Murphy v. Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.

Background

James Murphy alleged that Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. 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. Murphy alleged that he is legally blind, reads braille, encountered a barrier when he requested and was denied a braille gift card, and was not offered an auxiliary aid. He also alleged that he intended to buy a store gift card when accessible cards became available.

Little Caesar moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), concerning subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), concerning whether the complaint adequately stated a claim. The court relied substantially on its analysis in a prior related proceeding involving similar allegations.

Standing

The court held that the allegations were sufficient to establish standing at this stage. Murphy alleged a past injury because he requested and was denied a braille gift card and was not offered an auxiliary aid. He also alleged facts supporting the court’s finding that Little Caesar was not in the practice of selling braille gift cards and that Murphy intended to return as a customer. The court found these allegations were not implausible based on the parties and circumstances described.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not require Little Caesar to modify the goods it sells by providing gift cards in braille. The statute requires public accommodations to modify policies, practices, or procedures so that goods and services are available to people with disabilities, but the court concluded that it does not require an entity to alter its inventory to include accessible or special goods. Because gift cards are goods that Little Caesar sells, the court held that Little Caesar had no duty under the Act to provide them in braille.

The court also rejected Murphy’s argument that the gift cards themselves were places of public accommodation. It concluded that a gift card does not fit within the statutory categories of private entities considered public accommodations.

The court recognized that information on the gift cards—such as the balance, terms and conditions, and identification number—might require an auxiliary aid or service so that Murphy would not be treated differently from other individuals. But it found the amended complaint insufficient because Murphy alleged only that he asked whether Little Caesar sold gift cards with braille. The complaint did not allege a conversation about whether other auxiliary aids or services were available. The allegation, made on information and belief, that Little Caesar did not offer auxiliary aids for gift cards was also deemed conclusory and unsupported by factual allegations.

State-law claims and amendment

After dismissing the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the New York State and New York City claims. The court stated that the case was still in its early stage and that the usual balance of factors favored declining jurisdiction when the federal claims had been eliminated before trial.

The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint but allowed Murphy to seek permission to file a Second Amended Complaint within 14 days. Murphy was required to submit a letter explaining how a new complaint would state a claim consistent with the opinion and to attach a marked draft. Any new complaint could not replead that Little Caesar was required to offer braille gift cards, but it could allege additional facts showing that Little Caesar failed to provide auxiliary aids or services that effectively communicated gift-card information to blind people.

Disposition

Judge Lorna G. Schofield granted Little Caesar’s motion to dismiss. Murphy’s letter requesting permission to file a Second Amended Complaint was due July 2, 2020. If Murphy 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 court also directed the Clerk to close docket numbers 28 and 35.