Mendez v. Coach Services, Inc.

Background

Coach Services, Inc. sells prepaid gift cards that can be used at its stores. Mendez alleged that she called Coach’s customer service office on November 1, 2019, asked whether Coach sold Braille gift cards, and was told that it did not. She also alleged that the employee did not offer an alternative accessible aid or service. Mendez later tried unsuccessfully to find accessible Coach gift cards herself.

Mendez alleged that the lack of an accessible gift card deterred her from fully and equally using or enjoying Coach’s retail goods and services. She stated that she intended to buy a Coach gift card as soon as accessible cards became available. She sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 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 Coach’s policies and practices, and attorney’s fees.

Motion and Analysis

Coach moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s jurisdiction, including whether a plaintiff has standing. Rule 12(b)(6) concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

The court concluded that Mendez lacked standing to assert her ADA claim because she did not provide sufficient evidence that she intended to return to Coach. The court explained that this intent-to-return question depends on facts such as the frequency of past visits, the proximity of the defendant’s services to the plaintiff’s home, and other relevant circumstances, including occupation or travel habits. According to the court, Mendez’s allegations that she lived near at least one Coach location, had previously visited Coach stores, and intended to buy an accessible gift card were too general. She did not allege, for example, that she expected to shop for luxury fashion at nearby stores in the future or did so regularly enough to expect a future injury.

The court separately stated that Mendez’s ADA claim would also fail under Rule 12(b)(6) for the reasons discussed in the court’s earlier related proceeding. The court emphasized that Mendez had not asked Coach for any auxiliary aid or service, so she did not know whether one of Coach’s possible aids could effectively provide the information she sought. The court also noted that Mendez’s assertion that only Braille would work conflicted with her later acknowledgment that the ADA does not require one particular aid, but instead requires effective communication.

Because the court would dismiss the ADA claims, it did not conduct a substantive analysis of the New York State or New York City claims. It stated that it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims.

Disposition

The court granted Coach’s motion to dismiss. The order gave Mendez 15 days to file a second amended complaint curing the identified deficiencies by alleging additional facts about her interactions with Coach. If she did not file one 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 entry 22.