Jahoda v. Cerebral, Inc.

Summary

On February 11, 2021, Robert Jahoda filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against Cerebral, Inc.. Plaintiff Robert Jahoda alleges that www.getcerebral.com is not accessible.

About the defendant

Cerebral is an online psychiatry and counseling service offering provider consultations, prescriptions, and related services.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• The Website uses visual cues to convey content and other information to sighted users. Unfortunately, screen readers cannot interpret these cues and communicate the information they represent to individuals with visual disabilities. For example, shoppers who perceive content visually will notice that the product available for purchase on Defendant’s Website includes two prices. One price—a higher price—appears in strikethrough font. The other—a lower price—does not. These shoppers will likely infer that the price appearing in strikethrough font is the “old” or “original” price, while the price appearing in regular font is the “new” or “sale” price. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs’ screen readers cannot identify the meanings of these two fonts so that they can make an informed decision. Instead, Plaintiffs hear two prices, and cannot determine what they signify, like different quantities, conditions, sizes, or in this case, sales. This confusion prevents Plaintiffs from making informed purchasing decisions, and increases the odds they will abandon the purchase process without making a selection at all.
• Links and buttons on the Websites do not describe their purpose. As a result, blind users cannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link, making navigation an exercise of trial and error. For example, visitors who perceive content visually will likely recognize the Websites’ menu icon of three stacked lines, and understand that by clicking it, Defendant direct them to the Website’s menu. Unfortunately, this icon is not labeled with any descriptive alternative text. As a result, when Plaintiffs hover over it, the screen reader does not recognize it as readable text or image. Because this is meaningless without additional context, Plaintiffs are less likely to locate the Website’s menu as sighted users would be.

Legal claims

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

• Title III of the ADA, 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 Website is fully accessible to, and independently 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 with the 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 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 it to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 10 above.
• Payment of actual, statutory, and other damages, as the Court deems proper
• Payment of costs of suit
• 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. See People Against Police Violence v. City of Pittsburgh, 520 F.3d 226, 235 (3d Cir. 2008) (“This Court, like other Courts of Appeals, allows fees to be awarded for monitoring and enforcing Court orders and judgments.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191); see also Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11)
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant have complied with the Court’s Orders