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.

Foley v. Brunswick Corporation dba Life Fitness, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Summary

On November 11, 2019, Ian Foley filed a Complaint in New York Federal court against Brunswick Corporation dba Life Fitness, Inc.. Plaintiff Ian Foley alleges that www.shop.lifefitness.com/ is not accessible.

About the defendant

Life Fitness, Inc. sells fitness training equipment.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the main website navigation options are not accessible
  • Defendant’s Website does not have accessible text on the image
  • Defendant’s Website is so constructed that screen-reader users are not made aware of an item successfully added to their cart

Legal claims

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

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

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action Defendant was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA described above, and the relevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that Defendant took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Website was fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with visual disabilities
  • A permanent injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) and 28 CFR § 36.504(a) which directs Defendant to take all steps necessary to bring its Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and its implementing regulations, so that its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals, and which further directs that the Court shall retain jurisdiction for a period to be determined to ensure that Defendant has adopted and is following an institutional policy that will in fact cause them to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiffs is described more fully in paragraph 12 above
  • Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive damages, as the Court deems proper
  • Payment of costs of suit
  • Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505, including costs of monitoring Defendant’s compliance with the judgment (see Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (“Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, may file a fee petition before the Court surrenders jurisdiction. Pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (same)
  • The provision of whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
  • An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders