UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

NELSON FERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

DAX INTERNATIONAL BROKERS, INC.,

a Florida for-profit corporation,

Defendant.

______________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff NELSON FERNANDEZ, through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant DAX 

INTERNATIONAL BROKERS, INC., a Florida 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 also is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation 

expenses for unlawful disability discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 

U.S.C. §794, et seq. (“Rehab Act”). 

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

U.S.C. §1331, and the provisions of the ADA and the Rehab Act. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and 

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

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.

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 1 of 25
2

4. Plaintiff NELSON FERNANDEZ is a resident of Palm Beach 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”). Plaintiff is also authorized to bring this case as an otherwise qualified person 

with a disability under the Rehab Act, 29 U.S.C. §§794(a)(2) and 794(b)(3)(A), and under Section 

505-f of the Rehab Act which enforces Section 504 of the Rehab Act, 29 U.S.C. §§794 and 794a, 

incorporating the rights and remedies set forth in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 

U.S.C. §2000d, et seq.

5. Plaintiff is and at all relevant times has been visually impaired and physically 

disabled who has been diagnosed with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis (“RRMS”). As a 

result of his disease, Plaintiff is currently paralyzed in approximately 80% to 90% of his body as 

a whole and only has very limited use of his left hand. Further as a consequence of his disease, 

Plaintiff has developed optic neuritis and is visually disabled, with complete blindness in one eye 

and very limited vision in the other eye. Plaintiff thus is substantially limited in performing one 

or more major life activities, including, but not limited to, seeing and 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., and 42 U.S.C. §3602(h). Plaintiff is also an otherwise qualified individual with 

a disability who has been denied the benefits of a program or activity receiving federal financial 

assistance as a whole and is thus covered by the Rehab Act, 29 U.S.C. §794(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 the recipients of federal financial assistance and/or their respective and 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 2 of 25
3

associated websites are in compliance with the ADA, the Rehab Act, 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 screen reader software. 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,’ which will bring her 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 her 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 Florida for-profit corporation authorized to do business and doing 

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

showrooms open to the public selling kitchen and bathroom furnishings, fixtures, and accessories, 

including the showroom Plaintiff had patronized and/or intended to patronize in the near future 

located at 2199 NE 163rd Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. Defendant also owns, leases, leases 

to, and/or operates a business operating in Florida that is the recipient of federal financial assistance

as a whole within the meaning of Rehab Act, 29 U.S.C. §794(b)(3)(A)(i), as it was the recipient 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 3 of 25
4

of Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) bailout funds from the federal government. See 

attached Exhibit “A”.

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 visually disabled, to effectively communicate and comprehend information available 

on the internet and to 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 Florida showrooms open to the public selling kitchen and bathroom 

furnishings, fixtures, and accessories under the name “Dax.” Each “Dax” showroom is open to the 

public. As the owner and operator of these showrooms, 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).

11. Because Defendant is a retail showroom open to the public, each of its showrooms 

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. 

12. Defendant also owns, controls, maintains, and/or operates an adjunct website,

https://daxib.com (the “Website”). One of the functions of the Website is to provide the public 

information on Defendant’s showrooms that sell its merchandise to the public within the State of 

Florida. Defendant also sells to the public its merchandise through the Website, which acts as a 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 4 of 25
5

critical point of sale for the purchase of merchandise also available for purchase from and in 

Defendant’s physical showrooms.

13. The Website also services Defendant’s physical showrooms by providing 

information on available merchandise, tips and advice, editorials, sales campaigns, events, and 

other information that Defendant is interested in communicating to its customers.

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

locations of Defendant’s physical showrooms, purchase merchandise from Defendant that is also 

available for purchase in and from the physical showrooms, arrange home deliveries and in-store 

returns of merchandise purchased online, and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive online 

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

Website is an extension of, gateway to, and necessary service, privilege, and advantage of 

Defendant’s physical showrooms, which are places of public accommodation under the ADA. 

Because of this nexus, and as an extension of and necessary service, privilege, and advantage 

provided by a place of public accommodation as defined under the ADA, 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 showrooms in that, as a critical point 

of sale for the showrooms, it enables users of the Website to make online purchases of Defendant’s 

products that are also available for purchase in its physical showrooms.

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

Website that are also offered for sale in and through Defendant’s physical showrooms, thus having 

the Website act as a point of sale for Defendant’s products sold in and through its physical 

showrooms, arrange home deliveries and in-store returns of merchandise purchased online, and 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 5 of 25
6

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

use online and in the physical showrooms, the Website is an extension of, gateway to, and 

necessary service, privilege, and advantage of the physical showrooms, which are places of public 

accommodation under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E). As such, the Website has a nexus to, 

and is a necessary service, privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s brick-and-mortar showrooms

that must comply with all requirements of the ADA, 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 to the non-visually disabled 

public both online and in the physical showrooms.

16. Since the Website is open to the public through the internet and acts as a critical 

point of sale of products also available for purchase in and through Defendant’s physical 

showrooms, by this nexus the website is an necessary service, privilege and advantage of 

Defendant’s brick and mortar stores that must comply with all requirements of the ADA, 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 services, privileges, and advantages as 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. In addition, as a recipient of 

federal financial assistance to the company as a whole, Defendant has subjected itself and all of its 

operations, programs, and activities, including its Website, to the requirements, prohibitions, and 

anti-discrimination provisions of the Rehab Act.

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 described herein are removed or 

remedied, one or more of Defendant’s physical showrooms. In the alternative, Plaintiff intends to 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 6 of 25
7

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 available for 

purchase in the physical showrooms from his home, arrange home deliveries and in-store returns 

of merchandise purchased online, and sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive online offers, 

benefits, invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical showrooms, 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 screen reader software.

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

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

Plaintiff may look at several dozens of sites to compare merchandise, features, services, discounts, 

promotions, and prices.

20. During the month of September 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, services, sales, discounts, and promotions being offered, with the intent of 

making a purchase through the Website or in one of Defendant’s showrooms.

21. Plaintiff utilizes 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: 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 7 of 25
8

a. Home page button is mislabeled;

b. Telephone is not properly labeled and does not state it is a telephone number;

c. “Filter By” headers are not labeled to integrate with the screen reader;

d. Prices are inaccessible; and

e. Text throughout is not properly labeled and will skip text and jump to next 

available link or button.

22. 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. 

However, Plaintiff was unable to do so because no such link or notice, statement, or policy existed 

on the Website.

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

feeling excluded, frustrated, and humiliated, and gave him a sense of isolation and segregation, as 

he is unable to participate in the same shopping experience, with the same access to the 

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

physical store as the non-visually disabled public. 

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

are removed or remedied, to patronize one or more of Defendant’s physical showrooms and to use 

the Website, but he is unable to do so as he is unable to effectively communicate with Defendant 

due to his severe visual disability 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 visual disability and the Website’s access barriers. 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 8 of 25
9

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

herein unless properly enjoined by this Court.

25. Because the Website clearly provides support for and is directly connected with 

Defendant’s showrooms for its operation and use, and thus is a necessary extension, service, 

privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s brick-and-mortar showrooms for the purchase of 

Defendant’s merchandise, the Website must comply with all requirements of the ADA, 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, advantages as are 

afforded the non-visually disabled public both online and in the physical showrooms, which are

places of public accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA. In addition, because 

Defendant is a recipient of federal funds as a whole through the receipt of EIDL loan funds, 

Defendant and all of its operations, programs, and activities, including the Website, are also subject 

to the requirements of the Rehab Act and must not exclude or discriminate against qualified or 

otherwise qualified individuals with visual disabilities such as Plaintiff.

26. 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.

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

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

28. 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-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 9 of 25
10

29. 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.

30. 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.

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

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

Accessibility Testing program. 

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

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

34. 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 and blind communities.

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

2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility.

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

to correct the inaccessibility of the Website to blind and visually disabled individuals who want 

the safety and privacy of purchasing Defendant’s merchandise offered on the Website online from 

their homes.

37. Defendant thus has not provided full and equal access to and enjoyment of the 

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, programs, and activities 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 10 of 25
11

provided by and through the Website and its physical showrooms in contravention of the ADA 

and the Rehab Act.

38. Public accommodations under the ADA 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. Likewise, under the Rehab Act, public 

accommodations and companies that receive federal financial assistance must not discriminate 

against disabled persons and are required to make the facilities, programs, and activities they 

operate fully and readily accessible to persons with disabilities.

39. The broad mandate of the ADA is to provide an 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. In addition, Congress enacted the Rehab Act to enforce the policy of the United States that 

all programs, projects and activities receiving federal assistance " ... be carried out in a manner 

consistent with the principles of ... inclusion, integration and full participation of the individuals 

[with disabilities]." 29 U.S.C. §701(c)(3).

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

communication within the Website that prevent individuals with visual disabilities from the means 

to comprehend information presented therein.

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

access to all visitors to the Website.

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

treatment of individuals with visual disabilities such as Plaintiff.

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 11 of 25
12

43. 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 the Website’s access and operation.

44. Notice to Defendant is not required because of Defendant’s failure to cure the 

violations. 

45. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA and the Rehab Act is right and just 

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

46. 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

47. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 46 as if set forth fully herein.

48. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), Defendant is a public accommodation under 

the ADA and thus is subject to the ADA.

49. 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 

showrooms, acts as a point of sale for Defendant’s physical showrooms by allowing users to 

purchase Defendant’s products that are also available for purchase in and through the physical 

showrooms, allows users to arrange home deliveries and in-store returns of products purchase 

online, and allows users sign up for an emailer to receive exclusive online offers, benefits, 

invitations, and discounts for use online and in the physical showrooms. The Website thus, has a 

nexus to, is an extension of, gateway to, and necessary service, privilege, and advantage of, and 

facilitates the operation of Defendant’s physical showrooms. Further, the Website also serves to 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 12 of 25
13

augment and facilitate Defendant’s physical showrooms by providing the public information on 

the locations of the showrooms and by educating the public as to Defendant’s available products 

sold through the Website and through the physical showrooms. The Website thus is necessary for 

Plaintiff to fully enjoy and have access to all of the goods, services, privileges, and advantages 

being offered by Defendant both online and in the physical showrooms.

50. 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.

51. 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.”

52. 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.”

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 13 of 25
14

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

alleged hereinabove and below.

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

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

Defendant has made available to the public on the Website and in the physical showrooms in 

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

55. The Website was subsequently visited by Plaintiff’s expert in October 2022 and the 

expert determination was that the same access barriers that Plaintiff had initially encountered, as 

well as numerous additional access barriers, existed. Defendant thus 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. Defendant furthermore has 

not disclosed to the public any intended audits, changes, or lawsuits to correct the inaccessibility 

of the Website to visually disabled individuals, nor has it posted on the Website an effective 

“accessibility” notice, statement, or policy to provide blind and visually disabled person such as 

Plaintiff with a viable alternative means to access and navigate the Website. 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 alleged herein and 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 14 of 25
15

56. 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.

57. Further, the Website does not offer or include the universal symbol for the disabled 

that would permit disabled individuals to access the Website’s accessibility information and 

accessibility facts.

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 

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.

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 15 of 25
16

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.

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 that is a necessary extension, service, privilege, and advantage of, and critical 

point of sale for, Defendant’s brick-and-mortar showrooms, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact 

by being denied full access to and enjoyment of Defendant’s physical showrooms.

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 statement as to Defendant’s

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 16 of 25
17

policy to ensure persons with visual disabilities have full and equal access to and enjoyment of the 

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

in the physical showrooms.

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 showrooms and becoming informed of and purchasing 

Defendant’s products online, 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 and in the physical showrooms. 

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;

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 17 of 25
18

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 

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;

1 or similar.

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 18 of 25
19

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 

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 his 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 REHABILITATION ACT

69. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 46 and 55 through 58 as if set forth fully 

herein.

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 19 of 25
20

70. As more specifically set forth above, Defendant has violated the Rehab Act by 

failing to interface the Website with software utilized by blind and visually disabled individuals. 

Thus, Defendant has violated the following provisions either directly or through contractual, 

licensing, or other arrangements with respect to Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals 

solely by reason of their disability:

a) By excluding Plaintiff from participation in and denying him the benefits of or 

subjecting him to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial 

assistance as a whole, Defendant has violated the Rehab Act;

b) Congress enacted the Rehab Act to enforce the policy of the United States that all 

programs, projects and activities receiving federal assistance “...be carried out in a manner 

consistent with the principles of...inclusion, integration and full participation of the individuals 

[with disabilities].” 29 U.S.C. Section 701 (c)(3);

c) Defendant is a recipient of federal financial assistance as a whole bringing it under 

the Rehab Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified or otherwise qualified individuals 

in all of the recipient's "programs or activities";

d) Section 504 of the Rehab Act prohibits recipients of federal funding as a whole 

from discriminating against disabled persons and requires that their facilities, programs, and

activities be readily accessible to persons with disabilities;

e) The Rehab Act defines "program or activity" as all of the operations of the entire 

corporation, partnership, or other private organization, or sole proprietorship that receives federal 

financial assistance as a whole. Defendant's Website and its content thus are a "program or activity" 

within the meaning of the Rehab Act, 29 U.S.C. §794(b)(3)(A);

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 20 of 25
21

f) Plaintiff was denied access to the Website solely by reason of his disability. This 

denial of access to Defendant's "program or activity" subjected Plaintiff to discrimination, 

excluded Plaintiff from participation in the program or activity, and denied Plaintiff the goods, 

benefits, and services of the Website, a service available to those persons who are not blind or 

visually disabled. As of this filing, the Website remains inaccessible to qualified or otherwise 

qualified persons with a visual disability such as Plaintiff; 

g) The international website standards organization, WC3, has published widely

accepted guidelines (WCAG 2.0 and WCAG 2.1 AA) for making digital content accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. These guidelines have been endorsed the United States Department 

of Justice and by Federal courts and the United States Access Board; and

h) Defendant has engaged in unlawful practices in violation of the Rehab Act in 

connection with the operation of the Website. These practices include, but are not limited to, 

denying Plaintiff, an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to 

the rules, policies, or practices, the removal of communication barriers, or the provision of 

auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services 

to participate in programs or activities provided by Defendant.

71. Defendant has acted with deliberate indifference to the applicable provisions of the 

Rehab Act as to the unlawful practices described herein because Defendant is fully aware of the 

inaccessible features of the Website and has failed to remediate the Website to make it equally 

accessible to persons with visual disabilities. Defendant knew that harm to a federally protected 

right was substantially likely to occur, yet it failed to act on that likelihood when it failed to 

remediate its Website. Defendant knew this, and on information and belief, a person with authority 

with Defendant to order the remediation of the Website made a deliberate choice not to remediate 

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 21 of 25
22

and to continue to offer the inaccessible Website to its customers and potential customers knowing 

that the Website was, and continues to be, inaccessible to the blind and visually disabled. 

72. Plaintiff would like to be a customer at Defendant's brick-and-mortar showrooms

but before he goes to any of the showrooms, he would like to determine what is available for his 

purchasing, what promotions and services are being offered, and what new items are currently 

available. In that regard, Plaintiff continues to attempt to utilize the Website and/or plans to 

continue to attempt to utilize the Website on a regular basis to make selections for purchasing 

online or through one of the showrooms.

73. Plaintiff is continuously aware of the violations at Defendant's Website and is aware 

that it would be a futile gesture to attempt to utilize the Website as long as those violations exist 

unless he is willing to suffer additional discrimination.

74. Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, frustration and humiliation as the 

result of the discriminatory conditions present at the Website. By continuing to operate the Website 

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

segregation and deprives Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of the benefits of the programs and 

activities available to the general public. By encountering the discriminatory conditions at 

Defendant's 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 of freely visiting and utilizing the same stores or the Website readily available to the general 

public and is deterred and discouraged from doing so. By maintaining the Website with access 

and Rehab Act violations, Defendant deprives Plaintiff the equal access to and participation in the 

benefits of Defendant’s programs and activities as the non-visually disabled public.

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 22 of 25
23

75. Plaintiff 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 Rehab Act.

76. Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing threat of discrimination 

from the Defendant's non-compliance with the Rehab Act with respect to this Website as described 

above. Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected to 

discrimination in violation of the Rehab Act by Defendant. Plaintiff desires to access the Website 

to avail himself of the benefits therein and/or to assure himself that the Website is in compliance 

with the Rehab Act so that he and others similarly situated will have full and equal access to and 

enjoyment of the Website without fear of discrimination.

77. Plaintiff and all others similarly situated will continue to suffer such discrimination, 

injury, and damage without the immediate relief provided by the Rehab Act as requested herein. 

78. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm based 

on the facts alleged hereinabove.

79. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is entitled to recover attorney's 

fees, costs, and litigation expenses from the Defendant pursuant to the Rehab Act, 29 U.S.C. §794a.

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

the following relief:

A. A declaration that determines that Defendant's Website at the commencement of 

the subject lawsuit is in violation of the Rehabilitation Act;

B. A declaration that Defendant's Website continues to be in violation of the 

Rehabilitation Act;

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 23 of 25
24

C. A declaration that Defendant has violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to 

monitor and maintain its Website to ensure that it is readily accessible to and usable by persons 

with visual disabilities;

D. Issuance of an Order directing Defendant to alter its Website to make it accessible 

to, and useable by, individuals with visual disabilities to the full extent required by the 

Rehabilitation Act;

E. Issuance of an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize its policies and 

procedures towards persons with disabilities for such reasonable time so as to allow Defendant to 

undertake and complete corrective and remedial procedures;

F. Issuance of an Order directing Defendant to continually update and maintain its 

Website to ensure that it remains fully accessible to and usable by visually disabled individuals;

G. Award Plaintiff his attorney's fees, costs, and litigation expenses pursuant to 29 

U.S.C. §794a; and

H. Award such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable 

under the Rehabilitation Act.

DATED: November 2, 2022

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

Counsel for Plaintiff DURAN, P.A.

4800 N. Hiatus Rd 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-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 24 of 25
25

Case 1:22-cv-23579-RNS Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/02/2022 Page 25 of 25