Dominguez v. Taco Bell Corp.

Background

Yovanny Dominguez brought a proposed class action against Taco Bell Corporation. He alleged that Taco Bell violated disability-discrimination laws because its gift cards were not available in braille and because Taco Bell did not provide other assistance to help blind customers use them. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Dominguez alleged that he is legally blind and can read braille. On October 26, 2019, he called Taco Bell’s customer service to buy a store gift card and asked whether the cards were available in braille. An employee allegedly told him that Taco Bell did not sell braille gift cards and did not offer another aid during the call. Dominguez alleged that, without an aid, he could not determine a card’s balance, terms and conditions, or identification number, or distinguish Taco Bell’s cards from cards issued by other stores. He said he intended to buy a Taco Bell gift card as soon as accessible cards became available.

Taco Bell moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing

The court held that the complaint adequately alleged constitutional standing to seek injunctive relief. Dominguez alleged a past injury because he encountered a barrier when he requested a braille gift card and was not offered an auxiliary aid. The court also found it reasonable to infer that the problem would continue because an employee allegedly said Taco Bell did not sell braille gift cards. Finally, the court found his stated intent to return and purchase a gift card sufficiently plausible at the pleading stage.

The court distinguished an earlier related proceeding involving Dominguez, in which another judge found a similar intent-to-return allegation insufficient regarding a clothing retailer. Judge Schofield concluded that Taco Bell’s business and products made Dominguez’s alleged intent to return more plausible at this stage.

ADA Claim About Braille Gift Cards

The court ruled that the First Amended Complaint did not adequately plead that Taco Bell’s decision not to sell braille gift cards violated Title III of the ADA. The court treated Taco Bell’s gift cards as goods—products in the company’s inventory offered for sale—not as places of public accommodation. Under the court’s reading of the ADA, a public accommodation must provide disabled customers equal access to the goods and services it offers, but the statute does not generally require the business to change its inventory by offering different or specially designed goods.

The court therefore held that Taco Bell had no ADA duty to modify the gift cards themselves by providing them in braille. The court also rejected the argument that a gift card is itself a place of public accommodation. Unlike a website or other location where goods or services may be provided, the court said, a gift card is a way to purchase Taco Bell’s goods.

ADA Claim About Auxiliary Aids

The court separately considered whether Taco Bell failed to provide an auxiliary aid or service—another method of communicating information effectively to a person with a disability. The court accepted that information such as a card’s balance, terms, and identification number could be necessary for effective access.

However, the complaint alleged only that Dominguez asked about braille gift cards. It did not describe any conversation about other possible aids or services. The court also found conclusory, and therefore insufficient, the allegation that Taco Bell did not offer auxiliary aids for its gift cards. The court ruled that these allegations did not adequately show that Taco Bell failed to provide an effective means of communicating the gift-card information.

State and Local Claims; Opportunity to Amend

Because the federal ADA claim was not adequately pleaded, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the New York State and New York City claims. Those claims were not resolved on their merits.

The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint but allowed Dominguez to seek permission to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days. Any proposed amendment could add facts about whether Taco Bell failed to provide auxiliary aids or services that effectively communicate gift-card information. It could not repeat the argument that Taco Bell was required to offer braille gift cards. The court stated that if Dominguez did not timely seek permission to amend, it would enter final judgment of dismissal and close the case.

Disposition

Judge Schofield granted Taco Bell’s motion to dismiss. The court directed that the request to file a Second Amended Complaint be submitted by July 1, 2020, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the specified docket entries.