Mendez v. AnnTaylor, Inc.

Background

Himelda Mendez sued AnnTaylor, Inc. on behalf of similarly situated people. She alleged that Ann Taylor offered store gift cards but did not offer Braille or otherwise accessible gift cards for blind and visually impaired customers.

Mendez alleged that she called Ann Taylor’s customer service office on October 21, 2019, and asked whether the company sold Braille gift cards. An employee told her that it did not. She alleged that the employee did not offer alternative auxiliary aids or services, and that she later unsuccessfully tried to find accessible Ann Taylor gift cards herself. She claimed that the lack of an accessible gift card deterred her from fully and equally using or enjoying the goods and services offered at Ann Taylor’s retail stores. She also alleged that she intended to buy an accessible gift card as soon as one became available.

Mendez asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She sought compensatory and punitive damages, a permanent injunction requiring changes to Ann Taylor’s policies and practices, and attorney’s fees. Ann Taylor moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s authority to hear a case, including standing; Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing

The court held that Mendez did not provide enough evidence of an intent to return to Ann Taylor and therefore lacked standing to assert her Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Mendez alleged that she lived about two blocks from an Ann Taylor store at 149 Fifth Avenue in New York, which gave somewhat more detail than the complaint in the related case discussed by the court. But she alleged only generally that she had previously been a customer and intended to buy an accessible gift card once Ann Taylor offered one.

The court explained that whether a plaintiff intends to return is a fact-specific inquiry that can consider past visits, the proximity of the defendant’s services to the plaintiff’s home, occupation, travel habits, and other relevant facts. The court noted that Mendez did not allege facts such as frequently shopping at nearby retail stores or having a particular reason to shop for Ann Taylor’s products.

Rule 12(b)(6) Analysis

The court also stated that Mendez’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim would fail under Rule 12(b)(6) for the reasons identified in the related decision. It found no substantive differences between the complaints or briefing that would require a different result.

State and City Claims

Because the court would dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claims, it said it did not need to conduct a substantive analysis of Mendez’s New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims. The court stated that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims. The opinion does not state that those claims were separately dismissed in the conclusion.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods granted AnnTaylor’s motion to dismiss. The court allowed Mendez fifteen days to file a second amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified in the opinion by alleging additional facts about her interactions with Ann Taylor. If she did not file an amended complaint within that period, the court stated that it would enter a final judgment of dismissal and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case. The Clerk was also directed to terminate the motion at Docket No. 20.