Can we count your visit?

Our analytics service records the pages you view, so we can see which ones are useful. It saves a random ID in your browser, and we never use it for advertising. Read our privacy policy.

Edery Herrera v. The Frick Collection

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.0

Summary

According to the complaint, Edery Herrera, a visually-impaired individual, is suing The Frick Collection for failing to make its website accessible to blind users. The complaint alleges that the website, https://www.frick.org, contains multiple barriers that prevent blind individuals from accessing its goods and services, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff claims that these barriers include a lack of alternative text for images, broken links, and other accessibility issues that hinder the use of screen-reading software. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to improve the website's accessibility and compensatory damages for the alleged discrimination.

About the defendant

Operates an online retail store and art museum, providing access to art collections, goods, and services.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Defendant's website is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired persons.
  • Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers while attempting to use the website.
  • Defendant has failed to comply with WCAG 2.0 guidelines for web accessibility.

Legal claims

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

  • Violations of the ADA
  • Violations of the NYSHRL
  • Violations of the NYCHRL
  • Violation of GBL § 349

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • Permanent injunction requiring Defendant to make its Website accessible to blind individuals.
  • Compensatory damages for violations of civil rights under New York State Human Rights Law and GBL § 349.
  • Reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

Proposed class

The group of people the plaintiff asks to represent, so the case can cover them too.

All legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services offered by Defendant’s Website, during the relevant statutory period.