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.

Marcos Calcano v. Olivia Garden, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.0

Summary

According to the complaint, Marcos Calcano, a visually-impaired individual, is suing Olivia Garden, Inc. for failing to make its website accessible as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Calcano alleges that he encountered numerous barriers while trying to access the website to purchase products, including hairbrushes and salon tools. The complaint cites violations of the ADA, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, seeking injunctive relief to ensure the website is accessible to blind individuals. Calcano claims that the lack of accessibility has caused him frustration and humiliation, and he seeks compensatory damages for the alleged discrimination.

About the defendant

Operates an online retail store offering hairbrushes, shears, salon tools, 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 while attempting to use the website.
  • 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
  • Violations 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.