Tucker v. Denny's Corporation

Background

Henry Tucker, described in the opinion as blind and visually impaired, sued Denny’s Corporation on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated people. He alleged that Denny’s violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) by not selling gift cards with Braille writing and by not offering an alternative auxiliary aid or service when he asked about Braille gift cards.

Tucker sought an injunction and declarations requiring Denny’s to sell Braille gift cards and declaring that Denny’s gift-card practices violated the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Denny’s moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that Tucker lacked standing, and under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint failed to state a legally sufficient claim.

Standing

The court held that Tucker adequately alleged standing for his ADA claims. It found that his allegations plausibly showed an injury because he was deterred from visiting Denny’s, and that the alleged discriminatory treatment would continue because Denny’s did not plan to sell Braille gift cards in the future. The court also found Tucker’s alleged intent to return plausible because Denny’s is a popular restaurant chain and Tucker alleged that he lived close to a Denny’s restaurant, had previously been a customer there, and intended to buy a Denny’s gift card when accessible assistance became available.

The court stated that the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims use the same standing requirements as the ADA. Because Tucker had standing under the ADA, the court concluded that he also had standing for those state and city claims.

Failure to State a Claim and Other Relief

Although the court found standing, it held that Tucker’s ADA claim failed under Rule 12(b)(6) for the reasons identified in a prior related proceeding. The court stated that the filings in the two cases had no substantive differences that would justify a different result. After dismissing the ADA claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over related nonfederal claims, over Tucker’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims.

The court also held that Tucker’s declaratory-relief claim was duplicative of his other claims and granted Denny’s motion to dismiss that claim.

Disposition

The court granted Denny’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint. It did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court allowed Tucker to seek leave to amend the first amended complaint a second time by filing a letter motion explaining how a proposed second amended complaint would cure the deficiencies discussed in the order. The letter motion and a draft of the proposed complaint were due by October 12, 2021.