Johnson v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

Background

Richard Johnson sued 7-Eleven, Inc., and SEJ Asset Management and Investment Company concerning a 7-Eleven store on South 11th Street in San Jose. Johnson uses a wheelchair and alleged that he visited the store three times while traveling to a monthly service commitment. He said he encountered barriers that caused frustration and embarrassment and denied him full and equal access.

The alleged barriers included problems with the entrance ramp, the accessible route from the public right of way, parking-space signs, parking-space and access-aisle slopes, the curb ramp, the path of travel, the entry door, interior aisles, counter heights, an automated teller machine, and the height of self-service items. Johnson brought a claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and a claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Johnson moved for summary judgment. Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and argued that Johnson lacked a sufficient intent to return, that his federal claim was moot because the alleged barriers had been corrected, and, alternatively, that removing the barriers was not readily achievable.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits disability discrimination in places of public accommodation. For an existing facility, discrimination can include failing to remove architectural barriers when removal is readily achievable, meaning easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense.

The court found that Johnson had standing to seek injunctive relief. He alleged past visits and injuries, said that the barriers deterred him from returning, and stated that he would return after the facility became accessible. The court also noted that Johnson had returned to the store after filing the complaint, which it considered convincing evidence that his intent to return was sincere and plausible.

The court then examined the alleged barriers. Defendants’ access specialist inspected the property after Johnson’s inspection and reported that the alleged barriers had been corrected or complied with the applicable accessibility standards. The opinion states that the parking lot had been repaved, parking spaces had been repainted, accessibility signs had been replaced, and interior travel paths had been modified. Johnson did not dispute the specialist’s findings.

The court concluded that the following conditions complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act: accessible-parking signs; directional and informational signs; the parking-space surface slope; the access-aisle slope; the curb ramp and path of travel; the entry-door landing, opening force, and closing speed; the floor mats; interior aisles and aisle ends; automated teller machine clearance; and sales and service counter heights. The court also stated that the alleged vending-machine barrier appeared to have been remedied, and Johnson did not contest that point.

Because the alleged violations had been remedied, the court held that Johnson’s federal claim was moot. The court explained that a private plaintiff may seek only injunctive relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and it dismissed the ADA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court did not reach defendants’ alternative argument about whether removal of the barriers was readily achievable.

Unruh Civil Rights Act claim

Johnson’s remaining claim arose under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and sought statutory damages. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, which is the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

The court identified exceptional circumstances supporting that decision. It found that the Unruh Act claim substantially predominated because the state law provides monetary damages while the federal claim provides only injunctive relief. The court also cited judicial economy and fairness considerations, as well as concerns that retaining the claim could allow plaintiffs to avoid California’s heightened pleading requirements for disability-discrimination lawsuits.

The court dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice.

Disposition

The court denied Johnson’s motion for summary judgment, granted defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment in part, dismissed Johnson’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim, and dismissed the Unruh Act claim without prejudice. The clerk was ordered to close the file.