Mendez v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC

Background

Himelda Mendez alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and requires Braille to read written material. She claimed that Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC sells gift cards without Braille or another aid for effective communication with visually impaired consumers. According to the complaint, Mendez attempted to purchase an Outback gift card on October 21, 2019, but learned that Braille gift cards were unavailable. She brought claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as New York State and New York City law, on behalf of a proposed class of visually impaired Outback customers.

Outback moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim.

Standing and Jurisdiction

The court held that Mendez had adequately pleaded standing, meaning a sufficient personal connection to bring the lawsuit. For an ADA claim, the court looked for allegations of a past injury, a reasonable inference that the alleged discrimination would continue, and a reasonable inference that Mendez intended to return to the restaurant. The court found all three requirements satisfied. Mendez alleged that she requested and was denied a Braille gift card, that Outback had no plans to sell Braille gift cards, and that she had visited Outback before and planned to purchase and use a Braille gift card if one became available.

The court therefore determined that it had subject-matter jurisdiction. It rejected Outback’s argument that Mendez needed to identify a particular restaurant location or a specific future visit date. The court also stated that whether the complaint ultimately stated a valid ADA claim was a merits question and did not eliminate jurisdiction on these allegations.

ADA Claim

Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a public accommodation. The court explained that the ADA regulates access to goods and services but generally does not require a business to change the goods or services it offers.

The court ruled that gift cards are goods. Because they are goods, Outback had no ADA duty to modify its gift cards by providing them in Braille. The court rejected Mendez’s alternative argument that gift cards were services or places of public accommodation, explaining that the ADA does not require different goods or services and that gift cards are not places where goods are offered.

The court also considered Mendez’s argument that Braille was an auxiliary aid or service needed for effective communication. It explained that the public accommodation generally chooses the method of communication, as long as the chosen method provides effective communication. Mendez alleged only that she asked whether Braille gift cards were available. She did not allege that she asked about other auxiliary aids or services, or that Outback refused to provide any such aid. The court held that her allegation that Outback did not offer auxiliary aids, made on information and belief, was not enough to plausibly state an ADA claim.

State and City Claims

After dismissing the federal ADA claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Mendez’s remaining New York State and New York City claims. The court did not decide the merits of those claims.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Mendez requested permission to amend her complaint again. The court directed her, if she wished to do so, to file a letter motion by August 13, 2020 explaining how a second amended complaint would state a claim and attaching a proposed complaint showing the changes. The court said the additional allegations would need to address whether Outback failed to provide auxiliary aids or services that ensured effective communication about its gift cards for blind customers.

Judge Oetken’s order granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The order did not state that the dismissal was with prejudice. It provided that, if Mendez did not seek amendment or did not file the required letter by the deadline, the court would enter final judgment and close the case, permitting an appeal.