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: A University

Case #NY-69749331 · District Court, S.D. New York · Filed March 18, 2025

Plaintiff's Firm: GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC

WCAG 2.0 AAMissing Alt TextEmpty Link TextRedundant LinksBroken Links

Case Summary

Plaintiff Edery Herrera, a visually-impaired individual, initiated a lawsuit against a university in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, on March 18, 2025. The core of the complaint addresses alleged civil rights violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other state laws, stemming from the inaccessibility of the organization's interactive website to blind and visually-impaired users. This legal action highlights a pervasive challenge within the digital landscape, where essential online services remain exclusive to certain demographics.

The complaint meticulously details numerous WCAG violations that rendered the online platform unusable for screen-reading software. Specific issues include the pervasive absence of alternative text for graphical images, making visual content incomprehensible to blind users, and empty links lacking textual descriptions, leading to navigational confusion. Further compounding these difficulties were redundant links, which forced unnecessary repetitions during keyboard navigation, and broken links that redirected users to error pages without adequate communication from the screen reader, effectively preventing them from returning to their original search. These fundamental failures to adhere to established accessibility guidelines deprived individuals reliant on assistive technology of equal access.

This litigation underscores the critical imperative for all public accommodations operating digital platforms to prioritize comprehensive accessibility. The persistent failure to implement WCAG 2.0 standards, such as providing proper alt-text and ensuring keyboard operability, exposes businesses to significant legal and reputational risks. Beyond mere compliance, the intent of accessibility mandates is to foster genuine inclusion, making online goods, services, and information universally available. Organizations must proactively adopt robust, ongoing accessibility policies and conduct regular audits, including human end-user testing, to avert potential discrimination claims and uphold the civil rights of disabled individuals.

Case Q&A

What specific web accessibility failures did the plaintiff encounter on the online platform?

The plaintiff reported several critical barriers, including the lack of alternative text for non-text elements and linked images, empty links without functional descriptions, redundant links that caused repetitive navigation, and broken links that failed to inform screen-reader users of the error. These issues prevented the plaintiff from fully accessing content and completing online transactions.

Who is the visually-impaired plaintiff, and which law firm represents him in this action?

The visually-impaired plaintiff is Edery Herrera, and he is represented by Gottlieb & Associates PLLC.

What broader implications does this lawsuit hold for other online service providers concerning digital access?

This case serves as a stark reminder that digital platforms, particularly those offering public accommodations, must actively ensure their websites are fully accessible to individuals with disabilities. Failure to adhere to established guidelines like WCAG 2.0 can lead to legal challenges, emphasizing the necessity of proactive accessibility integration rather than reactive fixes.

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

AI · Powered by TDARI database + Gemini

Online

TDARI Legal Intel Assistant

I'm analyzing ADA Website Accessibility Lawsuit: A University. 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