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.

Howard Wilson v. Leather Goods, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.1

Summary

According to the complaint, Howard Wilson, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Leather Goods, Inc. for failing to make its website, www.wkleinberg.com, accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Wilson alleges that he encountered numerous barriers while attempting to access the website to purchase a belt, which prevented him from enjoying the same shopping experience as sighted individuals. The complaint cites specific access barriers such as missing alt-text and broken links. Wilson seeks a permanent injunction requiring the defendant to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines and to ensure that the website is accessible to blind users. He also seeks class certification for all legally blind individuals who have faced similar issues with the website.

About the defendant

Retailer specializing in exotic leather belts and accessories, offering products for online sale and general delivery to the public.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Defendant’s website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers.
  • Plaintiff encountered barriers that denied full access to the website.
  • Defendant failed to construct and maintain a website that is sufficiently intuitive for visually impaired individuals.

Legal claims

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

  • Violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.
  • Declaratory Relief

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.
  • Payment of nominal damages.
  • An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees.

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, during the relevant statutory period.