Calcano v. Cole Haan LLC

Background

Marcos Calcano brought a disability-discrimination action against Cole Haan LLC under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that Cole Haan did not sell gift cards containing Braille and that, when he asked about Braille gift cards, an employee did not offer alternative assistance. Calcano sought injunctive and declaratory relief requiring Cole Haan to sell accessible gift cards and declaring its practices unlawful.

Cole Haan moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Calcano lacked standing to sue, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint did not state a legally sufficient claim.

Standing

The court held that Calcano adequately alleged an injury because he knew that Cole Haan did not sell Braille gift cards and was deterred from visiting its stores. The court also accepted that Cole Haan did not plan to sell Braille gift cards in the future.

The court nevertheless found that Calcano had not plausibly shown that he intended to return to Cole Haan stores. Although he alleged that he lived near at least one store, had previously been a customer, and intended to buy an accessible gift card if one became available, he did not identify the locations he had visited or allege that he regularly shopped at Cole Haan or particularly liked its products. The court also noted that his other similar Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuits weakened the plausibility of his alleged intent to return, although such lawsuits would not necessarily defeat standing if he had alleged concrete facts showing that intent.

The court therefore granted Cole Haan’s motion to dismiss the Americans with Disabilities Act claim for lack of standing. Because the court treated the state-law claims as subject to the same standing requirements, it also granted the motion to dismiss the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims for lack of standing.

Failure to State a Claim

The court stated that it could resolve the case on standing grounds but discussed the merits because similar lawsuits were being considered elsewhere.

The court rejected Calcano’s arguments that a gift card is itself a place of public accommodation, that a gift card is a service comparable to cash, or that the Americans with Disabilities Act required Cole Haan to change the gift card. The court concluded that gift cards are goods. Under its reading of Title III, businesses must provide disabled customers equal access to the goods and services they offer, but generally do not have to alter those goods. The court also concluded that a gift card is not a place of public accommodation because purchases are made with a gift card, not on or in the gift card.

The court separately found that Calcano had not plausibly alleged that Cole Haan provided no effective auxiliary aid or service. Calcano alleged only that the employee did not offer alternatives during his inquiry and that, on information and belief, Cole Haan offered no other assistance. The court found those allegations insufficient because Calcano had not asked about other auxiliary aids and had provided no additional facts supporting the allegation.

Because Calcano did not state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the court granted Cole Haan’s motion to dismiss those claims.

State-Law Claims and Declaratory Relief

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court.

The court also granted Cole Haan’s motion to dismiss Calcano’s declaratory-relief claim because it duplicated his other claims.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court did not automatically grant leave to amend. It stated that Calcano could seek permission to amend by filing a letter motion explaining how a second amended complaint would cure the defects identified in the order and attaching a proposed pleading showing the changes. The letter motion had to be filed by March 19, 2021.

The order concluded that Cole Haan’s motion was granted and that the complaint was dismissed. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion.