Lopez v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc.

Background

Victor Lopez, who is legally blind and reads braille, alleged that Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to offer braille gift cards. Build-A-Bear moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing

The court held that Lopez had standing, meaning a sufficient personal connection to bring the case, at this stage. The complaint alleged that he encountered a barrier when he requested and was denied a braille gift card and was not offered another aid. It also alleged that Build-A-Bear did not sell braille gift cards and that Lopez had previously been a customer and intended to purchase a gift card when accessible cards became available. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage.

ADA claim

The court ruled that the ADA does not require Build-A-Bear to modify the goods it sells. Although the ADA requires public accommodations to modify policies, practices, or procedures so that disabled people can access their goods and services, the court held that gift cards are goods or inventory, not a place of public accommodation. Therefore, Build-A-Bear had no ADA duty to provide its gift cards in braille.

The complaint also alleged that, without an aid or service, Lopez could not determine information such as a gift card’s balance, terms and conditions, and identification number, or distinguish Build-A-Bear gift cards from cards issued by other stores. The court held that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that Build-A-Bear failed to offer an auxiliary aid or service, because Lopez alleged only that he asked whether the company sold braille gift cards. The court found the allegation that Build-A-Bear did not offer other aids or services to be conclusory and unsupported by specific facts.

State-law claims and amendment

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over Lopez’s New York claims after addressing the federal claim. The court stated that the case was still at an early stage and that the balance of considerations favored declining jurisdiction.

The First Amended Complaint was dismissed. Lopez could seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days by submitting a letter explaining how the new complaint would comply with the opinion and attaching a marked draft. Any new complaint could include additional facts about whether Build-A-Bear provides auxiliary aids or services that effectively communicate gift-card information to blind people, but it could not replead that the ADA requires Build-A-Bear to offer braille gift cards.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Build-A-Bear’s motion to dismiss. The opinion states that if Lopez did not timely submit the required letter, the court would enter final judgment of dismissal and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case.