Winegard v. Crain Communications Inc.

Background

Winegard alleged that Crain Communications, Inc. discriminated against him by failing to provide closed captioning for most videos on its website, www.crainsnewyork.com. The opinion states that Winegard is deaf and resides in Queens County, New York, and that Crain is a publication company with offices in New York, New York. Winegard alleged that he tried to access three videos on June 25 and 26, 2019, but could not do so because they lacked closed captioning.

Winegard asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), seeking injunctive relief and compensatory damages. He also brought the claims on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of people who are deaf or hard of hearing and a proposed New York subclass. Crain was served but did not respond or otherwise participate. The Clerk entered Crain’s default, and Winegard moved for default judgment.

Default Judgment Standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default judgment involves two steps: entry of the defendant’s default and entry of a judgment. A default establishes that the defendant has failed to defend the action, but the court must still determine whether the well-pleaded allegations establish a legal basis for liability. Allegations about the amount of damages are not automatically accepted as true; damages must be shown with reasonable certainty.

Class Claims

The court did not certify the proposed class. It explained that class certification requires an independent determination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and cannot occur solely because a defendant defaults. Because Winegard had not filed a motion for class certification, the court considered default judgment only for Winegard as the named plaintiff.

Liability

For the ADA claim, the court concluded that Winegard established a prima facie case. It found that his deafness is a disability under the ADA, that Crain’s website qualifies as a place of public accommodation, and that the lack of auxiliary aids such as closed captioning denied him a full and equal opportunity to use the website.

The court also found that Winegard stated claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. It explained that disability-discrimination claims under the NYSHRL use the same legal standards as ADA claims, while the NYCHRL applies a broader standard that at least covers conduct constituting ADA discrimination. The court further noted that the New York State Civil Rights Law provision cited by Winegard does not create a separate cause of action from the NYSHRL; it provides penalties for violations of that law.

Relief

For injunctive relief, the court ordered Crain to bring its website into compliance with the ADA and its implementing regulations.

For damages, Winegard requested $1,500 in compensatory damages under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL. The court awarded $1,000 because Winegard had not established harm beyond the fact of discrimination.

The court awarded $509.50 in costs, consisting of a $400 filing fee and a $109.50 process-service fee. It approved an attorney hourly rate of $385 and awarded $3,592.50 in attorney’s fees. The court deducted $192.50 for time billed at a lawyer’s rate for electronic filing and other ministerial tasks.

Disposition

The court granted Winegard’s motion for default judgment. It ordered the website changes, awarded $1,000 in compensatory damages, awarded $509.50 in costs and $3,592.50 in attorney’s fees, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and closed the case.