Jaquez v. Dermpoint, Inc.

Background

Ramon Jaquez sued Dermpoint, Inc. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. He alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal law prohibiting disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of goods and services offered by places of public accommodation, and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). He also sought declaratory relief.

According to the amended complaint, Jaquez is legally blind or visually impaired and requires screen-reading software to read online content. He alleged that he visited Dermpoint’s website on July 27, August 2, and December 30, 2020, intending to browse and potentially purchase products. He claimed the website did not provide screen readers with information about product-image colors, displayed an error when a screen-reader user tried to add a product to the shopping cart, and placed its accessibility icon at the bottom of the page rather than making it immediately available. He also alleged missing image descriptions, improperly labeled titles, confusing page distinctions, broken links, and inaccurate headings.

Motion to Dismiss

Dermpoint moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Dermpoint argued that Jaquez’s allegations were conclusory and insufficiently specific; that he failed to state claims under the ADA and NYCHRL; and that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), international website-accessibility guidelines, were not legally binding.

Dermpoint also relied on Google Analytics data and a declaration from its chief executive officer to dispute whether Jaquez visited the website as alleged and whether he could add items to his shopping cart. The court held that those arguments raised factual disputes that were not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss. The court also declined Dermpoint’s request to convert the motion into one for summary judgment, which would have allowed consideration of material outside the pleadings.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Jaquez pleaded enough factual content to plausibly allege that Dermpoint denied him a full and equal opportunity to use its website. The court noted that a complaint need not include detailed factual allegations at the motion-to-dismiss stage and that similar website-accessibility allegations had been found sufficient by other courts in the Second Circuit.

On the ADA claim, the court rejected Dermpoint’s argument that a website could not be a place of public accommodation. Relying on Second Circuit precedent and decisions from district courts in the circuit, the court concluded that Title III can apply to commercial websites, including websites not attached to a traditional physical store. The court therefore concluded that the complaint stated a Title III ADA violation.

The court also concluded that Jaquez stated a claim under the NYCHRL. It explained that the city law must receive an independent and liberal interpretation and that, because the complaint stated an ADA claim, it also stated a claim under the NYCHRL on the allegations presented.

Finally, the court rejected Dermpoint’s argument concerning the WCAG. The court found that Jaquez based his claims on the alleged denial of full and equal enjoyment of the website, not simply on failure to follow the WCAG. The court stated that whether WCAG compliance might be required as a remedy was a question for a later stage, not a basis for dismissing the complaint at this point.

Disposition

Judge J. Paul Oetken denied Dermpoint’s motion to dismiss. The court directed Dermpoint to answer the complaint by June 16, 2021, and closed the motion at Docket Number 13. The court invited Dermpoint to file a targeted summary-judgment motion addressing whether Jaquez accessed the website as alleged.