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.

Erika Randolph v. Kendo Holdings Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.2

Summary

According to the complaint, Erika Randolph, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Kendo Holdings Inc. for failing to make its website, Olehenriksen.com, accessible to blind users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Randolph alleges that the website contains numerous barriers that prevent her and others with visual impairments from independently navigating and completing purchases. She seeks a permanent injunction to require Kendo Holdings to make the website accessible and compensatory damages for the discrimination faced. The complaint highlights specific accessibility issues encountered by Randolph while attempting to shop online.

About the defendant

Kendo Holdings provides a website that offers a wide array of beauty and personal care products, including skincare items such as cleansers, serums, moisturizers, toners, eye creams, and lip balms for online purchase.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Kendo Holdings failed to design and maintain its website to be accessible to blind and visually-impaired persons.
  • Plaintiff encountered significant access barriers on Olehenriksen.com that prevented her from completing a purchase.
  • The website requires mouse usage, which is inaccessible to blind users.

Legal claims

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

  • Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq. - Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
  • Declaratory Relief
  • Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • A preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • A declaration that Defendant’s website discriminates against the blind and fails to provide required access.
  • Payment of nominal damages.
  • Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
  • Punitive damages.

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 Olehenriksen.com and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by Olehenriksen.com, during the relevant statutory period.