Brown v. Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc.
- Analisa Torres
- 1:24-cv-06344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Brown v. Jennifer Adams Brands, Judge Torres granted the dismissal motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing only the duplicative declaratory-judgment claim.
Zebone Brown’s Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law claims were allowed to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage, while her duplicative declaratory-judgment claim was dismissed. The ruling also affects Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc., the defendant.
What happened
In Brown v. Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc., Zebone Brown, who is legally blind and uses screen-reading software, claimed that the company’s online store was inaccessible because of broken links, missing text descriptions, hidden elements, unclear labels, and other barriers. She brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The court rejected the company’s argument that Brown had not shown a sufficient injury or intent to return to the website. It also ruled that a standalone website can qualify as a place of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court further held that the New York City law allows private damages claims, including punitive damages, and that it was too early to remove Brown’s request for punitive damages.
Judge Analisa Torres granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. She dismissed Brown’s declaratory-judgment claim because it sought the same relief as her other claims, but denied the motion in all other respects.
The detailed version
- Brown v. Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-06344
- Analisa Torres
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
Zebone Brown brought this putative class action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. She alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reading software to access websites. Brown alleged that she visited Jennifer Adams Brands, Inc.’s website on July 9, 2024, intending to purchase 600-thread-count Egyptian cotton sheets, but could not complete the purchase because the website had multiple accessibility barriers. The alleged barriers included broken links, missing alternative text, hidden page elements, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop-ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and actions that could be performed only with a mouse.
Brown sought damages and declaratory and injunctive relief under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Jennifer Adams Brands moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.
Standing under Rule 12(b)(1)
The court rejected the argument that Brown failed to plead an injury sufficient to seek injunctive relief. Brown identified when she visited the website, the specific product she wanted to buy, and her reasons for choosing the website. She also alleged that she intended to return to the website if it became accessible. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to establish an injury in fact and an intent to return.
Americans with Disabilities Act claim
The court held that Brown stated a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The disputed issue was whether a standalone website, without a public-facing physical location, could be a place of public accommodation. The court adopted the majority view among district courts in the Southern District of New York and ruled that a standalone website can qualify as a place of public accommodation. The court therefore concluded that Brown had adequately alleged an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
New York City Human Rights Law claim
The court rejected Jennifer Adams Brands’ argument that the New York City Human Rights Law does not allow private plaintiffs to seek damages. The court stated that the law authorizes damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and other appropriate remedies. It also declined to decide at the motion-to-dismiss stage whether Brown could ultimately recover punitive damages because punitive damages are a type of relief, not a separate claim. The court did not strike Brown’s request for punitive damages.
Declaratory-judgment claim
The court dismissed Brown’s claim seeking a declaration that Jennifer Adams Brands operated its website in a discriminatory manner. It found that the requested declaration sought no relief beyond what Brown was already seeking through her other causes of action and was therefore duplicative.
Disposition
The court granted Jennifer Adams Brands’ motion to dismiss as to Brown’s declaratory-judgment claim and denied the motion in all other respects. Judge Analisa Torres directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at ECF No. 14.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.