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 online footwear retailer

Case #FLMD-17455687 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Filed August 18, 2020

Plaintiff's Firm: RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A., and LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, P.A.

Mislabeled LinksUnlabeled UI ElementsMissing Alt TextInaccessible FormsScreen Reader Incompatibility

Case Summary

Wanda Koehn, a visually disabled resident of Florida, initiated legal proceedings against a prominent online footwear retailer in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on August 18, 2020. The plaintiff alleges that the company's digital platform, which functions as both an informational and e-commerce extension of its numerous brick-and-mortar stores, contains significant access barriers. These deficiencies, she claims, actively prevent her and other visually impaired individuals who rely on screen reader software from fully and equally accessing the website's services, privileges, and advantages, directly contravening the mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title III.

The complaint specifically details multiple critical accessibility shortcomings found on the retailer's online presence. Allegations include a mislabeled homepage link, various site functions such as menu drop-down options lacking proper labeling for screen reader integration, an absence of descriptive text for image content, and product information, including regular and sales prices, that is not adequately identified. Furthermore, the website reportedly fails to provide sufficient prompting information for completing online forms and presented an inaccessible "accessibility" notice, thus obstructing effective communication channels for disabled users seeking assistance or information.

This legal action underscores the inherent legal risks faced by businesses operating digital platforms that fall short of established accessibility guidelines, such as WCAG 2.0 Level AA or higher. Organizations whose websites serve as integral extensions of physical public accommodations are under continuous obligation to ensure their online interfaces provide full and equitable access to all users, including those with visual disabilities. Failure to implement reasonable modifications, auxiliary aids, and services not only invites litigation but also significantly alienates a segment of the potential customer base, highlighting the critical need for proactive digital accessibility auditing and robust remediation efforts across all industries.

Case Q&A

What specific digital accessibility failures were identified in the complaint against the online retailer?

The complaint highlights issues such as a mislabeled homepage link, unlabeled menu drop-down options, missing descriptions for image content, and improperly labeled product pricing, all of which hinder screen reader compatibility and overall website navigation for visually disabled users.

Who is the plaintiff in this case, and which law firms are representing her?

The plaintiff is Wanda Koehn, and she is represented by Roderick V. Hannah, Es

, P.

, and the Law Office of Pelayo Duran, P.

What broader implications does this lawsuit present for companies with an online presence that also operate physical stores?

The case reinforces that businesses with both online platforms and physical public accommodations must ensure their websites meet ADA Title III accessibility standards, particularly concerning information access, e-commerce functionality, and effective communication, to avoid discriminatory practices and potential litigation.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: an online footwear retail.... 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