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.

Leah Walker v. Bestlaminate Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.2

Summary

According to the complaint, Leah Walker, a visually impaired individual, is suing Bestlaminate Inc. for failing to make its website, bestlaminate.com, accessible to blind users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Walker alleges that the website contains significant barriers that prevent her and others from independently navigating and completing purchases. Specific issues include inaccessible buttons and ambiguous link texts. Walker seeks a permanent injunction to require the defendant to make the website accessible and compensatory damages for the discrimination faced. The case is filed as a class action on behalf of all legally blind individuals in the U.S. who have faced similar barriers.

About the defendant

Provides consumers access to a wide selection of flooring products, including laminate, vinyl, hardwood, and waterproof flooring options, as well as installation accessories.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Website is inaccessible to visually impaired individuals
  • Access barriers prevent independent navigation and transactions
  • Defendant failed to implement necessary accessibility features

Legal claims

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

  • Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • Preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit violations of the ADA
  • Injunction requiring compliance with ADA
  • Declaration of discriminatory practices
  • Class action certification
  • Pre- and post-judgment interest
  • Award of costs and expenses

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 the Website and as a result have been denied access to the enjoyment of goods and services offered by the Website, during the relevant statutory period.