Tucker v. Amazon.com, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-09841
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Tucker v. Amazon.com, Judge Oetken granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss Tucker’s first amended complaint over Braille gift cards.
Henry Tucker’s ADA claim was dismissed, and his New York City and New York State claims were left for possible further proceedings only if the court later allowed amendment; Amazon’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was granted.
What happened
In Tucker v. Amazon.com, Inc., Henry Tucker, who is visually impaired, alleged that Amazon violated disability-discrimination laws by not offering Braille gift cards. He also asserted New York City and New York State claims.
The court found that Tucker had suffered a legally recognized injury and could bring the case. But it ruled that his federal disability claim failed because gift cards are goods that Amazon did not have to modify, and the complaint did not allege that Amazon refused every way to communicate gift-card information effectively.
Judge J. Paul Oetken dismissed the disability claim, declined to hear the remaining New York claims, and granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. He denied the motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot and directed Tucker to request permission to amend again or state that he would not do so.
The detailed version
- Tucker v. Amazon.com, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-09841
- James Oetken
- Jan. 19, 2021
Background
Henry Tucker, who is visually impaired, alleged that Amazon.com, Inc. violated the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), as well as New York City and New York State law, by not offering Braille gift cards. Amazon moved to dismiss Tucker’s first amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Amazon argued that Tucker lacked standing because he had not plausibly alleged a legally recognized injury and that the ADA did not require Amazon to offer Braille gift cards.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over Tucker’s ADA claim. It found that Tucker had alleged an injury in fact based on his claim that he asked about a Braille gift card, was told that Braille gift cards were not offered, and was not affirmatively offered another auxiliary aid.
The court nevertheless held that the ADA claim failed. It reasoned that gift cards are a “good” that Amazon had no duty to modify under the ADA. It also concluded that the complaint did not allege that Amazon refused Tucker every means of effective communication concerning the gift cards. The court therefore dismissed Tucker’s ADA claim.
Because the ADA claim was the only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims, over Tucker’s New York City and New York State claims.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken granted Amazon’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The order did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Tucker requested permission to file a second amended complaint. The court stated that leave to amend could be granted if he alleged additional facts showing that Amazon did not provide auxiliary aids or services that ensured effective communication of gift-card information to blind persons.
The court directed Tucker to file a letter motion requesting leave to file a second amended complaint or stating that he would not do so by February 2, 2021. If Tucker chose not to amend, the court stated that it would enter final judgment and close the case. The court denied Amazon’s motion to dismiss the original complaint as moot and directed the clerk to close the motions at Docket Numbers 14 and 22.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.