Gomez v. Miami Hand Center

Summary

On April 12, 2019, Andres Gomez filed a Complaint in Florida Federal court against Miami Hand Center. Plaintiff Andres Gomez alleges that www.miamihandcenter.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

The Miami Hand Center is a group of hand surgeons offering medical care and surgery in the Miami-Dade area.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Defendant’s website did not contain an ADA button to adjust the website format to one that is fully readable through SRS.
• Defendant’s website does not contain a statement of its ADA policy towards visually impaired patrons.
• Defendant’s website has a linked image missing alternative text. The defendant’s website contains links that are empty or has no value text. When the Plaintiff used Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software to schedule an appointment, the phone image link did not grant access to call directly from defendant’s web page as it would without the screen reader, instead, the phone image read: “link.” This violation created a confusion for thePlaintiff while trying to get in contact with the provider through the defendant’s website. When navigating to a button, a descriptive text must be presented to the screen reader users to indicate the function of the button. The Plaintiff was unableto determine the purpose of the link with missing alternative texts.
• Defendant’s website is missing 22 image alternative texts. The defendant’s website did not provide accessible images for the Plaintiff while using the Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software. Plaintiff used screen reader software to navigate through the defendant’s website but was unable to understand the image represented for the publication articles provided in the defendant’s website. Without alternative text, the content of animage will be not accessible to Plaintiff.
• Defendant’s website has a missing form label. Plaintiff was confused when using the Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software to click on the box that asks for contact information such as: full name, phone, and email. When clicking on the tabs it did not provide direction what the box was for, instead it said: text field. The description text field did not give the Plaintiff information to discern the purpose of the box clicked.
• Defendant’s website is missing first level heading. Defendant’s website left Plaintiff confused and frustrated as the site did not provide a first level heading that should be present on all pages to skip over a repetitive list.
• Defendant’s website contains 48 contrast errors. This poor contrast created difficulty for the Plaintiff to navigate on the defendant’s website. For instance, the color of white text on the services tab: Book an appointment to its light greenbackground was not an adequate ratio that did not allow the Plaintiff to distinguish words.

Legal claims

The laws the plaintiff says the defendant broke, called causes of action.

• Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.
• The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Websites are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals;
• A permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and 28 CFR § 36.504 (a) which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall 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—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in Paragraph 6 above;
• Payment of costs of suit;
• Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505; and,
• The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate.