Lopez v. Darden Restaurants, Inc.

Background

Victor Lopez alleged that Darden Restaurants, Inc., doing business as LongHorn Steakhouse, 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. Lopez alleged that he encountered this barrier when he requested and was denied a braille gift card. Darden moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), concerning subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), concerning whether the complaint stated a legally sufficient claim.

The court noted that the allegations and legal arguments substantially matched those in a prior related proceeding involving a different restaurant. The court relied on that earlier opinion for much of its legal analysis.

Standing

The court rejected Darden’s standing challenge at this stage. It held that Lopez adequately alleged a past injury because he claimed that he encountered a barrier when he requested a braille gift card and was not offered an auxiliary aid. He also adequately alleged that Darden was not in the practice of selling braille gift cards and that he intended to return as a customer and purchase a gift card if Darden made its gift cards accessible to blind customers. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient to establish standing for purposes of the motion.

ADA Claim

The court held that the ADA does not require a place of public accommodation to modify the goods or services it sells. Although the ADA requires changes to policies, practices, or procedures so that goods and services are available to people with disabilities, the court concluded that it does not require a business to change its inventory to include special or accessible goods. Because Darden’s gift cards were goods it sold, Darden had no ADA duty to modify them and provide them in braille.

The court also rejected Lopez’s argument that the gift cards themselves were places of public accommodation. It reasoned that the ADA’s listed categories of public accommodations describe facilities that provide goods or services, and that a gift card did not resemble one of those facilities.

The court recognized, however, that the ADA may require an auxiliary aid or service to ensure that information on the gift cards—such as the balance, terms and conditions, and identification number—is effectively communicated to a blind customer. The complaint alleged only that Lopez asked whether Darden sold braille gift cards. It did not allege a conversation about other available or unavailable aids or services. The court also found conclusory, and therefore insufficient, the allegation that Darden did not offer auxiliary aids for its gift cards.

State-Law Claims and Opportunity to Replead

After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over the New York State and New York City claims. The court found that the case was still at an early stage and that declining jurisdiction was appropriate.

The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint but allowed Lopez to seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days. Any proposed amendment could not repeat the theory that Darden was required to offer braille gift cards. It could instead attempt to allege additional facts showing that Darden failed to provide auxiliary aids or services that effectively communicated information on its gift cards to blind customers.

Disposition

The court granted Darden’s motion to dismiss. Lopez’s letter requesting permission to file a Second Amended Complaint was due July 2, 2020. If he did not timely file the letter, the court stated that it would enter final judgment of dismissal and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.