Calcano v. Vineyard Vines, LLC

Background

Marcos Calcano, who is legally blind and reads braille, alleged that Vineyard Vines 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. Vineyard Vines moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses the court’s authority to hear a case, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

For purposes of the motion, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true. The court noted that the allegations and legal arguments closely resembled those in a prior related proceeding, but it identified two independent grounds for dismissal here: lack of standing and failure to state a federal claim.

Standing

Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the dispute. The court found that Calcano adequately alleged that he encountered a barrier when he requested and was denied a braille gift card and that an employee said Vineyard Vines did not sell braille gift cards. But the court held that he did not adequately allege an intent to return to the company’s store.

The court rejected the allegation that Calcano intended to buy a gift card as soon as accessible gift cards became available as insufficient by itself. It said the complaint did not allege facts such as whether Calcano owned Vineyard Vines clothing or was interested in the particular clothing the company sold, including its style and price range. The court therefore dismissed the First Amended Complaint for lack of standing.

Sufficiency of the Federal Claim

The court separately held that the complaint failed to state a sufficient federal ADA claim. It concluded that the ADA does not require a public accommodation to change the goods it sells. Instead, the statute requires changes to policies, practices, or procedures so that disabled people can access the goods and services ordinarily provided. Because gift cards are goods sold by Vineyard Vines, the court held that the ADA did not require the company to modify them by providing braille versions.

The court also rejected the 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 do not include gift cards.

The complaint also alleged that Calcano could not determine information such as a gift card’s balance, terms, conditions, or identification number, and could not distinguish Vineyard Vines gift cards from cards issued by other stores, without an auxiliary aid or service. An auxiliary aid or service is another method of making information accessible. The court held that the complaint did not adequately allege that Vineyard Vines failed to offer such an aid or service because Calcano alleged only that he asked about braille gift cards, not that he discussed other possible aids with the company’s employee. The allegation that Vineyard Vines did not offer auxiliary aids was conclusory and unsupported by specific facts.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over the New York State and New York City claims after eliminating the federal claims. The court said the case was still at an early stage.

The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint but allowed Calcano to seek permission to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days. Any proposed amendment could not allege that Vineyard Vines was required to offer braille gift cards. It could instead attempt to add facts showing that Calcano intended to return to the company’s store and that Vineyard Vines did not provide auxiliary aids or services sufficient to communicate gift-card information effectively to blind people. Calcano was required to submit a letter explaining the proposed amendment and attach a marked draft.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Vineyard Vines’s motion to dismiss. The opinion states that Calcano’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 to close the case.