UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

NELSON FERNANDEZ, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

KOKO ATLANTIC LLC, d/b/a

KOKONUS DELRAY BEACH, a 

Florida limited liability company,

Defendant.

__________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff NELSON FERNANDEZ, through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant KOKO 

ATLANTIC LLC, d/b/a KOKONUTS DELRAY BEACH, a Florida limited liability company 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 Palm Beach County 

Code of Ordinances, §15-57 (“Palm Beach 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 Palm Beach Code pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 1 of 24
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 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”), and the Palm Beach Code, §15-37(10).

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

disabled person 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., 42 U.S.C. §3602(h), and the Palm Beach Code, §15-37(10). 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 Palm Beach Code, and any other applicable disability laws, regulations, and ordinances. 

6. Because he is 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 2 of 24
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 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 Florida limited liability company authorized to do business and 

doing business in the State of Florida. Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls a reatail store

selling beach and swimwear that Plaintiff intended to patronize in the near future at 310 East 

Atlantic Avenue, Delray Beach, 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 visually disabled, 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 3 of 24
10. At all times material hereto, Defendant was and still is an organization that owns,

operates, and/or controls a store selling apparel under the name “Kokonuts”. The Kokonuts store 

is open to the public. As the owner and operator of this retail store, 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 is also defined as a “place of public accommodation” under the Palm Beach 

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 retail establishment,” per Palm Beach Code 

§15-37(4)(e).

11. Because Defendant is a store open to the public, Defendant’s physical store 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 the Miami-Dade Code, §15-37(4)(e). 

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

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

the public information on the location of Defendant’s store. Defendant also sells to the public its 

merchandise through the Website, which acts as a critical point of sale for merchandise available 

in, from, and through Defendant’s physical store. 

13. The Website also services Defendant’s physical store 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 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 4 of 24
14. Because the Website allows the public the ability to secure information about the 

location of Defendant’s physical store, purchase merchandise also available for purchase in and 

from the physical store, arrange home delivery 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 store, the Website has a nexus to, and is an extension of and gateway to, the goods, 

services, privileges, and advantages of Defendant’s physical store, which is a place of public 

accommodation under the ADA and the Palm Beach Code. As an extension of and service, 

privilege, and advantage provided by a place of public accommodation as defined under the ADA

and the Palm Beach 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 location

and business. Furthermore, the Website is a necessary service and privilege of Defendant’s 

physical store in that, as a point of sale for the store, it enables users of the Website to make 

purchases of Defendant’s merchandise that are available from and in its physical store.

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

that are also offered for sale in Defendant’s physical store, thus having the Website act as a point 

of sale for Defendant’s products that are also sold in the physical store, arrange home delivery 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 store, the Website is an 

extension of and gateway to the physical store, which are places of public accommodation pursuant 

to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), and pursuant to the Palm Beach Code, §15-37(4)(e). As 

such, the Website is a necessary service, privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s brick-and-mortar 

store that must comply with all requirements of the ADA and the Palm Beach Code, must not 

discriminate against individuals with visual disabilities, and must not deny those individuals the 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 5 of 24
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 store.

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

operating, and/or controlling 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 store that must comply with all requirements of the ADA and the Palm Beach 

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 afforded the non-visually disabled public both online and in the physical store. As 

such, Defendant has subjected itself and the Website to the requirements of the ADA and the Palm 

Beach 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 store and to check store hours and merchandise pricing, purchase 

merchandise, arrange home delivery of merchandise purchased online, and sign up for an emailer 

to receive exclusive offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use at the Website or in 

Defendant’s physical store. In the alternative, Plaintiff intends to monitor the Website in the near 

future as a tester to ascertain whether it has been remedied and updated to interact properly with 

screen reader software. 

18. The opportunity to shop and pre-shop Defendant’s merchandise, arrange home

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

offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use both online and in the physical store from his 

home are important and necessary accommodations for Plaintiff because traveling outside of his 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 6 of 24
home as a 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 a number of websites at a time to help plan 

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

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

20. During the months of March 2021 and June 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 store, check store hours, and check merchandise pricing with the intent to make

a purchase through the Website or in the physical store. 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 the following: 

a. Home page logo is not properly labeled;

b. On the Contact us page, the store address and telephone number are inaccessible when 

navigating with a keyboard;

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 7 of 24
c. The text information on the About Us page is not labeled; the cursor skips the 

information and navigates to the nearest available link, button, or header;

d. Size options not properly labeled; and

e. Phone number is not properly labeled.

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, 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 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 Defendant’s physical store and to use the Website, but he 

is presently 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 

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

herein unless properly enjoined by this Court.

25. Because of the nexus between Defendant’s retail store and the Website, and the fact 

that the Website clearly provides support for and is connected to Defendant’s retail store for its 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 8 of 24
operation and use, the Website is an intangible service, privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s 

brick-and-mortar store that 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, and advantages as afforded the nonvisually disabled public both online and in the physical store, which is a place of public 

accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA.

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.

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 effective email contact mode for customer assistance for the visually disabled.

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 9 of 24
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 or blind community.

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 visually disabled individuals who want the safety 

and privacy of purchasing Defendant’s merchandise offered on the Website and in the physical 

store from their homes.

37. 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 and in the physical store in contravention of the ADA and the Palm Beach Code.

38. Public accommodations under the ADA and the Palm Beach 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.

39. The broad mandates of the ADA and the Palm Beach Code are to provide equal 

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

American civic and economic life. Those mandates extend to internet shopping websites such as 

the Website at issue in the instant action.

40. 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.

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 10 of 24
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, including Plaintiff.

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 its website access and operation.

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

to cure the violations. As to the Palm Beach County Code, Plaintiff has exhausted all available 

administrative remedies and brings this action after filing a charge of discrimination with the Palm 

Beach County Office of Equal Opportunity (“PBOEO”) and waiting more than 180 days after the 

filing to commence this action. A copy of the Plaintiff Charge is attached as Exhibit ”A” 

45. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA and the Palm Beach Code is right 

and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202 and the provisions of the Palm Beach Code, §15-

56(a).

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.

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 11 of 24
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 store, 

purchase merchandise that is also available for purchase from and in the physical store, arrange 

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

online offers, benefits, invitations, and discounts for use both online and in the physical store. The 

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

Defendant’s physical store. Further, the Website also serves to augment Defendant’s physical 

store by providing the public information about the store and by educating the public as to 

Defendant’s available merchandise sold through the Website and in the physical store.

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, 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 12 of 24
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.”

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 who are blind and visually 

disabled 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 store 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 March 

2021 and June 2022, and the expert determinations were 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. 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 13 of 24
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. 

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. 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.

58. 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.

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

accommodation ensure that communication is effective. 

60. 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 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 14 of 24
61. 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).

62. 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.

63. 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.

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

compliant Website with a nexus to its brick-and-mortar store, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in 

fact by being denied full access to, enjoyment of, and communication with Defendant’s Website 

and its physical store. 

65. 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. 

66. 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 15 of 24
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

and the physical store.

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 store 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 and the physical store. 

67. 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 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 16 of 24
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 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 17 of 24
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 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 PALM BEACH CODE

68. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 46 and 55 through 57 as if set forth fully 

herein.

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 18 of 24
69. The Palm Beach Code §§15-54(b) and 15-56 provides specifically for a private 

right of action for any persons aggrieved by violations of the Palm Beach Code public 

accommodations provisions in §15-57.

70. Defendant is a public accommodation under the Palm Beach Code as defined within 

§15-37(10), and thus is subject to Article III, Chapter 15, §§15-37, 15-54, 15-56, and 15-57 of the 

Palm Beach Code.

71. Pursuant to §15-37(4)(e), the Website is covered under the Palm Beach Code 

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

purchase merchandise that is also available for purchase in and from the physical store, arrange 

store deliveries 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 store. The

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

Defendant’s physical store. Further, the Website also serves to augment Defendant’s physical 

store by providing the public information about the store and by educating the public as to 

Defendant’s available merchandise sold through the Website and in the physical store.

72. Under §15-57 of the Palm Beach Code, it is “an unlawful discriminatory practice 

for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent, or employee 

of any place of public accommodation, because of the ... disability ... of any person directly or 

indirectly to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, 

facilities or privileges thereof that are afforded the other customers, directly or indirectly.” This 

prohibition extends to the websites of public accommodations, which, when acting as points of 

sale for the public accommodations, constitute accommodations, advantages, facilities, and 

privileges of the public accommodations. 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 19 of 24
73. Defendant’s Website must comply with the Palm Beach Code, but it does not as 

specifically alleged hereinabove and below.

74. 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 store in violation of 

the Palm Beach Code, specifically §15-57.

75. Defendant has violated the Palm Beach Code -- and continues to violate the Palm 

Beach 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.

76. The Palm Beach Code, same as the ADA, requires that public accommodations and 

places of public accommodation ensure that communication is effective.

77. 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 Palm Beach Code.

78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide a Palm Beach 

Code compliant website, with a nexus to its brick-and-mortar store, Plaintiff has suffered an injury 

in fact by being denied full access to, enjoyment of, and communication with the Website and the

physical store.

79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s failure to provide a Palm Beach 

Code compliant website, with a nexus to its brick-and-mortar store, 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 Website with 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 20 of 24
discriminatory conditions of which it is aware, 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 as are afforded 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 

store or the Website that are readily available to the non-visually disabled public and is deterred 

and discouraged from doing so. By maintaining the 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 store as the nonvisually disabled public.

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

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

the requirements of the Palm Beach Code.

81. Because of the inadequate and discriminatory development and administration of 

the Website, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to Palm Beach Code §§15-54(h) and 

15-56(d) to remedy the ongoing disability discrimination. 

82. Pursuant to the Palm Beach Code §§15-54(h) and 15-56(d), 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 21 of 24
of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations through the Website

and the physical store.

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 store 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 and in the physical store. 

83. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover his actual and compensatory damages, 

reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to the Palm Beach Code, §§15-54(e) and 

15-56(d). 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 Palm Beach 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 

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 22 of 24
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 Palm Beach Code; 

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 the Palm Beach Code accessibility requirements and applicable accessibility 

guidelines;

Case 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 23 of 24
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 Palm 

Beach 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 actual and compensatory damages as allowed by the 

Palm Beach Code, §§15-54(e) and 15-56(d); 

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

allowed by the Palm Beach Code, §15-56(d); and

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

DATED: September 6, 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 9:22-cv-81367-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/06/2022 Page 24 of 24