Tucker v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.

Background

Henry Tucker, who is legally blind and resides in New York, sued Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people. He alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), along with state and municipal law, based on Whole Foods’ failure to sell Braille-embossed or otherwise accessible gift cards.

Tucker alleged that he contacted Whole Foods on October 21, 2019, and was told that it did not sell gift cards containing Braille. He also alleged that the lack of Braille gift cards deterred him from shopping at Whole Foods stores. He sought a permanent injunction requiring Whole Foods to change its policies and make its gift cards accessible. Tucker alleged that one Whole Foods store was located about a block from his residence and that he would buy and use a gift card if Whole Foods began selling accessible cards.

Whole Foods moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing Analysis

The court addressed standing first because federal courts must determine whether they have jurisdiction before reaching the merits. To establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff must show an actual or imminent injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury.

For an ADA claim seeking an injunction, the court explained that a plaintiff must plausibly allege a past injury, a reasonable likelihood that the discriminatory condition will continue, and a plausible intention to return to the public accommodation. The court found that Tucker plausibly alleged the first two requirements. His allegation that he contacted Whole Foods about buying a Braille gift card and was told that no such cards were sold was enough to plausibly allege a past disability-related injury. The court also found it reasonable to infer that the alleged condition would continue.

The court found the third requirement missing. Tucker did not allege that he had ever shopped at a Whole Foods store, either in person or online. The complaint also did not describe his shopping habits, interest in Whole Foods’ products, or other facts supporting a genuine intention to visit a Whole Foods store in the future. His residence near one store and his general statement that he would buy an accessible gift card if one became available were not enough by themselves to establish a plausible intent to return.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Whole Foods’ Rule 12(b)(1) motion without prejudice and dismissed the action for lack of standing. Because the court lacked jurisdiction, it did not address Whole Foods’ alternative Rule 12(b)(6) arguments or decide on the merits whether the ADA requires public accommodations to offer Braille-embossed gift cards.

The conclusion stated that Tucker could amend his complaint and set July 13, 2020, as the filing deadline for any amended complaint. Tucker withdrew a declaration attached to his opposition, and the parties agreed that Whole Foods’ motion to strike that declaration was moot. The clerk was directed to terminate the motions pending at docket entries 12, 21, and 29.