Muhammad v. BW River North Hotel, LLC

Summary

On December 20, 2019, Rasul Muhammad filed a Complaint in Illinois Federal court against BW River North Hotel, LLC. Plaintiff Rasul Muhammad alleges that www.rivernorthhotel.com/ is not accessible per the WCAG 2.1 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

BW River North Hotel, LLC owns and operates the Best Western River North Hotel in Chicago.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• The website lacks alt. text;
• Many features on the website fail to add a label element or title attribute for each field.
• The Website also contains a host of broken links.

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.
• Declaratory Relief

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action BEST WESTERN was in violation of the specific requirements of Title III of the ADA described above, and therelevant implementing regulations of the ADA, in that BEST WESTERN took no action that was reasonably calculated to ensure that its Website is fully accessible to, andindependently 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 withthe 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 furtherdirects 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 it toremain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 8 above;
• An award of costs and expenses of this action;
• 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 (seeHadix v. Johnson, 143 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1998), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 527 U.S. 343 (1999); Jenkins v. Missouri, 127 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 1997); Walker v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous.& Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761 (5th Cir. 1996); Stewart v. Gates, 987 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court should permit compensation for the post judgment monitoringefforts by the plaintiff’s counsel that are “useful and necessary to ensure compliance with the court’s orders”); Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984); Adams v. Mathis, 752 F.2d 553 (11th Cir. 1985); Willie M. v. Hunt, 732 F.2d 383, 385, 387 (4th Cir. 1984); Bond v. Stanton, 630 F.2d 1231, 1233-34 (7th Cir. 1980); Northcross v. Board ofEduc., 611 F.2d 624, 637 (6th Cir. 1979) (“Services devoted to reasonable monitoring of the court’s decrees, both to ensure full compliance and to ensure that the plan is indeed working…are essential to the long-term success of the plaintiff’s suit.”) (citing 3rd Circuit’s support for District Court’s award of prospective fees to plaintiff’s counsel).
• An order certifying the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and his attorneys as Class Counsel; and
• Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.