Received a Demand Letter? Get Immediate Defense Help →

Informational only — not legal advice. Data from public PACER/CourtListener records. Full disclaimer →

ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: An Entertainment and Restaurant Chain

Case #FLMD-17217775 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Filed June 2, 2020

Plaintiff's Firm: RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A.

WCAG 2.0 Level AAMissing Alt TextUnlabeled LinksKeyboard AccessibilityForm Field Labels

Case Summary

Plaintiff WANDA KOEHN, represented by RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A., initiated a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, on June 2, 2020. This action challenges the digital accessibility of an online platform operated by a prominent entertainment and restaurant chain, asserting violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ms. Koehn, who experiences severe visual impairment due to diabetic retinopathy and macular degeneration, seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure equal access to digital services and information.

The complaint specifically alleges numerous deficiencies rendering the digital platform inaccessible to visually disabled users relying on screen reader software. These critical barriers include a mislabeled home button, inaccessible menu links, unlabeled links, missing descriptions for image content, and inaccessible site functions such as reservation dates. Furthermore, the platform purportedly lacks essential prompting information for completing online forms and an effectively accessible "accessibility" notice or policy, preventing users like Ms. Koehn from obtaining necessary support or information regarding digital accommodation. The document notes that a subsequent expert review in March 2020 confirmed the persistence and expansion of these access impediments.

This litigation underscores a significant and ongoing legal vulnerability for businesses operating public-facing digital platforms that serve as extensions of their physical establishments. Organizations failing to proactively incorporate Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA standards, or higher, risk similar legal challenges under the ADA. Beyond the explicit technical violations, the absence of comprehensive accessibility policies, dedicated coordinators, user testing groups, bug fix protocols, and specialized customer assistance for disabled users further exposes companies to claims of systemic discrimination and denial of equal enjoyment of services. Proactive digital inclusion is paramount to mitigate these pervasive legal and reputational exposures.

Case Q&A

What specific barriers did visually impaired users encounter on the entertainment and restaurant chain's digital platform?

Users relying on screen reader software faced issues such as a mislabeled home button, inaccessible menu links, unlabeled navigation elements, absent descriptions for images, and non-functional reservation features. Additionally, the platform reportedly lacked sufficient guidance for filling out online forms and an accessible statement regarding its accessibility policy.

Who is the plaintiff in this ADA accessibility lawsuit, and which law firm represents her?

The plaintiff is WANDA KOEHN, a visually disabled individual. She is represented in this legal action by the law firm RODERICK V. HANNAH, ES

What broader implications does this type of lawsuit hold for online businesses with physical locations?

This case highlights the imperative for integrated businesses to ensure their digital interfaces are fully accessible under ADA Title III, as they are considered extensions of physical public accommodations. Failure to implement robust accessibility features, policies, and support mechanisms can result in significant legal and operational repercussions.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: An Entertainment and Rest.... Ask me about the plaintiff's law firm, the specific WCAG violations at risk, or how to protect your business. I cite real lawsuit patterns — not generic advice.

Not legal advice — informational intelligence only.

TDARI is not a law firm. Responses are AI-generated intelligence, not legal advice. Disclaimer