Sullivan, Jr. v. Doctor's Associates LLC

Background

Phillip Sullivan, Jr. alleged that he is deaf and that an employee at a Subway restaurant became hostile and used aggressive gestures and body language when Sullivan tried to order a sandwich. Sullivan alleged that Doctor’s Associates LLC (DAL), the Subway franchisor, was responsible for Subway restaurants’ operations, training, legal compliance, and point-of-sale systems. He claimed that DAL violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), New York State law, and the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to require technology that would allow hearing-impaired customers to place orders through a self-ordering interface. He also asserted a claim for declaratory relief and sought class-wide relief.

DAL moved to dismiss the claims against it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim. Sullivan had previously amended his complaint after the court dismissed an earlier version.

ADA Analysis

The court held that the ADA’s effective-communication requirement is flexible. A public accommodation may choose among different methods as long as the method provides effective communication. The ADA therefore did not require DAL’s franchisees to install self-ordering kiosks or adopt another specific technology. The court noted that written communication, including using pen and paper, could be an effective method, and Sullivan did not allege that he tried to communicate with the restaurant employees in that or another alternative way.

The court also held that Sullivan had not adequately alleged that DAL was an ADA-covered operator of the restaurant. To hold a franchisor responsible as an operator under Title III, a plaintiff must allege that the franchisor specifically controls the franchisee’s accessibility for disabled customers. General supervisory authority, such as control over manuals, training, equipment, point-of-sale systems, or the restaurant’s general look and operations, was not enough. Sullivan’s additional allegations that DAL controlled Subway’s point-of-sale systems still concerned only one possible method of accommodating hearing-impaired customers and did not establish the required specific control over accessibility.

State and City Claims

The court dismissed Sullivan’s New York State Human Rights Law and New York State Civil Rights Law claims because the court treated them as coextensive with, and dependent on, the ADA claim. Although the New York City Human Rights Law must generally be analyzed separately and more broadly, the court found no relevant difference between the city-law analysis and the federal-law analysis presented in this case. It therefore dismissed the NYCHRL claim as well.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods granted DAL’s motion to dismiss. The court granted Sullivan leave to replead and ordered that any amended complaint be filed within fourteen days of the order. The court stated that Sullivan should not expect additional opportunities to amend, but it did not conclude that another amendment would necessarily be futile.