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.

Leshawn Young v. Hollow Alpaca Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.0

Summary

According to the complaint, Leshawn Young, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Hollow Alpaca Inc. for failing to make its website, www.hollowsocks.com, accessible to blind users. Young alleges that the website contains numerous barriers that prevent her from accessing information about products, including high-performance socks. The complaint cites violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. Young seeks a permanent injunction requiring the defendant to make the website accessible and compensatory damages for the discrimination faced.

About the defendant

Operates an online retail store selling high-performance socks and related products.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Defendant's website is not accessible to blind and visually-impaired individuals.
  • Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers preventing her from purchasing products.
  • 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
  • Violation 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.
  • A declaration that Defendant’s website discriminates against the blind.
  • Compensatory damages for violations of civil rights under New York laws.

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.