Matin v. The Pep Boys - Manny, Moe & Jack

Summary

On April 7, 2020, Dominick Martin filed a Complaint in California State court against The Pep Boys - Manny, Joe, & Jack. Plaintiff Dominick Martin alleges that www.pepboys.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

The Pep Boys - Manny, Joe, & Jack owns and operates a chain of Pep Boys stores, selling a wide array of automotive supplies including tires, batteries, wipers, plugs, and other related accessories.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Empty links that contain no text causing the function or purpose of the link to not be presented to the user. This can introduce confusion for keyboard and screen reader users;
• Empty headings, which present a problem because a heading contains no content. Keyboard and screen reader users often navigate by heading elements. An empty heading will present no information and may introduce confusion;
• Empty buttons, which present a problem because a button is empty or has no value text. When navigating to a button, descriptive text must be presented to screen reader users to indicate the function of the button; and
• Spacer image missing alternative text which presents a problem because a layout spacer image does not have an alt attribute. Spacer images are used to maintain layout. They do not convey content and should be given null/empty alternative text so they are not presented to users and are ignored by screen readers

Legal claims

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

• Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• For a judgment that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51 et seq.;
• For a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to take the steps necessary to make the Website, https://www.pepboys.com/, readily accessible to and usable by visually-impaired individuals; but Plaintiff hereby expressly limits the injunctive relief to require that Defendant expend no more $20,000 as the cost of injunctive relief;
• An award of statutory minimum damages of $4,000 per violation pursuant to section 52(a) of the California Civil Code; however, Plaintiff expressly limits the total amount of recovery, including statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cost of injunctive relief not to exceed $74,999;
• For attorneys’ fees and expenses pursuant to all applicable laws including, without limitation, California Civil Code § 52(a); however, Plaintiff expressly limits the total amount of recovery, including statutory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and cost of injunctive relief not to exceed $74,999;
• For pre-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law;
• For costs of suit; and
• For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.