Boggs v. The Home Depot, Inc.

Background

Larry and Denise Boggs sued The Home Depot, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the Home Depot Foundation & Homer Fund, and unidentified defendants. Their amended complaint asserted four claims: breach of contract; violation of the New York State Human Rights Law; violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which protects against certain race-based interference with contract rights; and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982, which protects certain property rights against race discrimination.

According to the amended complaint, the Boggses are married, own a home, are military veterans with service-related medical disabilities, and depend on disability and veterans' benefits. They alleged that Action Towards Independence, Inc. was to administer a Home Depot grant providing $9,600 and repairs and renovations through “Team Depot.” The grant described work including widening doorways, remodeling bathrooms for accessibility, repairing siding and a deck, and other renovations.

The Boggses alleged that work began in October 2017 but stopped in April 2018, leaving the repairs incomplete and the home in worse condition in some respects. They alleged that unidentified workers said white Hasidic Jewish residents returning for the summer had work demands that would receive priority. The Boggses further alleged that the home was left with code violations and a bathroom fire hazard, and that the Town of Thompson later sent violation letters threatening daily fines and possible imprisonment.

Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true, draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs, and asks whether the allegations plausibly show an entitlement to relief. The court does not treat bare legal conclusions as true.

Section 1981 Claim

The court held that the Boggses plausibly alleged a § 1981 claim. They alleged that they are Black, that defendants intentionally favored a white group, and that the alleged discrimination interfered with their ability to enforce the grant-related contractual rights. The court found that the alleged statement about prioritizing white Hasidic Jewish residents could support an inference of racial discrimination; discrimination based on religion and race is not mutually exclusive.

The court also rejected the defendants’ arguments that the Boggses could not enforce the grant and that the unidentified workers’ conduct could not be attributed to the corporate defendants at this stage. The court concluded that the Boggses were plausibly alleged to be third-party beneficiaries of the grant and that discovery was needed to determine the workers’ roles and relationship to the corporate defendants.

Section 1982 Claim

The court held that the § 1982 claim could proceed. Section 1982 protects specified rights involving property, including the right to hold property. The court concluded that the Boggses had a recognizable interest in using their own home and that the alleged incomplete work, unstable deck, fire hazards, fines, and threat of imprisonment plausibly supported an inference that their property rights were impaired.

Breach of Contract

The grant contained a Georgia choice-of-law provision. The court determined that, for purposes of the motion, Georgia and New York law did not materially differ on the relevant third-party-beneficiary and breach-of-contract issues, so it did not conduct further choice-of-law analysis.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Home Depot and Home Depot USA could not be liable because they were not named as parties in the grant. The grant did not identify what “Team Depot” was, and its signatory was identified as the manager of Team Depot. The court found it plausible that Home Depot, Home Depot USA, or their agents and employees comprised Team Depot. The allegations that the work was arranged through a Home Depot store, materials were purchased there, and the workers were Home Depot employees also supported that inference.

The court further held that the Boggses were plausibly intended third-party beneficiaries because the grant identified the project as “New Beginnings for the Boggs” and described renovations to their home. Finally, the court concluded that the grant required more than providing money to Action Towards Independence: it also stated that Team Depot would perform specified renovation work. The court therefore rejected the argument that distributing the grant funds completed defendants’ contractual obligations.

New York State Human Rights Law Claim

The court held that the NYSHRL disability-discrimination claim could proceed. The defendants argued that the law did not apply because the alleged discrimination occurred at the Boggses’ private residence. The court distinguished discrimination by a private resident in a private home from a public-facing provider refusing services offered to the public. It concluded that services provided at a customer’s home can fall within the law’s coverage and that the alleged refusal of services based on disability was actionable at the pleading stage.

Disposition

Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion states that all four claims will proceed to discovery. The defendants were directed to answer the amended complaint and file a corporate disclosure statement within fourteen days, and the court set an initial pretrial conference for March 9, 2023.