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. Josephinenhutte, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.0

Summary

According to the complaint, Frangie Espinal, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Josephinenhutte, Inc. for failing to make its website accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Espinal alleges that the website, https://us.josephinen.com, contains multiple barriers that prevent blind users from accessing its goods and services, including lack of alternative text for images and broken links. The complaint cites violations of the ADA, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, seeking injunctive relief to ensure accessibility and compensatory damages for the alleged discrimination.

About the defendant

Operates an online retail store offering glassware and other goods, including pricing, terms of service, 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 has 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
  • Violations of GBL § 349

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • A preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the ADA and related laws.
  • Compensatory damages for violations of civil rights under New York laws.
  • 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.