Salazar v. Victoria's Secret & Co.

Background

Vivian Salazar alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and uses VoiceOver, a screen-reading program, to access websites. Victoria's Secret & Co. operates physical retail stores and a website that allows customers to browse products and order goods for pickup at selected stores.

Salazar alleged that, in May 2023, she tried several times to buy pajamas and other sleepwear through the website for pickup at a Victoria's Secret store in the San Francisco Centre Mall. She said the website's “Select Store” buttons did not work with her screen reader because they were not coded to announce whether a store had been selected. She alleged that this prevented her from choosing a nearby store and deterred her from shopping at Victoria's Secret's retail stores.

Salazar asserted two claims: one under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and one under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act. The opinion states that an ADA violation automatically constitutes an Unruh Act violation.

Arguments and analysis

Victoria's Secret moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Salazar lacked standing, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that she failed to state a legally sufficient claim. Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury and a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.

The court rejected the standing challenge at the pleading stage. It found that Salazar identified a specific website barrier that she personally encountered and that allegedly deprived her of equal access to Victoria's Secret's goods. The court also found sufficient allegations of a future threat because Salazar alleged that she was deterred from patronizing the company's stores, would use the website for pickup if it were properly coded, lived in Contra Costa County, had about fifteen Victoria's Secret stores within accessible distance, and was near the company's physical locations at least twice a month.

The court also rejected Victoria's Secret's argument that Salazar had not alleged a sufficient connection between the website and a physical place of public accommodation. Because she alleged that the website's coding problem prevented her from ordering goods for pickup at Victoria's Secret stores, the court found the connection sufficient to state an ADA claim. The court therefore concluded that the First Amended Complaint was not subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Rulings

The court denied Victoria's Secret & Co.'s motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The ruling allowed Salazar's ADA and Unruh Act claims to proceed at this stage; it did not decide the ultimate merits of those claims.

In a footnote, the court also denied, without prejudice, Victoria's Secret's request to lift the discovery stay. The court stated that the company could pursue that request by filing either a stipulation and proposed order under Civil Local Rule 7-12 or a motion for administrative relief under Civil Local Rule 7-11.