Delacruz v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

Background

Emanuel Delacruz, who is legally blind and requires braille to read written material, brought a proposed class action against Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 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 Ruby Tuesday’s failure to provide braille gift cards.

Delacruz alleged that he called Ruby Tuesday’s customer service office on October 21, 2019, asked whether it sold gift cards containing braille, and was told that it did not. He alleged that Ruby Tuesday did not offer alternative auxiliary aids or services for the gift cards and that he could not purchase an accessible gift card. He also alleged that he had previously been a customer at Ruby Tuesday’s restaurants, lived near several of them, and intended to purchase a gift card once accessible cards became available.

Delacruz sought damages, attorney’s fees, costs, declaratory relief, and an injunction. Ruby Tuesday moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction and standing, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Standing

The court held that the First Amended Complaint adequately pleaded constitutional standing. In the ADA context, standing required allegations of a past injury, a reasonable inference that the discriminatory treatment would continue, and a reasonable inference that Delacruz intended to return to Ruby Tuesday’s restaurants.

The court found a past injury because Delacruz alleged that he could not purchase a braille gift card and was not offered alternative auxiliary aids or services. It found a likely continuing problem based on allegations that Ruby Tuesday intended to continue selling gift cards that were inaccessible to blind and visually impaired consumers and lacked an adequate accessibility policy. The court also found Delacruz’s intent to return adequately pleaded because he alleged prior visits, proximity to Ruby Tuesday restaurants, and an intent to purchase a gift card when an accessible one became available.

The court rejected Ruby Tuesday’s argument that Delacruz’s nearly identical lawsuits against other establishments undermined his intent to return. It concluded that, accepting the complaint’s allegations as true, his prior visits, proximity to Ruby Tuesday restaurants, and stated desire to return were sufficient. The court therefore denied Ruby Tuesday’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion.

ADA Claims

The court considered three theories under Title III of the ADA and rejected each one.

First, Delacruz argued that a gift card itself was a “place of public accommodation.” The court disagreed. Title III covers private entities whose operations fall within one of twelve listed categories of public accommodations. The court concluded that gift cards do not fall within those categories and are not analogous to websites that provide or facilitate access to goods and services. A gift card can be used to make a purchase, the court reasoned, but it is not a place where a purchase is made.

Second, Delacruz argued that gift cards were financial services rather than goods, and therefore that Ruby Tuesday had to make them accessible. The court held that gift cards are goods. It explained that gift cards are manufactured, displayed for sale, and purchased like other products. Under the court’s reading of Title III, the law requires public accommodations to make their goods and services accessible but does not require them to modify the goods themselves. Because gift cards are goods, Ruby Tuesday was not required to provide them in braille.

Third, Delacruz argued that Ruby Tuesday failed to provide appropriate auxiliary aids or services. Auxiliary aids or services are tools or methods used to ensure effective communication with people who have disabilities. The court explained that a public accommodation has flexibility in choosing the aid or service, as long as the method provides effective communication; it does not necessarily have to provide the particular aid requested by the individual.

The court found Delacruz’s allegations insufficient because the complaint stated only that he asked about braille gift cards and was told that Ruby Tuesday did not sell them. It did not describe other efforts to obtain an auxiliary aid or service or show that Ruby Tuesday failed to offer any effective alternative. The court also found conclusory Delacruz’s allegation, made “upon information and belief,” that Ruby Tuesday offered no auxiliary aids for its gift cards.

The court therefore held that the ADA claims failed as a matter of law and granted Ruby Tuesday’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The opinion’s conclusion states that the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was granted.

State-Law Claims

After dismissing the ADA claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Delacruz’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims after resolving federal claims. The opinion does not state a separate merits ruling on those state-law claims.

Leave to Amend

Delacruz alternatively sought permission to amend his complaint again. The court did not automatically grant that request. Instead, it stated that Delacruz may seek leave to amend by filing a letter motion by September 18, 2020. The letter had to explain how a second amended complaint would state a claim consistent with the opinion, identify additional facts concerning Ruby Tuesday’s failure to provide auxiliary aids or services that effectively communicated gift-card information, and attach a proposed second amended complaint showing the changes.

Oral Argument and Disposition

The court denied Delacruz’s request for oral argument, finding it unnecessary because the written submissions were clear. The overall ruling was: Ruby Tuesday’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion was denied; its Rule 12(b)(6) motion was granted; supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims was declined; and the request for oral argument was denied.