Slade v. Offlimits, Inc.

Background

Linda Slade sued individually and as the representative of a proposed class of similarly situated people. The opinion states that the lawsuit alleged that a business’s failure to make its website accessible to visually impaired people violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The opinion’s background section refers to a suit filed against Enstrom Candies, Inc., while the caption identifies the defendant as Offlimits, Inc. The opinion does not explain that discrepancy.

Standing issue

The court addressed constitutional standing, which is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete and particular injury, a connection between the injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. For a claim seeking an order requiring accessibility changes, the plaintiff must also plausibly allege a real and immediate threat of future injury, including facts supporting an intent to return to the location at issue.

The court cited a Second Circuit decision holding that conclusory, boilerplate allegations about harm from inaccessible accommodations do not establish standing. The court stated that the allegations in Slade’s complaint likely failed for the same reason and were at least as conclusory as the allegations discussed in that decision.

Order and effect

The court ordered Slade to file, no later than May 12, 2023, a motion with a legal memorandum and any supporting exhibits or declarations seeking permission to file an amended complaint that adequately alleges standing. Alternatively, Slade could show cause—explain why the case should remain pending—despite the standing problem. The order did not grant or deny a motion to dismiss, did not dismiss the case, and did not reach the merits of the disability-related claims.