Hanyzkiewicz v. Allegiance Retail Services, LLC

Background

Marta Hanyzkiewicz, who is visually impaired and legally blind, alleged that Allegiance Retail Services, LLC’s foodtown.com website was not fully accessible to people using screen-reading software. She alleged that she visited the website on November 1 and November 14, 2021, and encountered problems including menus that did not identify whether they were expanded or collapsed, difficulty navigating submenus, problems with pop-up windows, and inadequate link descriptions.

She asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. She brought the case individually and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated people.

Allegiance’s Motion

Allegiance moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when a federal court lacks authority to hear a case. Allegiance argued that an April 1, 2021 consent decree from an earlier case had resolved the website-accessibility issues and therefore made Hanyzkiewicz’s claims moot, meaning that no live dispute remained. Allegiance alternatively asked the court to enforce the consent decree and block Hanyzkiewicz’s lawsuit because it could interfere with that decree.

The consent decree required Allegiance to make reasonable efforts to modify its website and mobile application so they would substantially conform to specified Web Content Accessibility Guidelines for people with vision disabilities. The decree remained in effect until April 1, 2024, and the court retained jurisdiction to oversee it until then. Allegiance stated that it had fully remediated the website and mobile application and that they complied with the applicable guidelines. Hanyzkiewicz disputed that accessibility problems had been eliminated.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a defendant claiming that voluntary compliance has made an injunction request moot carries a demanding burden. The defendant must show that the alleged violation is not reasonably expected to happen again and that the effects of the alleged violation have been completely and permanently eliminated.

The court did not find, at the early stage of the case, that Allegiance had provided enough proof to establish that the website problems had been corrected and were unlikely to recur. Thus, the court did not dismiss the case on the ground that the claims were conclusively moot.

The court separately applied the All Writs Act, a federal law allowing courts to issue orders needed to protect their jurisdiction and carry out earlier orders. It held that allowing Hanyzkiewicz’s proposed class action to continue could frustrate the still-effective consent decree, particularly because her proposed class was not covered by that decree and she sought materially different remedies. The court therefore concluded that it could enjoin, or legally block, this lawsuit to prevent conflicts with the existing decree.

Disposition

The court granted Allegiance’s motion to dismiss and enjoined Hanyzkiewicz from filing suit in this case. It stated that Hanyzkiewicz could move under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71 to enforce the consent decree if she qualified as an intended beneficiary with the required standing. The court also allowed her to file an amended complaint within 14 days if she wished to proceed with a Rule 71 motion or another course of action. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the pending motion.