1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

Case Number:__________________-CIV-_____________________

AISHIA PETERSEN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

L’ OREAL USA S/D, Inc., 

dba Kiehl’s

 Defendant.

________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR PERMANENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF 

 COMES NOW, Plaintiff Aishia Petersen (“Plaintiff “or “Petersen”), by and 

through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint for Permanent Injunctive Relief pursuant to Title 

III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§s 12181-12189 

(“ADA”), 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202 as well as 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations. Plaintiff state as 

follows:

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this case based on federal question Jurisdiction, 

as provided in 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.

2. Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person (disabled) who requires 

assistance through screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Plaintiff 

uses the term “blind” or “visually impaired” as legally blind. Disable as defined by ADA and 

Amendment acts of 2008, 42 USC §12101 (ADAAA).

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 1 of 19
2

3. Defendant’s website https://www.kiehls.com specifically the Florida website

(the “Website”) is not fully or equally accessible to blind or visually impaired consumers in 

violation of the “ADA.” As a result, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in

L’ Oreal USA S/D, Inc doing business as Kiehl’s (“Defendant” or “L’ Oreal”) policies, practices

and procedures so that Defendant’s website will become, and remain, accessible to blind. Plaintiff 

seeks injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs, including, but not limited to, court costs and 

expert fees, pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. §§s 12181-12189 (“ADA”) and 42 U.S.C. 2000a-3(a). See also 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 

as well as ADA 28 CFR Part 36 Regulations. 

4. Plaintiff is unaware of the true names, identities, and capacities of all responsible 

parties (defendant) being sued. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the true 

names and capacities if and when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon 

alleges, that Defendant is legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings 

alleged herein and that Defendant sued here proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff 

as set forth below.

5. Plaintiff is sui juris, and she is disabled as defined by the ADA and ADA 

Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 (“ADAAA”). Defendant’s failure to design, build, 

maintain, and operate its https://www.kiehls.com to be fully and equally accessible to and 

independently operational by Plaintiff, constitutes in Defendant’s denial of full and equal access 

to physical stores and Website, resulting in a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 2 of 19
3

6. Defendant’s website is a point of sale for the Defendant physical store. The 

Defendant’s e-commerce platform (https://www.kiehls.com the “Website”) allows purchase of 

the same merchandise online or at the brick-mortar store.

7. The Defendant owns and operates the Website for desktop and mobile

application for e-commerce and distributes its products to several affiliated stores that are located 

in Florida. 

8. Plaintiff Aishia Petersen, a blind woman, residing in Orlando, Florida brings 

this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act in Federal Court. 

9. Blind and visually impaired citizens must use screen reading software1or other 

assistive technologies in order to access website content.

10. Plaintiff cannot use her computer and mobile device browser without the 

assistance of appropriate and available screen reader software to understand websites.

11. Defendant’s Website is built in digital code that impedes screen-reader

software to work. A few lines of code could make the Defendant’s website compatible with the 

popular blind’s screen-readers software and grant access to Defendant’s store to all blind 

individuals, including Plaintiff.

12.Screen reader software translates the visual internet into an auditory equivalent. 

which vocalizes visual information found on the computer screen. With this software, Plaintiff 

has successfully used more than 400 websites.

13. The software reads the content of a webpage to the user. The screen reading 

software uses auditory cues to allow a visually impaired user to effectively navigate the websites.

1

“screen reader” is a software application that enables people with severe visual impairments to use a computer. 

Screen readers work closely with the computer's Operating System (OS) to verbalize information about icons, menus, 

dialogue boxes, files and folders.

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 3 of 19
4

14. Plaintiff visited the Website when at home, and on the go and/or in transit 

visiting other cities. The purpose of the Website is to turn visitors into prospects. One of the 

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

Defendant’s stores through a “Find a Store” feature. Defendant also sells to the public its 

merchandise through the Website, which acts as a point of sale for Defendant’s merchandise 

available in, from, and through Defendant’s physical stores.

15. This case arises out of the fact that Defendant L’ Oreal has operated its 

business in a manner and way that effectively excluding Plaintiff who are visually impaired from 

access to Defendant physical stores and online store (the Website). Because the Website, an ecommerce online platform, carries the same products in the physical store and connects

individuals to make a purchase on the Website 24/7, the same way they would in the physical 

store (during limited hours 10am to 8pm). The Website is an extension of and gateway to the 

Defendant’s physical stores. 

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

Website that are also offered for sale in the physical stores, thus having the Website act as a point 

of sale for Defendant’s products that are also sold in the physical stores, arrange in-store and 

curbside pickups of merchandise purchased online benefits for use online and in the physical 

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

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

17. Defendant 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-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 4 of 19
5

18. As a result of Plaintiff being legally blind, before she embarks on any venture 

from her home, Plaintiff studies the location where Plaintiff is seeking to patronize through using 

the internet and the Defendant’s Website. Plaintiff has made innumerous attempts to access 

Defendant’s store and Website in the past, but Plaintiff could not locate the nearest store thru the 

Website neither pre-shop the Defendant’s merchandise because the Website is not readable by 

the screen-reader.

19. Plaintiff intends to continue to access the Defendant’s physical store and make

a purchase thru the Website and pick up at curbside or just pre-shop. Plaintiff was informed that 

there is one of the Defendant’s physical store near Plaintiff’s area, located at 19501 Biscayne 

Blvd. #1467, Aventura, Miami, Florida 33180.

20. Plaintiff is and has been a customer who is interested in patronizing and intends 

to patronize in the near future Defendant’s physical stores once the Website’s access barriers are 

removed or remedied. The barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s website have impeded 

Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered at Defendant’s brick-and mortar 

stores.

21. In the alternative, Plaintiff intends to monitor the Website in the near future, 

as a tester, to ascertain whether the Website has been updated and remedied to work properly with 

screen-readers.

22. Plaintiff is impeded to access and communicate with Defendant effectively, 

unable to take advantage and use the Website to pre-shop and purchase Defendant’s merchandise, 

find a store, create an account and sign up for an electronic emailer to receive exclusive online 

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

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 5 of 19
6

23. The privilege to navigate the Website from Plaintiff’s home is important and 

necessary accommodations for Plaintiff because traveling outside of her home as a visually 

disabled individual is an often challenging and fearsome experience. Defendant’s failure to 

provide auxiliary aids and services for effective communications is an act of discrimination 

against Plaintiff. Title III ADA 28 C.F.R. § 36.303.

24. However, unless Defendant is required to eliminate the access barriers at issue 

and required to change its policies so that access barriers do not reoccur on Defendant’s Website, 

Plaintiff will continue to be denied full access to L’ Oreal (Kiehl’s)’s physical stores and Website. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

25. Plaintiff is a resident of Orlando, FL 32817. is sui juris, and is disabled as 

defined by the ADA and ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 (“ADAAA”). 

 26. 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.

 27. Plaintiff called Defendant’s customer service for more information to locate a 

store near her but was directed to the Website to search in the “Find a Store”. Plaintiff’s claims 

asserted herein arose in this judicial district. Plaintiff was told that there is a L’ Oreal (Kiehl’s)’s 

affiliated shop near her home selling Kiehl’s products.

28. Venue lies in the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), 

and Local Rule 3.1, in that the original transaction or occurrence giving rise to this cause 

of action occurred in this District. 

29. This is an action injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§12181-12189 (“ADA”), 28 C.F.R. § 36.201 and to prevent 

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 6 of 19
7

discrimination which includes equal access and effective communications with Defendant’s 

business. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 

 30. This Court has personal jurisdiction over L’ Oreal pursuant to, inter alia, 

Florida’s long arm statute F.S. § 48.193, in that Defendant: (a) operates, conducts, engages in, 

and/or carries on a business or business ventures (s) in Florida and/or has an office or agency in 

Florida; (b) has committed one or more tortious acts within Florida; (c) was and/or is engaged in 

substantial and not isolated activity within Florida; and/or (d) has purposely availed itself of

Florida’s laws, services and/or benefits and therefore should reasonably anticipate being hailed 

into one or more of the courts within the State of Florida 

 31. Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District. Defendant has been 

and is committing the acts or omissions alleged herein in the Southern District of Florida that 

caused injury, and violated rights prescribed by the ADA to Plaintiff. A substantial part of the acts 

and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Southern District of Florida. 

Specifically, on several separate occasions, Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of 

the facilities, goods, and services of Defendant’s Website in Florida. The access barriers Plaintiff 

encountered on Defendant’s Website have caused a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access 

multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a regular basis from accessing Defendant’s 

Website. Defendant L’ Oreal is authorized to conduct, and is conducting, business within the State 

of Florida and within the jurisdiction of this court.

THE PARTIES

32. Plaintiff Aishia Petersen, is a resident of the State of Florida. Plaintiff resides 

in Orlando. Aishia Petersen is legally blind, and a member of a protected class under the ADA. 

Whereby, she has a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)-(2), the regulations 

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 7 of 19
8

implementing the ADA set forth at 28 CFR §§ 36.101 et seq. and in 42 U.S.C. 3602, §802(h). 

Plaintiff was diagnosed with congenital glaucoma in both eyes by UM Health- Bascom Palmer 

Eye Institute, and consequently, is legally blind and the visual disability is permanent. Plaintiff is 

a legally blind individual who has a physical impairment that substantially limits the major life 

activity of seeing. Accordingly, she has a disability within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102 and 

28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. § 12131(2), 29 U.S. Code § 794 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. 

33. Plaintiff cannot use the computer without the assistance of a screen reader 

software. Petersen is a proficient user of the JAWS and Voiceover screen-reader to access the 

internet." JAWS, or "Job Access With Speech," Voiceover (Apple’s screen reader) or Voiceover

(Apple’s screen reader) are the most popular screen reading software for computers and mobile 

phones. For screen-reading software to work, the information on a website must be capable of 

being rendered into text. Usually, this means that graphics and embedded hyperlinks must include 

alternative text (known as "alt-text")—a description of the image that appears when a cursor floats 

over it or screen-reading software detects it. 

34. L’ Oreal is a Foreign Profit Corporation. Under the brand name Kiehl’s, 

Defendant’s company produces and distributes skincare and hair products to its distributors and 

affiliated shops in Florida.

35.Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation 

as defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104. 

The place of public accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, or leases is located in 

Miami-Dade County. 

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 8 of 19
9

36. Plaintiff believes, and thereon alleges, that defendant L’ Oreal corporate and 

affiliates and/or related entities, actively engaged in the sale of skincare products in various states 

throughout the country, including Florida. 

37. Said Defendant entities will hereinafter collectively be referred to as “L’ Oreal 

(Kiehl’s)” or, where appropriate, “Defendant.”

FACTS

38. Defendant is defined as a “Place of Public Accommodation" within meaning of 

Title III because Defendant is a private entity which owns and/or operates “[A] bakery, grocery 

store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales establishment,” 42 U.S.C. 

§12181(7)(E) and 28 C.F.R. §36.104(5). 

39. L’ Oreal (Kiehl’s) offers skincare for sale to the general public.

40. Defendant has control over several points of sale including the Website, its

content, design and source-code, and/or operates her web pages, including image and data content. 

Defendant owns and operate the domain name https://www.kiehls.com that is configured for use 

by desktop computer and mobile devices such as smartphones. 

41. One of the functions of Defendant’s Website (available to browse in mobile or 

computer desktop version) is to provide the public information on the various locations of 

Defendant’s stores that sell cosmetics and skincare. The other function of the website is to sell 

Defendant’s products. 

42. Defendant’s Website is offered by Defendant as a way for the public to 

communicate with L’ Oreal (Kiehl’s)’ products. Defendant’s Website also permits the public to 

register and create an account allows the general public to order and purchase skincare

merchandise, provides: customer service and locate a shop. 

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 9 of 19
10

43. Blind Plaintiff needs to plan her outgoings since at the physical store it is 

difficult to know the prices, price tags are not in Braille. Like innumerous customers, Plaintiff 

rather to accesses Defendant’s Website, since online purchase is faster or at least pre-purchase 

before Plaintiff goes to the store. Plaintiff has a concrete plan of visiting the store because Plaintiff 

admires the quality of Defendant’s products and would like to buy it in a regular basis. 

44. Plaintiff is L’Oreal ’s customer since her intent of visiting and purchasing

Kiehl’s products at the store or at the website. Plaintiff through her inquiries learned that she could 

find a store on the Kiehl’s Website near Plaintiff’s area. 

45. During the month of August 2022, on several occasions, Plaintiff was denied 

access to Defendant’s website, because the Website was incompatible to screen-reader software. 

Plaintiff explains that the Website contains the following access barriers that prevents her from

free and full use of screen reader software. Plaintiff encountered these barriers that are persistent 

and include, but are not limited to: 

a. Duplicate id - the same label (description) is used on more than one image.

b. Some images have no alt-text description id, it announces the http link where 

the image is hosted.

c. At product page the item price and description have no focus and it is not 

announced, thus Plaintiff cannot checkout because he does not know the price..

d. At the product page, for example https://www.kiehls.com/skincare/eye-creamsand-serums/super-multi-corrective-anti-aging-eye-cream/WW0184KIE.html the product images 

are announced as “slide”, next slide, previous Slide, instead of id description for each image.

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 10 of 19
11

e. At the product page the feature “pickup at a nearby store today”, shows on the 

screen two address but it does not announce the address so Plaintiff does not know where to pick 

up the product and cannot complete the purchase.

f. See more issues on Exhibit A attached to this Complaint.

46. Due to these barrier Plaintiff was unable and impeded to access: Plaintiff was

unable to learn (1) Find a Kiehl’s store in her area; (2) the cost of Defendant’s products; (3) shop 

or pre-shop on the Website; (4) get the exclusive online deals; (5) product pricing and finalizing 

an online purchase. Thus, Defendant’s Website creates an intangible barrier that prevents Petersen

from “’accessing a privilege’ of a physical place of public accommodation, where Plaintiff cannot 

locate the defendant’s store, pre-purchase or make a purchase to pickup at the store.

47. During due diligence an expert was consulted and found several unique issuebarriers under the WCAG=World Content Accessibility Guidelines, just in a few pages of the 

website, this website contains several code-lines that are incompatible with screen-readers, thus 

inaccessible to Plaintiff. (Attached Exhibit A)

48. During Plaintiff’s several visits to the website using JAWS and NVDA 

(computer) and Voiceover (cell-phone browsing) occurring in August 16, 2022 and the last in 

September 24, 2022, attempted to visit the physical store by checking the Website first, however 

the plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the plaintiff full and equal access to 

the facilities, goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that 

denied the plaintiff the full enjoyment of the Defendant’s facilities, goods, and services.

AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT

49. The failure to access the information needed precluded Plaintiff’s ability to 

patronize Defendant, because, as a blind individual, Plaintiff needs to plan her outings out in detail 

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 11 of 19
12

in order to have the proper financing for a venture, and ensure that Plaintiff arrives at a given 

location. 

50. Under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181–12189 (“Title III”), which 

addresses “Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities.” Title III provides 

that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in any place of public 

accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).

51. On March 18, 2022, The Department of Justice issued Web Accessibility 

Guidance under the Americans with Disability Act. It explains how businesses open to the public 

(entities covered by ADA Title III) can make sure their websites are accessible to people with 

disabilities in line with the ADA’s requirements.2(Exhibit B). The guidance discusses the 

importance of web accessibility, barriers that inaccessible websites create for people with 

disabilities, tips on making web content accessible and applied the Web Content Accessibility 

Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.1 to determine accessibility. See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justicedepartment-issues-web-accessibility-guidance-under-americans-disabilities-act. 

52. Binding Court acknowledged that Title III’s public accommodation protection 

“covers both tangible and intangible barriers, such as screening rules or discriminatory

procedures that restrict a disabled person’s ability to enjoy the defendant entity’s services 

and privileges.

 53. Technology evolves, in these days, for consumers and business. Consumers are 

doing most of their shopping online. And business are seeing higher revenue from their online

____________________

2.“We have heard the calls from the public on the need for more guidance on web accessibility, particularly as our 

economy and society become increasingly digitized,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for the Justice 

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 12 of 19
13

Department’s Civil Rights Division. “.See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-webaccessibility-guidance-under-americans-disabilities-act

53. Technology evolves, in these days, for consumers and business. Consumers are 

doing most of their shopping online. And business are seeing higher revenue from their online 

point of sales then their physical stores, based on business financial disclosures. Defendant’s 

provision of an e-commerce Website, which is the main point of sale, distribution, and revenue for 

Defendant’s business. The Website is an intangible, but essential part of the Defendant’s services 

and privileges offered by the Defendant’s stores to their customers to access Defendant’s goods.

54. Title III ADA Part 36 regulation was amended to integrate section 36.303

Auxiliary Aids and Services “A public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and 

services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.”

55. The access barriers Plaintiff encountered on Defendant’s website have caused 

a denial of Plaintiff’s full and equal access multiple times in the past, and now deter Plaintiff on a 

regular basis from accessing Defendant’s Website.

56. Plaintiff would like to become Defendant’s patron and access the Defendant’s 

physical store and the Website in the near future but the barriers Plaintiff encountered on 

Defendant’s Website has impeded Plaintiff’s full and equal enjoyment of goods and services 

offered at Defendant’s brick-and mortar stores.

57. The fact that Plaintiff could not access and comprehend the Defendant’s 

Website, left Plaintiff excluded from accessing Kiehl’s’s stores, goods and services available from 

Defendant and further left her with the feeling of segregation, rejection, isolation, and unable to 

participate in a manner equal to that afforded to others who are not similarly disabled. As a result,

Plaintiff has suffered particularized harm and an injury in fact.

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 13 of 19
14

58. Plaintiff has a concrete plan to purchase L’Oreal (Kiehls)’s skincare when she 

is treated like other members of the public. By denying Plaintiff the opportunity to comprehend 

Kiehls’ Website therein due to Plaintiff’s disability (visual impairment), Defendant has denied 

Plaintiff the opportunity to participate in or benefit from Defendant’s goods and services as 

afforded to the public. 

59. Plaintiff will suffer continuous and ongoing harm from Defendant’s omissions, 

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

60. On information and belief, Defendant has not offered any form of Website in 

an accessible format for blind or visually impaired individuals. 

61. Thus, Defendant has not provided full and equal enjoyment of the services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided at its stores and authorized 

retailers.

62. All Public Accommodations must ensure that their Places of Public

Accommodation provide Effective Communication for all members of the general public, including 

individuals with disabilities pursuant Title III ADA 28 C.F.R. § 36.303.

63. Binding case law increasingly recognize that private entities are providing 

goods and services to the public through their online point of sale which operates as “Places of 

Public Accommodation” under Title III. 

64. A person who cannot see, like the Plaintiff in this case, cannot go to Defendant’s 

website and avail themselves of the same privileges. Thus, the Plaintiff has suffered discrimination 

due to Defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff’s disability. 

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 14 of 19
15

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

wrongs alleged hereinabove and this suit for injunctive relief is her only means to secure adequate 

redress from Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory practices. 

66. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of Defendant’s failure to cure the 

violations. Enforcement of the rights of Plaintiff is right and just pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 

2202. 

67. Enforcement of Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA is right and just pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Title III ADA Subpart E Section 36.501.

68. Plaintiff has retained the law office of Acacia Barros, Esq. and has agreed to 

pay a reasonable fee for services in the prosecution of this cause, including costs and expenses 

incurred. Plaintiff is entitled to have reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses paid by 

Defendant L’Oreal.

COUNT I – VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

69. Part 36 of Title 28 of the C.F.R. was designed and is implemented to effectuate 

subtitle 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 Regulation. 

70. Defendant’s Website has not been designed to interface with the widely and 

readily available technologies for blinds that can be used to ensure effective communication.

71. As delineated above and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12181(7)(E), Defendant is a 

Public Accommodation under the ADA because it owns and/or operates the 

https://www.kiehls.com website which is subject to the ADA.

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 15 of 19
16

72. No notice is required because 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.

73. Unlawful discrimination includes “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(2)(A)(II). 

74. Unlawful discrimination also includes “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.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(III).

75. Defendant is in violation of the ADA by creating barriers for individuals with 

disabilities who are visually impaired and who require the assistance of interface with screen reader 

software to comprehend and access its Website. These violations are ongoing.

76. As a result of the inadequate development and administration of Defendant’s 

Website, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12133 and §12188, also 28 

C.F.R. §36.501 to remedy the discrimination.

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 16 of 19
17

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

Plaintiff Petersen injunctive relief; including an order to:

a) Require Defendant take the necessary steps to make the Website readily 

accessible to and usable by visually impaired users, and during that time period prior to the 

https://www.kiehls.com website being readily accessible, to provide a temporary alternative 

method for individuals with visual impairments to access the information available on the Website 

until such time that the requisite modifications are made. Title III American with Disabilities Act

Part 36 Regulation. 

b) Require Defendant to provide periodic maintenance of the accessible website 

thru the appropriate auxiliary aids such that individuals with visual impairments will be able to 

always receive effectively communication with the Website for purposes of viewing and locating

the stores carrying L’Oreal (Kiehls) products using the Defendant’s Website. 

c) During the time period prior to the Website’s being designed to permit 

individuals with visual impairments to effectively communicate, requiring Defendant to provide 

an alternative method for individuals with visual impairments to communicate.

78. For all of the foregoing, the Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.

DEMAND FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Aishia Petersen hereby demands judgment against

Defendant “L’ Oreal USA S/D, Inc” and requests the following injunctive relief permanently 

enjoin Defendant from any practice, policy and/or procedure which will deny Plaintiff equal access 

to, and benefit from Defendant’s services and goods, as well as the Court:

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 17 of 19
18

a. That the Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the Defendant’s 

websites at the commencement of the subject lawsuit is in violation of Title III of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.; 

b. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to continually update and 

maintain their computer version of the defendant’s websites to ensure that it remains fully 

accessible to and usable by visually impaired individuals; 

c. That the Court issue an Injunctive relief order directing Defendant to alter their 

website to make it accessible to, and useable by, individuals with disabilities to the full extent 

required by Title III of the ADA; 

d. That the Court enter an Order directing Defendant to evaluate and neutralize their 

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

Defendant to undertake and complete corrective procedures;

e. Further requests the Court to retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to 

ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause 

Defendant to remain fully in compliance with the law; 

f. That the Court enter an award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205; and Title III of the ADA Section 36.505.

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated this 30th day of September 2022.

/s/Acacia Barros

Attorney for Plaintiff

ACACIA BARROS, P.A.

Acacia Barros, Esq.

FBN: 106277

11120 N. Kendall Dr., Suite 201

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 18 of 19
19

Miami, Florida 33176

Tel: 305-639-8381

ab@barroslawfirm.com

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on this 30th day of September, 2022 that the foregoing document

has been filed using CM/ECF system and will be served via email when

Defendant/Defendant’s counsel enters an appearance.

Case 1:22-cv-23172-KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2022 Page 19 of 19