Guerrero v. Ellusionist.com, Inc.

Background

Edelmira Guerrero, who is visually impaired, brought a proposed class action against Ellusionist.com, Inc. She alleged that accessibility barriers on Ellusionist’s website prevented her from accessing and purchasing goods, including a deck of playing cards, on four occasions. She asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and monetary damages.

Ellusionist moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At this stage, the court had to accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and decide whether they plausibly stated claims for relief, rather than decide whether Guerrero would ultimately win.

Website-accessibility claims

Ellusionist argued that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act covers only physical places and therefore does not cover a stand-alone website. The court noted that the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit had not resolved that question and that courts had reached different conclusions.

The court concluded that the statutory language was ambiguous and interpreted it in light of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s purpose of eliminating discrimination and integrating people with disabilities into economic and social life. It held that Ellusionist’s website was a place of public accommodation under the Act. Because Guerrero adequately alleged that she was disabled, that Ellusionist operated the website, and that the website’s barriers denied her equal access to its goods, the court found that she sufficiently stated claims under both the Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Requested relief

Ellusionist separately argued that Guerrero could not recover civil penalties, fines, or punitive damages under the New York City Human Rights Law. The court denied that part of the motion because damages are not a separate cause of action and challenging particular forms of damages at this stage was premature.

Ellusionist also argued that Guerrero’s request for a declaration that Ellusionist violated the two laws was redundant. The court agreed, finding that the declaratory-judgment count repeated the allegations and relief in the other counts. In the discussion, the court identified this as Count III and granted the motion to dismiss that count.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Ellusionist’s motion to dismiss. It denied dismissal of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law claims and denied dismissal of the requests for monetary relief. It granted dismissal of the declaratory-judgment claim. The court directed Ellusionist to answer the complaint by June 27, 2023.