Jahoda v. Zero Halliburton, Inc.

Summary

On June 13, 2019, Robert Jahoda filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against Zero Halliburton, Inc.. Plaintiff Robert Jahoda alleges that www.zerohalliburton.com is not accessible.

About the defendant

Zero Halliburton, Inc. produces and sells luxury luggage, attaches, briefcases, and accessories at retail stores and via its webiste.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Webpages do not provide a text equivalent for non-text elements. Providing text alternatives allows the information to be rendered in a variety of ways by a variety of users. For example, a person who cannot see a picture, logo, or icon can have a text alternative read aloud using synthesized speech. A person who cannot hear an audio file can have a text alternative displayed so he can read it.
• Webpages use color as the only visual means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element. Providing information conveyed with color through another visual means is necessary to ensure that users who cannot see color can still perceive this information.
• Webpages prevent visitors from resizing text without loss of content or functionality. As a result, individuals with mild visual disabilities cannot access information without assistive technology.

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 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 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 to remain fully in compliance with the law—the specific injunctive relief requested by Plaintiff is described more fully in paragraph 11 above.
• Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive 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 Access Now, Inc. v. Lax World, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-10976-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 17, 2018) (ECF 11) (“Plaintiffs, as the prevailing party, may file a fee petition before the Court surrenders jurisdiction. Pursuant to Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens’ Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 559 (1986), supplemented, 483 U.S. 711 (1987), and Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984), the fee petition may include costs to monitor Defendant’s compliance with the permanent injunction.”); see also Gniewkowski v. Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv01898-AJS (W.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2018) (ECF 191) (same);
• Whatever other relief the Court deems just, equitable and appropriate; and
• An Order retaining jurisdiction over this case until Defendant has complied with the Court’s Orders.