Murphy v. Kohl's Corporation

Background

James Murphy sued Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. on behalf of similarly situated people. He alleged that Kohl’s offered prepaid store gift cards but did not offer Braille or otherwise accessible gift cards. Murphy said he called Kohl’s customer service on October 22, 2019, asked whether Kohl’s stores sold Braille gift cards, and was told they did not. He alleged that the employee did not offer alternative aids or services. Murphy later tried unsuccessfully to find accessible Kohl’s gift cards and said their absence deterred him from fully and equally using or enjoying Kohl’s retail goods and services.

Murphy brought claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, a permanent injunction requiring changes to Kohl’s gift-card policies and practices, and attorney’s fees. Kohl’s moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion challenges the court’s power to hear a claim, while a Rule 12(b)(6) motion argues that the complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Court’s analysis

The court relied heavily on its decision in a prior related proceeding involving similar allegations against another retailer. For the Americans with Disabilities Act claim, the court held that Murphy had not plausibly alleged an intent to return to Kohl’s. Murphy alleged that he had previously been a Kohl’s customer, intended to buy an accessible gift card once available, and lived on the same street as a Kohl’s store he identified at 271 West 23rd Street in New York. The court noted, however, that no Kohl’s store was located at that address and that there were no Kohl’s stores anywhere in Manhattan. Murphy also did not allege, for example, that he regularly visited department stores to shop.

The court stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act claim would also fail under Rule 12(b)(6) for the reasons discussed in the earlier related proceeding. Because it would dismiss the federal claim, the court did not substantively analyze the New York State or New York City claims and said it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims alongside a federal claim.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Kohl’s motion to dismiss. The court gave Murphy 15 days to file a second amended complaint alleging additional facts about his interactions with Kohl’s. If he did not amend within that period, the court said it would enter a final judgment of dismissal and direct the clerk to close the case. The clerk was also directed to terminate the pending motion.

Name note

The supplied case name says “Murphy v. Kohl’s Corporation,” but the opinion’s caption identifies the defendant as “Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc.” This summary follows the caption.