Suarez v. Stuhrling Original, LLC

Background

Alvin Suarez brought the action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. He alleged that Stuhrling Original, LLC’s websites and mobile applications, including stuhrling.com, were not fully accessible to people with disabilities. The complaint asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Stuhrling denied that its website violated federal, state, or local law. It also denied that the website was a public accommodation or otherwise subject to the cited laws, denied that the venue was proper, and denied any wrongdoing or liability.

Consent Decree

The parties agreed to resolve, settle, and compromise all issues in the action without a trial or further adjudication of the factual or legal issues raised in the complaint. The decree was entered by Suarez individually, but the parties intended it to benefit people who are blind or have low vision, including members of the class identified in the complaint.

For 36 months after the effective date, Stuhrling must not deny people with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from goods, services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided through its websites. Stuhrling must also use reasonable efforts to provide equal access and to avoid excluding, denying services to, segregating, or otherwise treating people differently because auxiliary aids or services are absent.

Within 24 months of the effective date, Stuhrling must modify the websites as needed, if they have not already been modified, with the goal of substantially conforming them to applicable Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 or 2.1 Level A success criteria, or other applicable guidelines, so that the websites will be accessible to people with vision disabilities. The decree excludes certain user-generated or third-party content and does not require narrative descriptions for videos. It also defines reasonable efforts to exclude efforts that would create an undue burden, fundamentally alter the website’s operation, or cause a loss of website-related revenue or traffic, as described in the decree.

Enforcement and Court Action

The decree establishes a notice-and-cure process for alleged violations. The party alleging a breach must provide written notice, and the alleged breaching party generally has 30 calendar days to respond or a longer mutually agreed period when the issue cannot be cured within 30 days. If the dispute is not resolved, a party may seek enforcement from the court. The decree also provides that Stuhrling is not in breach unless an independent accessibility consultant determines that a specified task cannot be completed by a person with a disability using an identified screen reader and supported browser, and Stuhrling then fails to use reasonable efforts to remedy the issue within a reasonable time.

The court found that it had jurisdiction, made the decree binding on the parties, and stated that the settlement was not an admission by Stuhrling or a finding of liability. The court retained jurisdiction for 36 months and stated that the decree adjudicated the claims and issues alleged, or that could have been alleged, based on the complaint. Judge Robert W. Lehrburger approved, adopted, and entered the consent decree as an order of the court.