Szwanek v. Jack in the Box, Inc.

Background

Judy Szwanek and James Lopez II brought a proposed class action against Jack in the Box, Inc., Different Rules LLC, Argo Hospitality Services, Inc., and Three Foods, Inc. The complaint alleged that many Jack in the Box restaurants provide service only through the drive-through during late-night and early-morning hours. The restaurants do not allow pedestrians to use the drive-through, and their interiors are closed during those periods.

The plaintiffs alleged that they have visual impairments that prevent them from operating motor vehicles. They said they regularly patronized nearby Jack in the Box restaurants and could not independently obtain service when those restaurants operated through the drive-through only. They proposed accommodations including a walk-up window, lobby access for blind customers, or a phone-based ordering system with delivery to the front door.

They asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits disability discrimination by private places of public accommodation, and under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. Their requests for declaratory relief were also based on the ADA claims. The franchisor defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, for judgment on the pleadings. The franchisee defendants joined that motion.

Court’s analysis

The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that the drive-through-only policy discriminated against the plaintiffs because of their disabilities. It relied on precedent recognizing that a facially neutral policy can violate the ADA when it burdens disabled people differently and more heavily than nondisabled people. But the court concluded that this policy affected disabled and nondisabled pedestrians in the same way because neither group could use the drive-through on foot. In the court’s view, the policy affected people based, at most, on their inability to drive for any reason, rather than on disability.

The court also gave a separate reason for finding the ADA claims inadequate. Although the complaint sufficiently alleged that the plaintiffs had visual impairments, the court determined that the claims depended on the life activity of driving rather than seeing. Driving is not listed as a major life activity in the ADA, and the court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that driving, in this context, qualified as a major life activity under the statute.

Because the Unruh Act and declaratory-relief claims were based on the ADA claims, the court concluded that those claims also failed.

Disposition

The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that leave to amend would be futile and that no further amendments would be allowed. The order did not separately state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice. The order was signed by Liam Alsup, identified in the supplied case metadata as William Alsup; the signature text is the basis for the name used here.