Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC
268 F. Supp. 3d 381
E.D.N.Y2017Background
- Plaintiff Victor Andrews, legally blind, sued Blick Art Materials, LLC alleging its website (dickblick.com) is inaccessible and denies blind customers equal access to goods/services under the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL.
- Blick operates brick-and-mortar stores and an integrated e-commerce site offering online-only promotions and in-store pickup; the complaint alleges specific failures to complete purchases via the website.
- Blick moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), and alternatively sought dismissal under the primary jurisdiction doctrine and on due process vagueness grounds.
- The court took judicial notice of Blick’s website features (coupons, store locator, online pickup, mailing lists) and found the site offers services to the public separate from physical stores.
- The court denied the motion to dismiss: it held the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL can reach a retailer’s website and that Andrews pleaded a plausible denial of ‘‘full and equal’’ enjoyment.
- The court declined to invoke primary jurisdiction or accept a due process vagueness defense, ordered expedited discovery, set a "Science Day" for expert demonstrations, and scheduled summary judgment briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a website is a "place of public accommodation" under Title III of the ADA | dickblick.com is a place or provides goods/services “of” a public accommodation and must be accessible | A website is not a "place"; Title III covers only physical places or web services tied to a physical nexus | Court: ADA covers Blick’s website as a place of public accommodation (following Second Circuit approach); denial of access states a claim |
| Whether NYSHRL/NYCHRL reach website-based discrimination | Website is a place/provider of public accommodation under state and city law, so inaccessibility violates those laws | Same argument as federal: the state/city laws should be limited to physical places | Court: NYSHRL and independently construed NYCHRL cover the website; claims survive dismissal |
| Whether primary jurisdiction requires deferral to DOJ rulemaking on web accessibility | Judicial resolution is appropriate now; plaintiffs need prompt relief | DOJ expertise and pending/withheld rulemaking counsel deferral to agency | Court: Declined to apply primary jurisdiction; statutory interpretation is judicial; DOJ has not issued rules and delay is unwarranted |
| Whether requiring website remediation violates due process/vagueness because DOJ hasn’t set technical standards | Standards will evolve but ADA’s reasonableness/undue burden framework provides adequate guidance; request is fact-specific | Without DOJ technical rules, injunction would be vague and unfair; private standards vary | Court: Rejected vagueness/due process claim; statutory standards (reasonable modification/auxiliary aids/undue burden) are sufficiently definite; factual inquiry reserved for later |
Key Cases Cited
- Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) (Internet’s broad and evolving role warrants careful judicial consideration)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir. 1999) (Second Circuit treats goods/services “of” a public accommodation as covered beyond mere physical access)
- Carparts Distribution Ctr., Inc. v. Automotive Wholesalers Ass’n of New England, 87 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1996) (Title III can cover nonphysical service providers; “of” is broader than “in”)
- Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) (ADA covers services offered via electronic means; “place” can include electronic space)
- Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (website accessibility claims may proceed when site impedes access to goods/services of physical stores)