Kolesar v. Thirty & Co., Inc.

Summary

On March 18, 2021, RONALD C. KOLESAR filed a Complaint in Pennsylvania Federal court against THIRTY & CO., INC.. Plaintiff RONALD C. KOLESAR alleges that www.whole30.com is not accessible.

About the defendant

Whole 30 is a subscription, meal delivery service themed around healthy eating.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• The Website fails to sufficiently describe the purpose of all headings andbutton labels. As a result, blind users will have significant difficulty understanding whatinformation is contained on pages and how that information is organized. When headings and labels are clear and descriptive, users can find information they seek more easily, and they canunderstand the relationships between different pieces of content.
• Links on the Website do not describe their purpose. As a result, blind userscannot determine whether they want to follow a particular link, making navigation an exercise oftrial and error.

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 start of this action Defendant was in violation 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 Plaintiffs is described more fully in paragraph 11 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 Defendants have complied with the Court’s Orders