Sosa v. Zara USA, Inc.

Background

Yony Sosa sued Zara USA, Inc. on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. Sosa alleged that he is legally blind and proficient at reading braille, and that Zara violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law by failing to offer braille gift cards.

Zara moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court noted that the allegations and legal arguments closely resembled those in an earlier opinion involving another retailer.

Standing

Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a sufficient personal connection to the dispute to ask a federal court to decide it. The court found that Sosa adequately alleged that he had encountered a barrier when he requested and was denied a braille gift card and that Zara did not ordinarily sell braille gift cards.

The court nevertheless held that Sosa did not sufficiently plead the required intent to return to Zara’s store. His allegation that he intended to purchase a gift card once Zara made its gift cards accessible to blind people did not plausibly show that he intended to return to the clothing store. The First Amended Complaint was therefore dismissed for lack of standing.

Adequacy of the Federal Claim

The court separately held that the First Amended Complaint failed to state a sufficient federal claim. Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a public accommodation must modify its policies, practices, or procedures so that disabled people can access its goods and services. The court held that the statute does not require a business to alter the goods or services it sells.

Because Zara’s gift cards are goods in its inventory, the court held that Zara had no duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide the gift cards in braille. The court also rejected Sosa’s suggestion that the gift cards themselves were places of public accommodation.

The court recognized that information on a gift card—such as its balance, terms, conditions, and identification number—may need to be made accessible through an auxiliary aid or service. But the complaint alleged only that Sosa asked whether Zara sold braille gift cards. It did not allege a conversation about other possible aids or services. The court also found conclusory and unsupported the allegation that Zara did not offer auxiliary aids for gift cards.

State-Law Claims and Repleading

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over the state-law claims connected to the federal claims, because the federal claims had been eliminated before trial and the case was at an early stage.

The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint but stated that Sosa could seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days. Sosa was required to submit a letter explaining how a new complaint could state a claim consistent with the opinion. Any new complaint could not allege that Zara was required to offer braille gift cards, but it could attempt to add facts about Sosa’s intent to return and about whether Zara provided auxiliary aids or services that effectively communicated gift-card information to blind people.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Zara USA’s motion to dismiss. The order set July 2, 2020, as the deadline for Sosa’s letter requesting permission to file a Second Amended Complaint. 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 did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.