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 jewelry retailer

Case #FLMD-18486078 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Filed September 29, 2020

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

WCAG 2.0 AAScreen Reader IncompatibilityMissing LabelsInaccessible FormsNavigation Issues

Case Summary

Plaintiff WANDA KOEHN, a visually disabled individual residing in Hillsborough County, Florida, initiated legal action against an online jewelry retailer by filing a federal complaint in the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, on September 29, 2020. This suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, addressing the retailer's failure to provide equal access to its digital platform for ordering merchandise and accessing store information. Ms. Koehn, represented by Roderick V. Hannah, Esq., P.A., aims to eliminate discriminatory barriers that impede her ability to fully engage with the online services.

The complaint meticulously outlines several specific accessibility failures on the retailer's website, stemming from its incompatibility with standard screen reader software. Allegations include an unlabeled pop-up newsletter, an unidentifiable home page button, and numerous unlabeled links, all preventing effective navigation. Furthermore, critical site elements like sliders operate too rapidly for screen reader translation, and pricing/percentage figures lack proper labeling, rendering them inaccessible. The absence of an "accessibility" notice or policy and the inability to locate contact information for disabled users further compound these issues, indicating a systemic lack of digital inclusion.

This legal challenge underscores the ongoing imperative for all public accommodations, particularly those with a significant online presence, to ensure their digital interfaces are fully compliant with ADA Title III and WCAG guidelines. Businesses that fail to integrate reasonable modifications, such as implementing auxiliary aids and services like screen reader compatibility, expose themselves to significant litigation risk and alienate a substantial segment of the population. The broader implication is a call for proactive digital inclusivity, emphasizing the necessity of accessible design to prevent discriminatory experiences and uphold equal access for all users.

Case Q&A

What were the reported digital accessibility shortcomings of the online jewelry platform?

The complaint cited various issues including an unlabeled pop-up newsletter, an unidentifiable home page button, unlabeled links, site elements like sliders operating too fast for screen readers, and improperly labeled pricing and percentage figures, all hindering effective screen reader interaction.

Who filed the lawsuit and which law firm represents the plaintiff?

The lawsuit was filed by WANDA KOEHN, a visually disabled individual. She is represented by Roderick V. Hannah, Es

, P.

, and co-counsel Law Office of Pelayo Duran, P.

What broader implications does this case hold for other online businesses with physical locations?

This case highlights the legal obligation for businesses operating both physical stores and linked websites to ensure their digital platforms are fully accessible under ADA Title III. Failure to provide effective communication and equal access online, especially when the website serves as a gateway to physical services, can lead to similar litigation and calls for injunctive relief.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: an online jewelry retaile.... 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