Murphy v. The Home Depot, Inc.

Background

James Murphy brought the action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated people against The Home Depot, Inc. He alleged that he is legally blind and uses Braille to read written materials. According to the amended complaint, he contacted Home Depot’s customer service office to ask about buying a gift card with Braille and was told that Home Depot did not sell Braille gift cards or offer alternative assistance. He alleged that he could not access gift-card information such as the card number, balance, and terms, and sought a permanent injunction requiring Home Depot to design, manufacture, and sell gift cards with auxiliary aids for blind and visually impaired customers.

Murphy asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Home Depot moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

Standing

Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury caused by the defendant that a court decision is likely to remedy. For a plaintiff seeking an injunction, the plaintiff must also show a real and immediate threat of future injury. The court found that Murphy adequately alleged that he encountered an access barrier when Home Depot told him it did not stock Braille gift cards. It also found that his allegation that Home Depot did not plan to begin selling Braille gift cards was enough to suggest that the alleged discrimination would continue.

The court nevertheless found that Murphy had not alleged enough specific facts to show that he intended to return to Home Depot. His allegations that he had previously been a customer, lived near a Home Depot location, and intended to immediately buy a Braille gift card if one became available were, in the court’s view, generic and conclusory. The court therefore concluded that Murphy lacked standing to bring the ADA claim. Because the parties agreed that the state and city claims used the same relevant federal standing standards, the court found that Murphy lacked standing for those claims as well. The court also said that, after dismissing the federal claim, it would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over the state and city claims.

Failure to State an ADA Claim

The court separately held that, even if Murphy had standing, the amended complaint did not state a plausible ADA claim. Title III prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation. The court rejected Murphy’s arguments that gift cards are accessible goods that must be modified, services requiring auxiliary aids, or places of public accommodation similar to websites.

The court determined that gift cards are goods, not public accommodations or places. It relied on the ADA regulation stating that a public accommodation generally does not have to alter its inventory to include accessible or special goods designed for, or facilitating use by, people with disabilities. The court also rejected Murphy’s argument that Home Depot denied him equal access through the absence of Braille because he had not tried to determine whether Home Depot could provide another auxiliary aid or service. The court concluded that he therefore had not plausibly alleged that Home Depot failed to provide effective assistance to a visually impaired customer.

Disposition

The court granted Home Depot’s motion to dismiss. The opinion did not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice. It allowed Murphy to file a second amended complaint, if at all, by November 19, 2020. If no amended complaint was filed by that deadline, the clerk was directed to enter a final judgment of dismissal and terminate the case. Judge Edgardo Ramos signed the opinion and order.