Lopez v. West Elm, Inc.

Background

Victor Lopez sued West Elm, Inc. on behalf of himself and similarly situated people 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. Lopez alleged that he is legally blind, uses Braille, and could not purchase or use West Elm gift cards because the cards did not contain Braille. He alleged that he called West Elm’s customer service office on October 24, 2019, requested a Braille gift card, and was told that West Elm did not sell such cards or offer alternative aids for the purchase. He sought a permanent injunction requiring West Elm to change its policies and sell gift cards with aids for blind and visually impaired customers.

West Elm moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court treated the factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

Standing

Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury caused by the defendant that a favorable court decision is likely to remedy. A person seeking an injunction must also show a real and immediate threat of future injury.

The court held that Lopez sufficiently alleged the first two parts of standing under the ADA. His allegation that West Elm refused to provide a Braille gift card plausibly showed an injury, and his allegation that West Elm did not plan to begin selling Braille gift cards supported an inference that the alleged discrimination would continue.

The court held, however, that Lopez did not adequately allege that he intended to return to West Elm. He alleged that he had been a West Elm customer, lived near a West Elm retail location, and intended to immediately purchase a Braille gift card if one became available. The court found those allegations too general and conclusory to establish an intent to return. Because Lopez did not establish standing for his federal ADA claim, the court concluded that he also lacked standing for his state and city human-rights claims, which the parties agreed were governed by the same federal standards. The court further stated that it would decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims after dismissing the federal claim.

Failure to State an ADA Claim

The court separately ruled that Lopez failed to state a legally sufficient ADA claim even if he had standing. Title III of the ADA bars disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services of a place of public accommodation. The court explained that a plaintiff must allege that he has a disability covered by the ADA, that the defendant operates a place of public accommodation, and that the defendant discriminated against him within the meaning of the ADA.

The court rejected Lopez’s arguments that gift cards are a service, that gift cards themselves are places of public accommodation, and that West Elm discriminated by refusing to provide a Braille gift card. It held that gift cards are goods rather than services and are not places of public accommodation. It also relied on the regulation providing that the ADA does not require a public accommodation to change its inventory to include accessible or special goods designed for people with disabilities.

The court noted that a public accommodation may have to provide an aid necessary for effective communication, and that the business generally has flexibility in choosing the aid. But Lopez alleged that he had not tried to find out whether West Elm could provide another aid or service. The court therefore found that he had not plausibly alleged that West Elm failed to offer alternative assistance to visually impaired customers.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted West Elm’s motion to dismiss. The order allowed Lopez to file a second amended complaint, if at all, by November 20, 2020. If he did not file one by that date, the Clerk was directed to enter a final judgment of dismissal and terminate the case. The opinion does not state that the motion was granted with or without prejudice.