Morgan v. Lululemon Athletica Inc.

Background

Paradise Morgan alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and uses a smartphone to access QR codes for merchandise information. She claimed that Lululemon’s stores were not equally accessible because the company did not provide digital labels and tags, including QR codes, and did not provide adequate auxiliary aids—assistance or other methods for making visual information accessible. She asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She also sought declaratory relief.

Lululemon moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. For this motion, the court treated the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true, but it did not make findings about whether those allegations were actually true.

ADA Claims

The court granted Lululemon’s motion as to Morgan’s first cause of action under Title III of the ADA. The court explained that Title III requires businesses open to the public to provide people with disabilities a full and equal opportunity to enjoy the goods and services they offer. It does not, however, require a business to change its inventory to include specially modified goods.

The court concluded that printing QR codes on product tags and labels would modify Lululemon’s products and inventory. Because Title III does not require that type of product modification, Morgan did not adequately plead an ADA violation based on the absence of QR codes or digital tags.

The court separately rejected Morgan’s auxiliary-aid theory. Although Title III can require appropriate auxiliary aids for effective communication, the court found that Morgan had not alleged that she sought assistance from Lululemon employees, informed them of her disability, or was treated differently after requesting help. The allegation that she did not receive assistance during two store visits was not enough, in the court’s view, to state a claim that Lululemon denied her required auxiliary aids. The court also concluded that Title III did not require Lululemon to provide auxiliary aids for use in Morgan’s home after purchase, including care instructions in the requested format.

The court noted that the complaint alleged Lululemon’s QR codes were used only for internal inventory purposes, while Lululemon argued that it already had accessible QR codes providing the requested information. The court did not resolve that factual dispute on a motion to dismiss.

State and City Claims

After dismissing the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Morgan’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law. Supplemental jurisdiction is a court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims. The court therefore dismissed Morgan’s second, third, and fourth causes of action.

Declaratory Relief

The court held that declaratory relief is not an independent cause of action. It granted Lululemon’s motion as to Morgan’s fifth cause of action.

Disposition

The court granted Lululemon’s May 5, 2023 motion to dismiss. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Lululemon and close the case. The opinion did not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation to these dispositions.