authority to grant Plaintiff appropriate and necessary injunctive relief, including an order to: 

a) Require Defendant to adopt and implement a web accessibility policy to make publicly 

available and directly link from the homepage of the Website to a functional statement as to the 

Defendant’s policy to ensure persons with disabilities have full and equal access to and enjoyment 

of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations through the Website.

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 22 of 25
23

b) Require Defendant to take the necessary steps to make the Website readily accessible 

to and usable by blind and visually disabled users, and during that time period prior to the 

Website’s being made readily accessible, provide an alternative method for individuals with visual 

disabilities to access the information available on the Website until such time that the requisite 

modifications are made, and 

c) Require Defendant to provide the appropriate auxiliary aids such that individuals with 

visual disabilities will be able to effectively communicate with the Website for purposes of 

viewing and locating Defendant’s physical stores and becoming informed of and purchasing 

Defendant’s merchandise, and during that time period prior to the Website’s being designed to 

permit individuals with visual disabilities to effectively communicate, to provide an alternative 

method for individuals with visual disabilities to effectively communicate for such goods and 

services made available to the general public through the Website. 

86. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses 

pursuant to the Miami-Dade Code, §11A-24(2). To that end, Plaintiff has been obligated to retain 

the undersigned counsel for the filing and prosecution of this action and has agreed to pay them a 

reasonable fee for their services. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests entry of judgment in his favor and against Defendant for 

the following relief:

A. A declaration that Defendant’s Website is in violation of the Miami-Dade Code;

B. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to update the Website, and 

continue to monitor and update the Website on an ongoing basis, to remove barriers in order that 

individuals with visual disabilities can access, and continue to access, the Website and effectively 

communicate with the Website to the full extent required by the Miami-Dade Code; 

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 23 of 25
24

C. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to clearly display the universal 

disabled logo within the Website, wherein the logo would lead to a page which would state 

Defendant’s accessibility information, facts, policies, and accommodations. Such a clear display 

of the disabled logo is to ensure that individuals who are disabled are aware of the availability of 

the accessible features of the Website;

D. An Order requiring Defendant, by a date certain, to provide ongoing support for 

web accessibility by implementing a website accessibility coordinator, a website application 

accessibility policy, and providing for website accessibility feedback to ensure compliance thereto;

E. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to evaluate its policies, practices 

and procedures toward persons with disabilities, for such reasonable time to allow Defendant to 

undertake and complete corrective procedures to its Website;

F. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to establish a policy of web 

accessibility and accessibility features for the Website to ensure effective communication for 

individuals who are visually disabled;

G. An Order requiring, by a date certain, that any third-party vendors who participate 

on Defendant’s Website to be fully accessible to the visually disabled;

H. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once yearly thereafter, 

to provide mandatory web accessibility training to all employees who write or develop programs 

or code for, or who publish final content to, the Website on how to conform all web content and 

services with Miami-Dade Code accessibility requirements and applicable accessibility guidelines;

I. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain and at least once every three 

months thereafter, to conduct automated accessibility tests of the Website to identify any instances 

where the Website is no longer in conformance with the accessibility requirements of the MiamiCase 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 24 of 25
25

Dade Code and any applicable accessibility guidelines, and further directing Defendant to send a 

copy of the twelve (12) quarterly reports to Plaintiff’s counsel for review;

J. An Order directing Defendant, by a date certain, to make publicly available and 

directly link from the Website homepage, a statement of Defendant’s Accessibility Policy to 

ensure the persons with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of the Website and shall 

accompany the public policy statement with an accessible means of submitting accessibility 

questions and problems; 

K. An award to Plaintiff of all his compensatory damages as allowed by the MiamiDade Code, §11A-24(2); 

L. An award to Plaintiff of her reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses; and

M. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

DATED: June 2, 2022.

RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO

Counsel for Plaintiff DURAN, P.A.

4800 N. Hiatus Road Co-Counsel for Plaintiff

Sunrise, FL 33351 4640 N.W. 7th Street

T. 954/362-3800 Miami, FL 33126-2309

954/362-3779 (Facsimile) T. 305/266-9780 

Email: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com 305/269-8311 (Facsimile)

Email: duranandassociates@gmail.com 

By: s/ Roderick V. Hannah By: s/ Pelayo M. Duran 

RODERICK V. HANNAH PELAYO M. DURAN

Fla. Bar No. 435384 Fla. Bar No. 0146595

Case 1:22-cv-21689-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/02/2022 Page 25 of 25