Case 1:15-cv-09178-SAS Document 1 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 26 LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC C.K. Lee (CL 4086) Anne Seelig (AS 3976) 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel.: 212-465-1188 Fax: 212-465-1181 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CRISTHIAN DIAZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Case No.: Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT -against- THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. Defendants. Plaintiff, CRISTHIAN DIAZ (hereinafter, “Plaintiff”), on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, by and through his undersigned attorney, hereby files this Class Action Complaint against Defendants, THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., and states as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This class action seeks to put an end to systemic civil rights violations committed by Defendants THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC. (hereafter collectively as “Home Depot” or “Defendants”), against the blind in New York State and across the United States. Defendants are denying blind individuals throughout the United States equal access to the goods and services Home Depot provides to their non-disabled customers through Case 1:15-cv-09178-SAS Document 1 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 26 http://www.homedepot.com (hereafter “Homedepot.com” or “the website”). Homedepot.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price discounts, employment opportunities and other programs offered by Home Depot. Yet, Homedepot.com contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind users to even complete a transaction on the website. Home Depot thus excludes the blind from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind people to fully and independently access a variety of services, including online shopping. 2. Plaintiff is a blind individual. He brings this civil rights class action against Defendants for failing to design, construct, and/or own or operate a website that is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people. 3. Specifically, Homedepot.com has many access barriers preventing blind people to independently navigate and complete a purchase using assistive computer technology. 4. Plaintiff uses the terms “blind person” or “blind people” and “the blind” to refer to all persons with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. 5. Approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind.1 There are approximately 400,000 visually impaired persons 1 Americans with Disabilities: 2010 Report, U.S. Census Bureau Reports 2 Case 1:15-cv-09178-SAS Document 1 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 26 in New York State.2 6. Many blind people enjoy online shopping just as sighted people do. The lack of an accessible website means that blind people are excluded from the rapidly expanding self- service retail economy and from independently accessing this ever-popular website. 7. Despite readily available accessible technology, such as the technology in use at other heavily trafficked retail websites, which makes use of alternative text, accessible forms, descriptive links, resizable text and limits the usage of tables and javascript, Home Depot has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface, including pop-up forms that are inaccessible. Home Depot sighted customers can independently browse, select, and buy products online without the assistance of others. However, blind people must rely on sighted companions or strangers to assist them in accessing and buying goods on Homedepot.com. Blind people must necessarily disclose personal information, including their credit card information, to these other individuals in order to complete transactions. 8. By failing to make their website accessible to blind persons, Defendants are violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law. 9. Congress provided a clear and national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities when it enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act. Such discrimination includes barriers to full integration, independent living, and equal opportunity for persons with disabilities, including those barriers created by websites and other public accommodations that are inaccessible to blind and visually impaired persons. Similarly, New York state law requires places of public accommodation to ensure access to goods, services and facilities by making reasonable accommodations for persons with 2 American Foundation for the Blind, State-Specific Statistical Information, January 2015 3 Case 1:15-cv-09178-SAS Document 1 Filed 11/20/15 Page 4 of 26 disabilities. 10. Defendants violated statutes enacted in each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia (hereafter, “Home Depot States”) that are designed to protect disabled persons, including blind persons, against unlawful discriminatory practices. These statutes are: i. Alabama Handicapped Persons Act, Ala. Statues Ann. §§ 21-7-3, et seq.; ii. Alaska Human Rights Law, Ak. Code § 18.80.230, et seq.; iii. Arizona Arizonans with Disabilities Act, Arizona Revised Statutes, §§ 41-1492, et seq.; iv. Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code § 16-123-107, et seq.; v. California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, et seq., and California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54, et seq.; vi. Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601, et seq.; vii. Connecticut Human Rights and Opportunities Act, Conn. Gen. Stat § 46a-64, et seq.; viii. Delaware Equal Accommodations Law, 6 Del. Code § 4504, et seq.; ix. District of Columbia Human Rights Law, D.C. Code § 2-1402.31, et seq.; x. Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 760.08, et seq. and Fla. Stat. Ann. § 413.08, et seq.; xi. Georgia Handicapped Persons Act, § 30-4-2 et seq.; xii. Hawaii Civil Rights Act, Hawaii Revised Statues § 489-2, et seq.; xiii. Idaho Human Rights Law, Idaho Code § 67-5909, et seq.; xiv. Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5 § 102/1, et seq.; xv. Indiana Civil Rights Law, Indiana Code Ann. §§ 22-9-1-2, et seq.; xvi. Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code §§ 216.7, et seq.; xvii. Kansas Act against Discrimination, Kan. Stat. Ann §§ 44-1009, et seq.; xviii. Kentucky Civil Rights Act, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 344.120, et seq.; xix. Louisiana Commission on Human Rights, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § § 51:2247, et seq.; xx. Maine Human Rights Act, 5 Me. Rev. Stat. § 4592, et seq.; xxi. Maryland Commission on Civil Rights, Md. Com. Law Code § 20-304, et seq.; xxii. Massachusetts Public Accommodation Law, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 272, ch. 98, et seq.; xxiii. Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act, § § 37.2302, et seq.; xxiv. Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn. Stat. § 363A.11, et seq.; xxv. Mississippi Public Welfare Code, Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-6-1, et seq.; xxvi. Missouri Human Rights Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.065, et seq.; xxvii. Montana Human Rights Act, Mont. Code § 49-2-304, et seq.; xxviii. Nebraska Public Accommodations Law, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 20-139, et seq.; xxix. Nevada Public Accommodations Law, Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 651.070, et seq.; xxx. New Hampshire Law Against Discrimination, N.H. Rev. Stat. § 354-A:17, et seq.; xxxi. New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 10:1-12, et seq.; xxxii. New Mexico Human Rights Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 28-1-7, et seq.; xxxiii. New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law, Art. 15, Exec. Law § 296, et seq., and New York State Administrative Code § 8-101 et seq.; xxxiv. North Carolina Persons with Disabilities Protection Act, North Carolina General Statutes §§ 168A-1, et seq.; xxxv. North Dakota Human Rights Act, N.D. Cent. Code §§ 14-02.4-14, et seq.; xxxvi. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. §§ 4112.021. et seq.; xxxvii. Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, Okla. Stat. 25 § 1402, et seq.; 4 Case 1:15-cv-09178-SAS Document 1 Filed 11/20/15 Page 5 of 26 xxxviii. Oregon Equality Act, Rev. Stat § 659A.403, et seq.; xxxix. Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, 43 Penn. Stat. Ann. § § 955, et seq.; xl. Rhode Island Civil Rights of People with Disabilities Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-87.1- 3, et seq.; xli. South Carolina Bill of Rights for Handicapped Persons, S.C. Code Laws § 43-33- 510, et seq.; xlii. South Dakota Human Rights Law, S.D. Codified Laws §§ 20-13-23, et seq.; xliii. Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 4-21-102, et seq.; xliv. Human Rights Commission of Austin, Texas, Code of the City of Austin, § 2-1-148, et seq.; xlv. Utah Civil Rights Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 13-7-3, et seq.; xlvi. Vermont Anti-Discrimination Law, Vt. Stat. Ann. tit.9, § 4502, et seq.; xlvii. Virginia Human Rights Act, Virginia Code Ann. §§ 2.2-3901, et seq.; xlviii. Washington Law Against Discrimination, Wash. Rev, Code § 49.60.030, et seq.; xlix. West Virginia Human Rights Act, West Virginia Code § 5-11-2, et seq.; l. Wisconsin Equal Rights Program, Wis. Stat. §§ 106.52, et seq.; li. Wyoming Criminal Code, Wyoming Stat. Ann. § 6-9-101, et seq. 11. Plaintiff browsed and intended to shop at Homedepot.com.