Velazquez v. Nextphase, Inc.

Background

Bryan Velazquez brought a proposed class action against Nextphase, Inc., doing business as One Small Child. Velazquez alleged that he is blind and uses screen-reading technology to access websites. He claimed that Nextphase’s online retail website was not fully accessible to blind and visually impaired people, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Velazquez alleged that he visited the website on July 27 and August 4, 2022, while attempting to browse and purchase a five-piece formal boy’s suit for his friend’s son. He identified several accessibility barriers, including an incorrectly coded interactive element that caused his screen reader to provide ambiguous product information, a search box that did not provide textual status updates, and contact information that was unreadable to screen readers. He alleged that these problems deterred him from purchasing the suit. He also alleged that he intended to visit the website in the near future if it became accessible.

The first amended complaint asserted ADA and NYCHRL claims based on disability discrimination and failure to accommodate, as well as a claim for declaratory relief concerning those alleged violations. Velazquez sought injunctions requiring the website to comply with the ADA and NYCHRL, along with declaratory relief, damages, penalties, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Motion and Standing Standard

Nextphase moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Nextphase argued that Velazquez lacked standing, that the website was not a place of public accommodation under the ADA or NYCHRL, that certain damages and penalties were unavailable under the NYCHRL, and that the declaratory-relief claim was redundant.

The court explained that standing is required for federal subject-matter jurisdiction. For an ADA claim seeking an injunction, the relevant analysis asks whether the plaintiff alleged a past injury, whether the discriminatory conduct was reasonably likely to continue, and whether the facts plausibly showed that the plaintiff intended to return to the website.

Court’s Analysis

The court rejected Nextphase’s argument that Velazquez had not suffered a personal injury because he was shopping for a gift. The court held that inaccessible shopping conditions could personally injure a visually impaired shopper regardless of whether the product was for the shopper or someone else.

The court also found that Velazquez described his past injury with enough detail. His allegations about the screen reader’s ambiguous product information, the lack of search-status updates, and the unreadable customer-support information were sufficiently specific to support an injury in fact. The court further concluded that the allegations suggested the accessibility barriers were likely to continue. Nextphase’s arguments about accessibility efforts on its website did not sufficiently defeat standing, and the court said one argument raised for the first time in a reply brief had been waived.

The court nevertheless found that Velazquez failed to satisfy the third requirement: showing a plausible intent to return. His statement that he intended to visit the website in the near future if it became accessible was a vague future intention. He did not allege facts showing an ongoing interest in buying a formal suit or other children’s clothing, identify a particular item he wanted to purchase, or state that he intended to buy merchandise from Nextphase in the future.

Disposition

The court granted Nextphase’s motion to dismiss. Because Velazquez did not establish Article III standing for his ADA claim, the court dismissed the ADA claims without prejudice. Having dismissed the federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state or local claims—over the NYCHRL claim and dismissed that claim without prejudice as well. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.

The court did not reach Nextphase’s arguments about whether the website was a place of public accommodation, the availability of NYCHRL penalties or punitive damages, or the alleged redundancy of the declaratory-relief claim.