Weekes v. The Outdoor Gear Exchange, Inc.

Background

Robert Weekes, who the opinion describes as visually impaired and legally blind, sued The Outdoor Gear Exchange, Inc. (OGE), individually and on behalf of a proposed class. Weekes alleged that OGE’s website, www.gearx.com, denied him full and equal access in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Weekes alleged that on February 10, 2022, he tried to buy an Osprey carry-on bag from the website. While using NonVisual Desktop Access, a screen-reading program, he alleged that the website failed to read the item descriptions, failed to show that the item had been added to his cart, and failed to read the bag’s size and color. He alleged that he could not complete the purchase. He returned to the website on June 15, 2022, and alleged that he encountered the same problems. He also alleged that he intended to return once the accessibility problems were fixed and requested a website compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.

OGE moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Weekes lacked standing and failed to state a claim. In the alternative, OGE moved to transfer the case to the District of Vermont under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Standing

Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court decision could remedy. Because Weekes sought an injunction, he also had to allege a real and immediate likelihood of future harm.

The court concluded that Weekes adequately alleged standing. It found reasonable grounds to infer that the access barriers would continue because he encountered the same problems on two visits several months apart and OGE had not indicated that it would update the website. The court also found that Weekes adequately alleged an intention to return by identifying a particular product he wanted to buy, describing his visits and attempted purchase, and stating that he intended to return once the accessibility issues were resolved.

The court further concluded that the alleged screen-reader failures constituted an injury for standing purposes. OGE argued that its live customer-service representatives were alternative assistance that could have allowed Weekes to obtain information and complete a purchase. The court rejected that argument at this stage, explaining that OGE had not shown how a representative would effectively communicate with Weekes when he could not read the website, particularly outside business hours.

Failure to State a Claim

To state a Title III ADA claim, Weekes had to allege that he was disabled, that OGE operated a place of public accommodation, and that OGE discriminated against him because of his disability. The court found that he had adequately alleged all three points. It treated OGE’s website as a place of public accommodation for purposes of the motion and found that Weekes had described discrimination during two visits.

OGE argued that Weekes had not notified it of his disability or requested a reasonable accommodation. The court disagreed. It concluded that the lawsuit gave OGE notice of Weekes’s disability and the website’s access barriers, and that Weekes had requested a website compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. The court also found it unclear how OGE’s proposed live customer-service assistance would effectively provide the information Weekes could not obtain from the website.

The court therefore denied OGE’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. This ruling decided only that the complaint adequately stated claims at the pleading stage; it did not decide whether OGE violated the ADA or NYCHRL.

Transfer of Venue

The court agreed that the case could have been filed in the District of Vermont because OGE was registered there. It nevertheless denied the transfer request after weighing the relevant factors. OGE had not specifically identified witnesses who would be inconvenienced or explained what their testimony would be. The court also found that the alleged events occurred through the internet in the Southern District of New York, that Weekes was a New York City resident, and that the financial-means factor favored keeping the case in New York.

The court further concluded that the last factors favored retaining the case because the NYCHRL claim would require applying New York law and transferring the case would burden the District of Vermont with interpreting that law.

Disposition

Judge Ramos denied OGE’s motion to dismiss and denied its motion to transfer venue. The parties were directed to appear for a telephonic initial pretrial conference.