Taylor v. Fiore International Atlanta, Inc.

Summary

On March 3, 2020, Todd Taylor filed a Complaint in Georgia Federal court against Fiore International Atlanta, Inc. . Plaintiff Todd Taylor alleges that www.myfioreboutique.com is not accessible per the WCAG 2.1 accessibility standard(s).

About the defendant

Fiore International Boutique operates Fiore Boutique, a premier gift retailer.

What the complaint says

The problems the plaintiff describes with the website.

• Many features on the Website also fail to Add a label element or title attribute for each field.
• Many features on the Website lacks alt. text
• The Website also contains a host of broken links
• Headings and labels do not describe topic or purpose
• A mechanism is not always available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple web pages

Legal claims

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

• Violations of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq
• Declaratory Relief

What the plaintiff asks for

What the plaintiff wants the court to order.

• A Declaratory Judgment that at the commencement of this action FIORE INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA, INC. 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 FIORE INTERNATIONAL ATLANTA, INC. 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 8 above
• An award of costs and expenses of this action
• 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 Hadix v. Johnson, 143 F.3d 246 (6th Cir. 1998), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 527 U.S. 343 (1999); Jenkins v. Missouri, 127 F.3d 709 (8th Cir. 1997); Walker v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev., 99 F.3d 761 (5th Cir. 1996); Stewart v. Gates, 987 F.2d 1450, 1452 (9th Cir. 1993) (district court should permit compensation for the post judgment monitoring efforts by the plaintiff’s counsel that are “useful and necessary to ensure compliance with the court’s orders”); Garrity v. Sununu, 752 F.2d 727, 738-39 (1st Cir. 1984); Adams v. Mathis, 752 F.2d 553 (11th Cir. 1985)
• An order certifying the Class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) & (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative, and his attorneys as Class Counsel
• Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper