What Is a “Place”? Southern District Chief Judge Issues Sui Generis Opinion Holding ADA Title III Protections Do Not Apply to Online-Only Business Websites

Summary

On September 30, 2024, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed a putative class action in Mejia v. High Brew Coffee Inc., 1:22-cv-03667-LTS (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2024), holding that an online-only business’s website is not a place of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Chief Judge Swain’s opinion is the first of its kind for the Southern District and is the latest installment in an ongoing judicial debate about the reach of the ADA’s regulatory reach.  

Background

On May 5, 2022, plaintiff Jose Mejia filed a putative class action against defendant High Brew Coffee, Inc., alleging that the company’s website violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). According to the complaint, the website rendered Mejia’s blind screen-reading software unusable, impeding his “ability to navigate the website” and purchase Double Espresso flavored coffee. 

Analysis

Title III of the ADA prevents disability-based discrimination in “any place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). To establish a viable Title III claim, a plaintiff must establish that an entity owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation that denies a full and equal opportunity to disabled individuals to use its services. Camarillo v. Carrols Corp., 518 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2008). The ADA does not define a “place.” It instead lists twelve categories of establishments which qualify as places of public accommodations and identifies specific examples of businesses which are covered by each category. Only one of the examples, “travel services,” does not require a physical presence to conduct business. The question naturally arises, is a website a “place” under the ADA? 

According to Chief Judge Swain, the answer is no. Seemingly ignoring the Second Circuit’s ruling in Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 198 F.3d 28, 31-33 (2d Cir. 1999), that Title III does not “guarantee . . . mere physical access,” Chief Judge Swain began her analysis by noting that there is no definitive guidance from the Second Circuit on the issue. Absent binding precedent, Chief Judge Swain adopted a textualist perspective, noting that the twelve categories provided for in the ADA are confined to physical locations Chief Judge Swain then concludes that Congress intended the term “place” to cover only physical locations because it was otherwise aware of businesses operating without a physical facility, such as mail order catalogs or televised home shopping.  

Chief Judge Swain’s opinion, the first of its kind in the Second Circuit, is consistent with the Third, Sixth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits’ narrow textualist approach to the ADA. In contrast, the First and Seventh Circuits read the ADA’s reference to “travel services” as an example of a “service establishment” that did not require a “physical nexus,” and on that basis, found that the ADA reached services provided without a physical location. In reaching that result, the courts found the statutory language ambiguous and cited its overarching public policy concern -- providing access to disabled individuals, whether in person or online.

Chief Judge Swain’s opinion has already been followed in at one other decision in the Southern District. See Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc., 1:23-cv-10164-GHW, *14 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2024). Like in High Brew Coffee, Inc., Judge Wood adopted a textual analysis of the ADA and held that a standalone website is not a “place of public accommodation” subject to Title III’s protections. Id. at 705. 

Conclusion

While High Brew Coffee Inc. and Fresh Clean Threads are only two opinions within the sea of litigation filed by serial ADA plaintiffs, they are difficult to discount, especially given that most businesses provide services online, millions of consumers access websites daily, and modern-day commerce is primarily virtual. Without further guidance from the Second Circuit, judges in the Southern District now must determine whether to adopt Chief Judge Swain’s interpretation of the ADA, or to challenge its narrow textualist viewpoint and back the principles underlying the ADA and its overarching policy objectives.

For further guidance on how this decision may impact your business and ADA compliance strategies, please contact our office.