Chalas v. Pork King Good

Background

Ana Chalas, who is visually impaired, brought a proposed class action against Pork King Good. Chalas alleged that she uses NonVisual Desktop Access screen-reading software and that Pork King’s website contained accessibility barriers. She alleged that she tried four times to use the website to buy Pork King Good Pork Rind Crumbs Original Flavor but could not complete the purchase because of those barriers.

Chalas asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. She requested preliminary and permanent injunctions and compensatory damages. Pork King moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Website-accessibility claims

The parties agreed that Chalas adequately alleged that she was disabled and that Pork King’s website was inaccessible to her screen reader. Pork King argued that its stand-alone website was not a “place of public accommodation” under Title III because the statute lists physical entities and does not expressly mention websites.

The court recognized that courts have disagreed about whether Title III covers stand-alone websites without a connection to a physical location. It concluded that the statute’s language is ambiguous on that issue and looked to the statute’s broader purpose. The court reasoned that limiting public accommodations to physical locations would undermine the ADA’s purpose by excluding people with disabilities from online-only providers of goods and services.

The court held that a stand-alone website qualifies as a place of public accommodation under Title III and that Chalas had adequately alleged discrimination under both the ADA and the New York City Human Rights Law. It therefore denied Pork King’s motion to dismiss the discrimination claims.

Damages and declaratory relief

Pork King also sought dismissal of Chalas’ requests for civil penalties, fines, and punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court denied that request, explaining that damages are a form of relief rather than an independent claim and that challenging them at the motion-to-dismiss stage was premature.

Pork King separately sought dismissal of Chalas’ request for a declaratory judgment that the website violated the ADA and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court concluded that this request merely repeated the allegations and relief in the other counts. It dismissed the declaratory-judgment claim as redundant.

Disposition

The court stated that Pork King’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and failure to establish a claim for damages under the New York City Human Rights Law was denied. It stated that Pork King’s motion to dismiss “Count II]” was granted, although the discussion identifies the dismissed declaratory-judgment claim as Count III. The court directed Pork King to answer the complaint by May 30, 2023, and terminated the motion.