Charlap v. Awb, Inc.

Summary

On December 7, 2020, Jared Charlap filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against AWD, Inc.. Plaintiff Jared Charlap alleges that www.sensacalm.com is not accessible.

About the defendant

AWD, Inc. manufactures and sells weighted blankets, sleep masks, and related sleep accessories under the SensaCalm brand name.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Defendant’s Website is so constructed that the screen reader user is not able to learn more about the AfterPay payment option for Defendant’s products. After opening the link, screen reader users are not notified that the pop-up is present and they continue to hear other elements on the page behind it, so it appears as though the AfterPay link is not working. The AfterPay link opens a pop-up, but it is not announced and focus does not move to it as required.
• The registration form does not announce errors to the screen reader user. The user submitted a blank registration form by accident. After completing the CAPTCHA the user was returned to the form and errors were shown visually in red, but the user was not notified that any errors were present. Instead, keyboard focus moved to the first name field in the form and the user heard each field announced again. The error suggestions were not announced when the user navigated the form. The screen reader user was not informed why the same form was presented again and the errors that the user made were only shown onscreen.
• Defendant’s Website contains a drop down field that is not labeled. The color combo box has a label that is shown onscreen but is not announced. Screen reader users only hear “Silver Etchings” when they navigate to the color combo box, leaving the user unable to access the different colors available.

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 11 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.