Sumlin v. New York Beer Co., LLC
- Lewis Liman
- 1:24-cv-08448
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Sumlin v. New York Beer Co., Judge Liman granted default judgment, ordering website accessibility fixes and $1,000 in damages.
Dennis Sumlin received default judgment, a website-accessibility injunction, and $1,000 in damages. New York Beer Co., LLC was ordered to resolve the accessibility issues identified in the expert report and may face a later attorney’s-fee motion.
What happened
In Sumlin v. New York Beer Co., LLC, Dennis Sumlin sued under disability-discrimination laws, alleging that the restaurant’s website was inaccessible to blind users. New York Beer Co. did not appear or respond to the lawsuit.
Sumlin alleged that screen-reader problems prevented him from navigating the website, viewing the menu, and purchasing merchandise. The court accepted the allegations as true for the default-judgment motion and concluded that they stated claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State law, and New York City law.
Judge Lewis J. Liman granted the default judgment. He ordered New York Beer Co. to fix the accessibility problems identified in Sumlin’s expert report, awarded Sumlin $1,000 in damages, and allowed him to seek attorney’s fees within 30 days.
The detailed version
- Sumlin v. New York Beer Co., LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08448
- Lewis Liman
- June 18, 2025
Background
Dennis Sumlin brought the case on behalf of himself and others similarly situated against New York Beer Co., LLC, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). He moved for default judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2), and the court granted the motion.
Sumlin alleged that he is legally blind and uses screen-reading technology to access websites. He tried to use the website at jacobspickles.com to review the restaurant’s menu, consider making a reservation, and purchase a branded T-shirt. He alleged that the website had accessibility barriers, including links that opened new windows without notice, elements that could not be reached with the keyboard’s Tab key, and unclear links. He said these barriers prevented him from exploring and shopping on the website. He also alleged that he remained interested in the restaurant’s services and intended to use the website and visit the Upper West Side location in the future.
Default and liability
New York Beer Co. did not appear or respond. The Clerk entered a certificate of default, and Sumlin then moved for default judgment. On a default-judgment motion, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true, except allegations about damages, but still determines whether those allegations establish legal liability.
The court concluded that Sumlin stated an ADA claim. It found that blindness is a disability covered by the ADA, that the website was connected to a physical restaurant and therefore qualified as a place of public accommodation under the court’s analysis, and that the alleged website barriers denied Sumlin full and equal enjoyment of the website because of his disability. The court also concluded that stating an ADA claim established claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, which use the same or broader protections in this context.
Relief
The court granted default judgment. It determined that Sumlin had shown entitlement to injunctive relief and ongoing harm that money alone could not remedy. Although his request for an injunction was broad, an expert report identified 40 specific accessibility issues, including missing alternative text, improper headings, and inadequate keyboard navigation. The court ordered New York Beer Co. to resolve each issue identified in that report as soon as reasonably practicable. The injunction does not require actions that would constitute an undue burden under Title II of the ADA.
The court awarded Sumlin $1,000 in damages under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL because he had not established damages beyond the fact of discrimination. The court did not award attorney’s fees at that stage; it stated that Sumlin could file a fee motion within 30 days of the order. The Clerk was directed to close the motion docket entry.
Disposition
The motion for default judgment was GRANTED. The opinion states that service occurred on November 25, 2025, even though the case was filed in 2024 and the opinion is dated June 18, 2025; this appears to be an internal date inconsistency in the text.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.