Dominguez v. Athleta LLC

Background

Yovanny Dominguez, who is visually impaired and legally blind and requires Braille to read written material, sued Athleta LLC on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. He alleged that Athleta’s failure to offer Braille gift cards violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Dominguez alleged that he called Athleta on October 26, 2019, asked whether it sold gift cards containing Braille, and was told that it did not. He alleged that the employee did not offer an alternative aid or service. He claimed that, without Braille gift cards or another aid, he could not determine information such as the card’s store, terms, conditions, or balance, or distinguish it from other cards in his wallet. He also alleged that he had previously been a customer at Athleta stores and intended to buy a gift card as soon as accessible cards became available. He did not allege that he had difficulty making a purchase at an Athleta store.

Athleta’s Motion

Athleta moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that Dominguez lacked standing, and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court can likely remedy. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether the complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Standing Ruling

The court held that Dominguez lacked standing because he did not plead enough facts showing a likely future injury. In assessing whether an ADA plaintiff is likely to return to a business, the court considered the business’s proximity to the plaintiff’s residence, the plaintiff’s past visits, the definiteness of the plans to return, and the plaintiff’s frequency of travel near the business.

The court noted that Dominguez lived in the Bronx and Athleta’s stores were in various Manhattan neighborhoods, making it reasonable to infer that he might travel to Manhattan. But the court found his allegation that he had visited Athleta stores on “prior occasions” too general. He did not allege that he had tried to buy merchandise during those visits or encountered disability-related barriers there. The court also found that his stated plan to immediately buy a gift card was too conclusory and did not establish a genuine intent to return. The court further stated that his filing of at least 24 nearly identical complaints against other retailers undermined the sincerity of his alleged intent to return, and that references in his opposition papers to Athleta’s supposed “food” products further undermined that intent because Athleta sells women’s athletic wear rather than food.

ADA Claim

The court alternatively held that Dominguez failed to state a claim under the ADA even if he had standing. It addressed four theories: that gift cards are places of public accommodation, that gift cards are goods sold at a place of public accommodation, that Braille gift cards are necessary auxiliary aids, and that gift cards are equivalent to U.S. currency.

The court rejected these theories. It held that Title III of the ADA regulates equal access to the goods and services a public accommodation offers; it does not generally require a business to create or sell specialty versions of its goods. Because Athleta’s gift cards were inventory that it sold, the ADA did not require Athleta to alter them to meet the needs of people with disabilities. The court also held that Athleta’s failure to offer Braille gift cards was not a failure to provide a necessary auxiliary aid. Dominguez had not alleged that he requested an auxiliary aid or that he and the employee discussed available alternatives. The court stated that he could use a gift card with help from a sighted store employee and that this could provide effective communication, even if it was not his preferred method.

The court stated that the New York State and New York City claims were governed by the same standing analysis and also addressed them as duplicative of the ADA claims. It therefore concluded that those claims failed as well.

Disposition

The court granted Athleta’s motion to dismiss. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Dominguez indicated that he wanted to amend his complaint, and the court stated that he could submit a letter application with a proposed amended complaint if the amendment would not be futile. Judge George B. Daniels directed the clerk to close the motion.