UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 

VICTOR ARIZA, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

SOLE FLY, LLC., a Florida limited 

liability company,

Defendant.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff VICTOR ARIZA, through undersigned counsel, sues Defendant SOLE FLY, 

LLC., a Florida limited liability company, and alleges as follows:

1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive, 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 Section 5604 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-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 1 of 24
2

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

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

(“ADAAA”). Plaintiff also is expressly authorized to bring this case under the Rehab Act, 29 

U.S.C. §§794(a)(2) and 794(b)(3)(A), and under Section 505-f 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 Titl 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 blind and visually disabled in that he 

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

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

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

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

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

implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§36.101, et seq., and in 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 and is 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 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, 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 2 of 24
3

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 limited liability company authorized to do business and 

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

selling to the public apparel, footwear, and accessories, including one of the stores Plaintiff had 

patronized and/or intended to patronize in the near future at 18433 S. Dixie Highway, Cutler Bay, 

Florida. Defendant also owns, leases, leases to, and/or operates a business 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). 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 blind and visually disabled, in order to effectively communicate and comprehend 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 3 of 24
4

information available on the internet and thereby access and comprehend websites, Plaintiff uses 

commercially available screen reader software to interface with the various websites.

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

operates, and/or controls retail stores selling apparel, footwear and accessories under the name 

“Sole Fly.” Each Sole Fly store is open to the public. As the owner and operator of these retail 

stores, Defendant is defined as a place of “public accommodation" within meaning of the ADA

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

clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment,” per 42 

U.S.C. §12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(2).

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

is a place of public accommodation subject to the requirements of Title III of the ADA and its 

implementing regulations, 42 U.S.C. §12182, §12181(7)(E), and 28 C.F.R. Part 36. 

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

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

public information on the locations of Defendant’s stores that sell its merchandise to the public. 

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

point of sale for the sale for Defendant’s merchandise also available in, from, and through 

Defendant’s physical stores.

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

the store locations, 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 stores, purchase merchandise that also available for purchase in 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 4 of 24
5

and from the physical stores, arrange home deliveries and ins-tore 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 stores, the Website is an extension of, 

and gateway to, the goods, services, privileges, and advantages of Defendant’s physical stores. As 

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

the ADA, the Website is an extension of the goods, services, privileges, and advantages made 

available to the general public by Defendant at and through its brick-and-mortar locations and 

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

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

purchases of Defendant’s merchandise that is available in and from its physical stores.

15. Because the public can view and purchase Defendant’s merchandise that is also 

offered for sale in and from Defendant’s physical stores, thus acting as a point of sale for 

Defendant’s merchandise also sold in the physical stores, 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 stores, the Website is 

a necessary extension of, gateway to, and service, privilege, and advantage of the physical stores, 

which are places of public accommodation under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E). As such, the 

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

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

public both online and in the physical stores. 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 5 of 24
6

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 and is connected to Defendant’s physical stores as a point of sale for the purchase of 

Defendant’s merchandise from its physical stores, the Website is a 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 full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, and 

advantages afforded the non-visually disabled public both online and in the physical stores. 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 are removed or remedied, 

Defendant’s physical stores (including the store located at 18433 S Dixie Hwy Cutler Bay, 

Florida), and to check store hours and merchandise pricing, purchase merchandise, and sign up for 

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

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

near future as a tester to ascertain whether it has been updated to interact properly with screen 

reader software.

18. The opportunity to shop and pre-shop Defendant’s merchandise offered for sale in 

the physical stores, arrange home deliveries and in-store returns of merchandise purchased online

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

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 6 of 24
7

for use online and in the physical stores from his home are important accommodations for Plaintiff 

because traveling outside of his 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 alternative digital format that is accessible for use by blind and visually 

disabled individuals using screen reader software while using the internet.

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

merchandise, prices, services, sales, discounts, and promotions. Plaintiff may look at several 

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

20. Beginning in 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, and with the intent of 

making a purchase through the Website or in one of Defendant’s physical stores. Plaintiff also 

attempted to access and utilize the Website in his capacity as a tester to determine whether it was 

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

to access and navigate company websites.

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

visually disabled to communicate with websites. However, Defendant’s Website contains access 

barriers that prevent free and full use by blind and visually disabled individuals using keyboards 

and available screen reader software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited 

to: 

a. Return to home page button/company logo button is mislabeled;

b. Shopping cart is mislabeled as “continue shopping”;

c. The submenus are accessible. however, they are not labeled;

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 7 of 24
8

d. Product images are mislabeled as “link”; 

e. In the shoes link, sold out sizes are mislabeled as “radio button non selected 

disabled 1 of 10”; and

f. Sales item prices are not properly labeled and there is no difference as to which 

price is the sale versus the original price.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on the Website.

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

feeling excluded, as he is unable to participate in the same online and in-store shopping experience, 

with the same access to the merchandise, sales, discounts, and promotions, as provided at the 

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

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

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

extension, service, privilege, and advantage of the physical stores, but he is presently unable to do 

so as he is unable to effectively communicate with Defendant’s physical stores due to his blindness

and the Website’s access barriers. Alternatively, as a tester using screen reader software, Plaintiff 

is unable to effectively access, navigate, and communicate with Defendants through the Website 

due to his blindness and the Website’s access barriers. Thus, Plaintiff and others who are blind 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 8 of 24
9

and visually disabled will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant’s intentional acts, 

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

26. Because the Website clearly provides support for and is connected to Defendant’s 

retail stores for its goods, services, operation, and use, and is a necessary service, privilege, 

advantage, and accommodation of Defendant’s brick-and-mortar stores 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, and advantages afforded 

the non-visually disabled public both online and in the physical stores, which are places of public 

accommodation subject to the requirements of the ADA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

disabilities.

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

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

disabilities.

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

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 9 of 24
10

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

Accessibility Testing program. 

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

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

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

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

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

accessible to the visually disabled and blind communities.

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

2.0 Level AA or higher versions of web accessibility.

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

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

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

stores from their homes.

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

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

provided by and through the Website and the physical stores in contravention of the ADA and the 

Rehab Act.

39. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 10 of 24
11

against disabled persons and are required to make the facilities, programs, or activites they operate 

fully and readily accessible to persons with disabilities. 

40. 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. 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).

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

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

means to comprehend information presented therein.

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

access to all visitors to the Website.

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

treatment of individuals with visual disabilities such as Plaintiff.

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

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

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

in connection with its website access and operation.

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

violations. 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 11 of 24
12

46. 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.

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

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

COUNT I – VIOLATION OF THE ADA

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

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

the ADA because it owns, controls, and/or operates physical retail stores and the connected 

Website..

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

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

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

merchandise that is also available for purchase in and from the physical stores, allows users to

arrange for home deliveries and in-store returns of merchandise purchased online, and allows users 

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

use both online and in the physical stores. The Website thus is an extension of, gateway to, and 

necessary service, privilege, and advantage of Defendant’s physical stores. The Website also 

serves to augment Defendant’s physical stores by providing the public information about locations

of the stores and by educating the public as to Defendant’s available products sold through the 

Website and in the physical stores. 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 its physical stores.

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 12 of 24
13

51. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12182(b)(1)(A)(II), it is unlawful 

discrimination to deny individuals with disabilities or a class of individuals with disabilities an 

opportunity to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 

or accommodation, which is equal to the opportunities afforded to other individuals.

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

discrimination includes, among other things, “a failure to make reasonable modifications in 

policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, 

unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the 

nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations.”

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

discrimination includes, among other things, “a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to 

ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise 

treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, 

unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of 

the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result 

in an undue burden.”

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

alleged hereinabove and below.

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

are denied full and equal enjoyment of the information and services that Defendant has made 

available to the public on the Website and in the physical stores in violation of 42 U.S.C. §12101,

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

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 13 of 24
14

56. The Website was subsequently visited by Plaintiff’s expert in September 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, enjoyment, and 

accessibility for visually disabled persons such as Plaintiff. Defendant also 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 a conspicuous and effective 

“accessibility” notice, statement, or policy to provide blind and visually disabled persons 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 set forth in the Declaration of Plaintiff’s expert, Robert D. Moody, attached hereto as Composite 

Exhibit “B” and the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference, continue to render the 

Website not fully accessible to users who are blind and visually disabled, including Plaintiff. 

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

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

58. 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.

59. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 14 of 24
15

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.

60. Defendant has violated the ADA – and continues to violate the ADA – by denying 

access to the Website, and hence its connected physical stores, 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.

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

accommodation ensure that communication is effective. 

62. 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.

63. 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).

64. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 15 of 24
16

public accommodations, and requires places of public accommodation to be designed, constructed, 

and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by Part 36.

65. 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.

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

compliant Website that is an extension, service, privilege, and advantage of, and point of sale for,

Defendant’s brick-and-mortar stores, Plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact by being denied full 

access to and enjoyment of Defendant’s physical stores.

67. 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. 

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

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

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

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

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

enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations offered 

in Defendant’s physical stores through the Website and the physical stores.

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 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 16 of 24
17

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

modifications are made, and 

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

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

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

Defendant’s merchandise 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 the physical stores. 

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

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

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

services. 

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

the following relief:

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

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

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

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

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

ADA; 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 17 of 24
18

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;

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 

1 or similar.

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 18 of 24
19

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

70. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 47 and 56 through 59 as if set forth fully 

herein.

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

failing to interface the Website with software utilized by visually impaired individuals. Thus, 

Defendant has violated the Rehab Act either directly or through contractual, licensing or other 

arrangements with respect to Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals solely by reason of 

their disability, based on the following:

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 19 of 24
20

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 from 

discriminating against disabled persons and requires that facilities, programs, or activities operated 

by a federally funded entity 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 which receives 

federal financial assistance as a whole. Defendant's Website and its content is a "program or 

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

f) Plaintiff was denied access to Defendant's 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 benefits of the Website, a service available to those persons who are not blind. As of 

this filing, the Website remains inaccessible to qualified or otherwise qualified persons; 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 20 of 24
21

g) The international website standards organization, WC3, has published widelyaccepted 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 since it 

received federal financial assistance. 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.

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

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

of the inaccessible features of its 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, yet and 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 

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. 

73. Plaintiff would like to be a customer at Defendant's brick-and-mortar stores but 

before he goes to the stores, he would like to determine what is available for his purchasing, what 

promotions are being offered, and what new items are currently available. In that regard, Plaintiff 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 21 of 24
22

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 in the stores.

74. 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.

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

result of the discriminatory conditions present at Defendant's 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 -Defendant's 

programs and activities available to the 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 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 a website 

with access and Rehab Act violations, Defendant deprives Plaintiff the equal access to, and same 

participation in and benefits of, its programs and activities as the non-visually disabled public.

76. 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.

77. 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 the Defendant. Plaintiff desires to access the 

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 22 of 24
23

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

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

enjoyment of the Website without fear of discrimination.

78. The 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. 

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

on the facts alleged hereinabove.

80. 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;

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;

Case 1:22-cv-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 23 of 24
24

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: October 28th, 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-23528-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/28/2022 Page 24 of 24