Guerrero v. Ogawa USA Inc.

Background

Edelmira Guerrero sued Ogawa USA Inc., individually and on behalf of a proposed class, alleging violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and seeking a declaratory judgment. Guerrero alleged that she is visually impaired and legally blind and uses screen-reader software to view websites. She alleged that, on March 22, July 30, and August 10, 2022, she visited Ogawa’s website to try to purchase a massage chair but encountered accessibility barriers. In particular, she could not add items to her shopping cart or learn product names and descriptions in the same way as sighted customers.

Ogawa moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on three grounds: lack of constitutional standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a sufficient ADA claim. Ogawa submitted a declaration stating that it had rebuilt the website to remove accessibility barriers and intended to keep the upgrades. Guerrero submitted a declaration from Robert D. Moody, who stated that accessibility barriers remained when he evaluated the website on October 21, 2022.

Standing

The court held that Guerrero established standing. For an ADA claim seeking an order requiring changes to a website, the plaintiff must show a past ADA injury, a reasonable basis to infer that the discriminatory treatment would continue, and a reasonable basis to infer that the plaintiff intended to return.

The verified complaint identified specific dates, a specific product, and specific accessibility problems, which the court found sufficient to establish a past injury. The court gave greater weight to Moody’s evaluation and audit report than to Ogawa’s contrary declaration because Moody had expertise in evaluating websites and identified problems that Ogawa’s evidence did not address. The court found that repeated problems over three visits supported an inference that the barriers would continue.

The court also found that Guerrero plausibly intended to return. Her complaint stated that she wanted to purchase Ogawa’s product and would revisit the website after the barriers were corrected. The court found these specific allegations different from cases involving only general statements that a plaintiff intended to return.

The court rejected Ogawa’s argument that the case had become moot because Ogawa had changed its website. Because Guerrero’s evidence disputed whether the barriers had actually been eliminated, Ogawa had not shown that the alleged conduct had stopped and could not reasonably be expected to recur. The court also held that Guerrero’s NYCHRL claim was subject to the same standing analysis and that she had standing to pursue it.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that Ogawa was subject to personal jurisdiction in New York. Under New York’s long-arm statute, jurisdiction was proper because Ogawa offered products for sale in New York and shipped products to New York customers. Ogawa’s own declaration stated that it shipped products to customers in all 50 states and that some products bought through its website were shipped to New York.

The court found that Guerrero’s claims were sufficiently related to those transactions because the claims concerned unequal access to products offered to New York customers. The court also held that exercising jurisdiction complied with constitutional due process. Ogawa purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in New York, and Ogawa did not show that exercising jurisdiction would be unreasonable. The court stated that New York-specific marketing or physical operations in New York were not required under these circumstances.

ADA Claim

The court held that the First Amended Complaint sufficiently stated an ADA claim. Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods and services of a place of public accommodation.

The court rejected Ogawa’s argument that Guerrero had to request an accommodation before filing suit. The court explained that an ADA claim may proceed under theories of intentional discrimination or disparate impact without a prior accommodation request; the request requirement applies to a failure-to-accommodate theory.

The court also held that a commercial website can be a place of public accommodation under the ADA even without a connection to a physical location. The court relied on the ADA’s references to businesses such as sales establishments, travel services, banks, pharmacies, and schools, reasoning that some businesses can operate online without a public physical location. The court concluded that the statute focuses on common business functions rather than physical presence.

Disposition

The court denied Ogawa’s motion to dismiss. It retained supplemental jurisdiction over Guerrero’s NYCHRL claim. The order did not decide whether Guerrero ultimately would prevail on the ADA, NYCHRL, or declaratory-judgment claims; it allowed the case to continue past the motion-to-dismiss stage.