Dalton v. Kwik Trip, Inc.

Background

Julie Dalton alleged that she has a visual disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She claimed that Kwik Trip’s point-of-sale terminals and related PIN pads displayed information—such as available cash-back amounts and the amount dispensed—without providing audio descriptions. As a result, she alleged, customers with visual disabilities could not use the cash-back feature safely and independently and had to rely on a sighted employee or another third party.

Dalton alleged that Kwik Trip used the same equipment in all of its stores. She stated that she had visited the Faribault store, that she and her family regularly spent time in the Faribault area, and that she intended to return to the area and the store and use the cash-back feature when she could do so safely and independently.

Standing

Kwik Trip moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Dalton lacked standing to seek injunctive relief. Standing requires an injury caused by the challenged conduct that a favorable court decision could remedy. The court explained that an ADA plaintiff must show that she encountered an access barrier and that the barrier affected her full and equal enjoyment of the public accommodation because of her disability. She must also show a real and immediate likelihood of future injury, rather than only an intention to return someday.

The court found that Dalton had standing concerning the Faribault store. Her regular visits to the area, her connection to the area through her cabin and seasonal camper, her past visits to the store, and her stated intent to return and use the cash-back feature supported a likely future injury. The court held, however, that she had not shown standing concerning Kwik Trip stores she had never visited and that she had not demonstrated that she was likely to visit those stores in the near future. The court also noted that she had not established that the other stores used the same terminals.

ADA Claim

Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services of a public accommodation. It requires reasonable modifications when necessary and requires appropriate auxiliary aids or services—such as accessible electronic information or modified equipment—when needed for effective communication, unless an exception such as a fundamental alteration or undue burden applies.

Kwik Trip argued that Dalton’s claim failed because the ADA Accessibility Guidelines did not contain specific standards for point-of-sale machines or PIN pads. The court rejected that argument at the pleading stage. It distinguished authorities involving technical standards for new construction or alterations and concluded that the absence of specific standards for point-of-sale equipment did not eliminate the ADA’s requirement to provide effective auxiliary aids or services.

The court considered Dalton’s allegations that requiring assistance from an employee or another person raised financial-security and privacy concerns. It also considered her allegation that using an automated teller machine was not an equal alternative because it charged a fee and required her to go elsewhere in the store. The court concluded that Dalton had sufficiently alleged a claim that Kwik Trip failed to provide blind customers safe, independent, full, and equal access to its point-of-sale services.

Disposition

The court ordered that Kwik Trip’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted to the extent Dalton sought relief against Kwik Trip stores other than the Faribault store and denied in all other respects. Judge Michael J. Davis signed the memorandum opinion and order.