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.

Frangie Espinal v. Hat Heaven Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.0

Summary

According to the complaint, Frangie Espinal, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Hat Heaven Inc. for failing to make its website accessible as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The complaint alleges that the website, https://hatheaven.com/, contains numerous barriers that prevent blind users from accessing its products and services, including lack of alternative text for images and broken links. Espinal seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to improve website accessibility and claims damages for the discrimination faced. The case also includes allegations under New York State Human Rights Law and GBL § 349.

About the defendant

Operates an online retail store selling hats, snapbacks, and streetwear, providing information about products, pricing, and policies.

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 preventing full use of the website.
  • Defendant failed to comply with WCAG 2.0 guidelines.

Legal claims

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

  • Violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.
  • 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.