Mendez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-09856
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Mendez v. Bath & Body Works, Judge Oetken granted dismissal because the complaint did not state an Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
The ruling affected Himelda Mendez’s ADA, New York State, and New York City claims against Bath & Body Works, LLC. The court found jurisdiction but granted dismissal of the ADA claims for failure to state a claim and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims. Mendez was allowed to seek permission to file a second amended complaint by October 6, 2020.
What happened
Himelda Mendez, a legally blind person, sued Bath & Body Works, LLC, alleging that its failure to sell Braille gift cards violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar New York laws. She brought the case as a proposed class action and sought damages and court orders requiring relief.
Bath & Body Works argued that the court lacked jurisdiction and that Mendez had not stated a valid claim. The court found that Mendez had standing and that it had jurisdiction, but concluded that her federal disability claims failed because gift cards were not goods the company had to modify under the law and because she had not alleged that the company denied her every effective way to learn the gift cards’ information.
Judge Oetken granted the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims. The court invited Mendez to request permission to file a second amended complaint by October 6, 2020; the opinion does not say that final judgment had already been entered.
The detailed version
- Mendez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC · No. 1:19-cv-09856
- James Oetken
- Sept. 14, 2020
Background
Himelda Mendez alleged that she is legally blind and needs Braille to read written material. Bath & Body Works, LLC sells gift cards, but neither the cards nor their packaging contained Braille or other aids explaining the cards’ contents to visually impaired consumers. Mendez contacted the company to ask whether it sold Braille gift cards and was told that it did not.
Mendez filed a proposed class action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as similar New York State and New York City laws. She sought compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief. Bath & Body Works moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that it had jurisdiction and that Mendez had standing to pursue her claims. It nevertheless held that the ADA claims failed as a matter of law. Relying on the court’s reasoning in a prior related proceeding involving nearly identical facts and claims, the court held that gift cards were goods that Bath & Body Works had no duty to modify under the ADA.
The court also held that Mendez had not alleged facts showing that Bath & Body Works refused her every means of effective communication about its gift cards. Therefore, the allegation that the company violated the ADA merely by failing to offer Braille gift cards as an auxiliary aid was insufficient.
Because the federal claims were dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over Mendez’s New York State and New York City claims.
Ruling and next steps
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Bath & Body Works’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court invited Mendez to file a letter motion seeking permission to file a second amended complaint, provided she did so by October 6, 2020. If she did not seek amendment, or did not file a timely letter, the court stated that it would enter final judgment and close the case, permitting an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.