Pagan v. Haggar Clothing Co.

Summary

On June 8, 2019, Nicholas Pagan filed a Complaint in Florida Federal court against Haggar Clothing Co.. Plaintiff Nicholas Pagan alleges that www.haggar.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.0 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Haggar Clothing Co. makes men's and boy's clothing and accessories with a focus on khakis, oxford button-down collar shirts, and other traditional business casual staples.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Text equivalent for every non-text element is not provided;
• Information about the meaning and structure of the Website’s content is not conveyed by more than the visual presentation of content;
• When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence cannot be programmatically determined;
• Web pages do not have titles that describe topic or purpose;
• Images on the website are not explained to the user with use of a screen reader program.
• There is no Accessibility Statement regarding a company policy to assist disabled users found on the website.

Legal claims

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

• Americans with Disabilities Act, 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 Websites are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind individuals;
• 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 the Website into full compliance with the requirements set forth in the ADA, and implementing regulations, so that the 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 Defendant to remain fully in compliance with the law—thespecific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in Paragraph 6 above;
• Costs of suit;
• Reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR § 36.505; and,