Whitaker v. URBN US Retail LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that he has a C-4 spinal cord injury and uses a wheelchair. He visited an Anthropologie store owned by URBN US Retail LLC in Palo Alto, California, on January 21, 2021. The store’s second-floor Design Center had a service counter used for meetings with the store’s home stylist. Whitaker alleged that the counter was uniformly 40 inches high, that no part of it was 36 inches high, and that it was inaccessible to wheelchair users.

Whitaker alleged that he regularly frequents the area, was deterred from returning to the store by the counter, and would return to use design services if the store represented that its facilities were accessible. He asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an injunction under both laws and damages under the Unruh Act.

URBN’s Motion

URBN moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally valid claim. URBN also argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Whitaker did not have standing—a sufficient personal injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court could remedy.

URBN argued that the alleged barrier was a table used by the home stylist, not an ADA-regulated service counter. It also argued that Whitaker had not shown that the counter prevented him from doing business at the store or that he was likely to suffer injury in the future. URBN submitted evidence concerning the store and other Anthropologie locations, but the court held that this evidence was not proper for consideration on the Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Court’s Reasoning

The court found that Whitaker had established standing. His allegations that he uses a wheelchair, personally encountered an accessibility barrier, and was deterred from returning were sufficient to show an injury connected to the store and a likelihood of future injury. The court also concluded that the current record was not developed enough to determine whether the alleged barrier legally qualified as a service counter. Because that question was intertwined with the merits of the ADA claim, the court declined to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.

The court then assessed whether Whitaker had stated claims. For an architectural-barrier ADA claim, a plaintiff must allege that he is disabled, that the defendant owns or operates a place of public accommodation, that he was denied access because of his disability, that the facility has a prohibited architectural barrier, and that removing the barrier is readily achievable. The court concluded that Whitaker’s allegations about the counter’s height, its use for design services, his personal encounter with it, and the regulations allegedly violated provided enough factual detail to inform URBN of the basis for the claim.

The court further stated that the Unruh Act claim is coextensive with the ADA claim in this context. Therefore, because Whitaker stated an ADA claim, he also stated an Unruh Act claim.

Disposition

The court denied URBN’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. It directed URBN to file an answer by February 18, 2022, and stated that the order terminated the motion docketed as ECF 20. The order did not determine whether URBN was ultimately liable under either statute.