Lopez v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.

Background

Victor Lopez, who is legally blind and proficient at reading braille, sued Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. He alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law based on Williams-Sonoma’s alleged failure to offer braille gift cards. Williams-Sonoma moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses 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 standing at this stage. It alleged that Lopez encountered a barrier when he requested and was denied a braille gift card and was not offered an alternative form of assistance. It also alleged that an employee said Williams-Sonoma did not sell braille gift cards, supporting an allegation that the company was not in the practice of selling them. Finally, Lopez alleged that he had previously been a customer and intended to immediately purchase a store gift card once accessible gift cards became available. The court found those allegations sufficient without requiring more at this stage.

ADA Claim

The court held that the ADA does not require Williams-Sonoma to modify the gift cards themselves by providing them in braille. The ADA requires a place of public accommodation to modify its policies, practices, or procedures so that its goods and services are available to people with disabilities, but it does not require the entity to modify the goods or services it provides. The court treated Williams-Sonoma’s gift cards as goods or inventory and concluded that the company had no ADA duty to offer them in braille.

The court also rejected Lopez’s argument that the gift cards themselves were places of public accommodation. It stated that the ADA’s listed categories of public accommodations describe facilities that provide goods or services and that nothing on the list resembles a gift card.

The complaint alleged that, without an auxiliary aid or service, Lopez could not determine information such as a gift card’s balance, terms and conditions, or identification number, and could not distinguish Williams-Sonoma’s gift cards from those issued by other stores. The court stated that the ADA requires information to be accessible when necessary to prevent disability-based unequal treatment. However, it found the complaint insufficient because Lopez alleged only that he asked whether Williams-Sonoma sold braille gift cards. He did not allege a conversation about whether other auxiliary aids or services were available, and his assertion that the company did not offer such aids was conclusory and unsupported by factual allegations.

State Claims and Opportunity to Amend

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, because the federal claims were being dismissed and the case was still at an early stage. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint but allowed Lopez to seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days. He was required to submit a letter explaining how the proposed complaint would state a claim consistent with the opinion and attach a marked draft. Any amended complaint could not allege that Williams-Sonoma was required to offer braille gift cards, but it could seek to add facts showing that the company did not provide auxiliary aids or services that effectively communicated gift-card information to blind people.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Williams-Sonoma’s motion to dismiss. The opinion states that Lopez’s letter was due July 2, 2020; if he did not timely file it, the court would enter final judgment of dismissal and direct the Clerk to close the case.