Gomez v. Presidente Supermarkets Mgt., Inc.

Summary

On April 22, 2019, Andres Gomez filed a Complaint in Florida Federal court against Presidente Supermarkets Mgt, Inc.. Plaintiff Andres Gomez alleges that www.presidentesupermarkets.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Presidente Supermarkets Mgt, Inc. owns and operates the Presidente supermarket chain.

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 any statement of its ADA policy towards visually impaired patrons.
• Defendant’s website does not provide adequate information if the brick and mortar of the defendant provides auxiliary Aid to assist visually impaired individuals inside the location.
• Defendant’s website contains various contrast errors. Adequate contrast is necessary for all users, especially users with low vision or visual impairment. This poor contrastcreated difficulty for Plaintiff to navigate on the defendant’s website, for instance, the color of the white text that links to various pages to the hot pink background was not an adequateratio that did not allow the Plaintiff to distinguish words.
• Defendant’s website is missing first-level heading that should be present on all pages to skip over a repetitive list.
• Defendant’s Website lacks alternative text functionality.
• Defendant’s Website contains inaccessible PDF documents. Plaintiff used Job Access With Speech screen reader and mobile device voice over screen reader software when he wasunsuccessful in opening PDF that processed as: The URL provided is an invalid file type. In order to remove violation, the defendant must ensure the PDF document is natively accessible. Additionally, inform the user that the link will open a PDF document.

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 and Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act as 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 the Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and implementing regulations, so that the 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 bedetermined 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.