Camacho v. Vanderbilt University

Background

Jason Camacho alleged that Vanderbilt University’s website was inaccessible to visually impaired users in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the Rehabilitation Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Camacho alleged that he is visually impaired and legally blind, uses the JAWS screen-reader program, and could not navigate certain website sections or use the net-price calculator because those features were incompatible with his screen reader.

The website provided information about Vanderbilt’s location, programs, tuition, expenses, and financial aid. It also allowed users to schedule visits, request information from admissions staff, and use financial-aid and net-price calculators. The opinion states that current students could pay tuition and other costs through the website, but that prospective students could not apply for admission or financial aid through it.

Vanderbilt is incorporated in Tennessee and has its principal place of business and campus there. It had no offices or property in New York and did not hold physical classes or seminars there. Vanderbilt nevertheless participated in college-recruiting events in New York, including a November 2018 college fair that Camacho attended.

Motions and Issues

Vanderbilt moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Vanderbilt argued that Camacho’s claims did not arise from business Vanderbilt conducted in New York and that Camacho lacked Article III standing to bring an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court rejected Camacho’s arguments based solely on Vanderbilt’s receipt of tuition from New York students and participation in New York recruiting events. Those activities did not provide personal jurisdiction because Camacho’s claims concerned access to the website and had no sufficient connection to tuition payments or to any unlawful conduct at the college fair.

The court also concluded that merely operating a website accessible from New York would not establish jurisdiction. The website’s ability to facilitate tuition payments did not independently establish jurisdiction because Camacho had not alleged that New York students made tuition payments through the website, and his claims did not arise from the tuition-payment pages.

The court treated the net-price calculator as an interactive feature because users could enter information and receive estimates concerning financial aid. The Second Amended Complaint contained an unclear allegation that Vanderbilt used its website together with New York college fairs to market to prospective students. Reading that allegation in Camacho’s favor, the court understood it to mean that Vanderbilt used the website at New York recruiting events to solicit students. Combined with the website’s interactivity, that allegation satisfied New York’s long-arm statute at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court also found that exercising specific personal jurisdiction complied with due process. Vanderbilt’s repeated participation in New York recruiting events and alleged use of the website there showed purposeful activity in New York. The court found the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable, noting New York’s interest in providing relief to its resident and the convenience of litigating there. The court emphasized that Camacho had made only the required initial showing at this stage and that jurisdiction could later be challenged if the ultimate facts did not support it.

Standing

The court concluded that Camacho had Article III standing. It found that he adequately alleged an injury because his disability prevented him from accessing publicly available website content and deterred him from using the site. His allegations that he visited the website multiple times supported an inference that the barriers continued. His statement that he would immediately revisit the website if it became accessible supported a reasonable inference that he intended to return.

The court rejected Vanderbilt’s argument that Camacho’s filing of approximately 50 similar lawsuits against colleges and universities defeated standing. Because this case concerned access to Vanderbilt’s website rather than an alleged inability to enter Vanderbilt’s physical campus, the court held that Camacho did not need to show that he intended to return to Vanderbilt’s campus. The court found it plausible that he intended to visit the websites of the schools involved in his claims to learn more about them and decide which ones to consider further.

Disposition

The court denied Vanderbilt University’s motion to dismiss. The court did not dismiss the action on either the personal-jurisdiction or standing grounds. It directed Vanderbilt to file a responsive pleading by January 6, 2020, and directed the parties to submit a proposed case-management plan and joint status letter by January 13, 2020.