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.

Wislande Claude v. Ambassador Fish and Chicken, LLC

Filed

Case details

Standards cited
WCAG 2.1

Summary

According to the complaint, plaintiff WISLANDE CLAUDE, a visually-impaired individual, alleges that AMBASSADOR FISH AND CHICKEN, LLC's website, www.ambassadorfishandchicken.com, is inaccessible to blind users, violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff claims that due to various access barriers, including missing alt-text and navigation issues, she was unable to make an online food order. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring the defendant to make its website accessible and to comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines, along with other forms of relief.

About the defendant

Offers online food ordering and services related to seafood and poultry dishes.

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 was denied the ability to make an online food order due to access barriers on the website.
  • Defendant 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.
  • 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 Americans with Disabilities Act.
  • An order requiring Defendant to make its website fully compliant with the ADA.
  • Payment of nominal damages.
  • An award of costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable attorneys’ and expert fees.

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.