Can we count your visit?

Our analytics service records the pages you view, so we can see which ones are useful. It saves a random ID in your browser, and we never use it for advertising. Read our privacy policy.

Timothy Hernandez v. Cookies Kids.com, Inc.

Filed

Case details

Summary

According to the complaint, Timothy Hernandez, a visually impaired individual, is suing Cookies Kids.com, Inc. for failing to make their website accessible as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Hernandez alleges that he encountered numerous barriers while trying to access the website, which prevented him from purchasing products, specifically a joggers set. The complaint cites violations of the ADA and New York City Human Rights Law, seeking a permanent injunction to require the defendant to make the website accessible and to provide compensatory damages for the alleged discrimination.

About the defendant

An online store offering a wide selection of children's clothing, footwear, accessories, and school uniforms.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

  • Defendant's website is not accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals.
  • Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers while attempting to use the website.
  • Defendant has failed to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines.

Legal claims

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

  • Violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.
  • Violations of the NYCHRL
  • Declaratory Relief

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

  • A preliminary and permanent injunction to prohibit Defendant from violating the ADA and NYCHRL.
  • An order requiring Defendant to make the Website fully compliant with accessibility requirements.
  • Compensatory damages for violations of civil rights.

Proposed class

The group of people the plaintiff asks to represent, so the case can cover them too.

All legally blind individuals in the United States who have attempted to access Defendant’s Website and as a result have been denied access to the equal enjoyment of goods and services, during the relevant statutory period.