Donahue v. Wander Beauty, Inc

Summary

On April 17, 2019, Tera Donahue filed a Complaint in Illinois Federal court against Wander Beauty Inc Wander Beauty LLC. Plaintiff Tera Donahue alleges that www.wanderbeauty.com is not accessible.

About the defendant

Wander Beauty LLC sells creulty-free cosmetics and beauty products via its website.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Website uses images that are constantly rotating and a keyboard only user must time the rotation to reach their desired link. This makes the links inaccessible for blind users accessing the website by keyboard.
• Website offers a 15% off coupon that pops up on the screen. Akeyboard-only user must tab through the entire webpage to reach it. A visually impaired user may never get that far and may not become aware of its presence. A meaningful sequence for navigating is not evident with the modal on the screen.

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 relevantimplementing 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;
• Payment of actual, statutory, and punitive damages, as the Court deems proper;
• Payment of costs of suit;
• Compensatory damages in an amount to be determined by proof;
• 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 AccessNow, 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.