Guillermo Robles v. Dominos Pizza LLC
913 F.3d 898
9th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Guillermo Robles, a blind user who relies on screen-reading software, alleged he could not order a custom pizza on Domino’s website/app because they were inaccessible.
- Robles sued under Title III of the ADA and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act seeking damages and injunctive relief (including an order to comply with WCAG 2.0 as an equitable remedy).
- Domino’s moved to dismiss arguing (1) the ADA does not reach its online offerings and (2) applying ADA liability without specific DOJ technical rules would violate due process; it also invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
- The district court concluded the ADA did apply but dismissed under primary jurisdiction and due process concerns, citing lack of DOJ technical guidance and analogizing to AMC Entertainment.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed: it held the ADA covers Domino’s website/app because they connect users to Domino’s physical restaurants (places of public accommodation); due process was not violated by applying general ADA standards; primary jurisdiction was inapt given DOJ’s inaction/withdrawal and courts’ competence to decide.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Title III of the ADA apply to Domino’s website and mobile app? | Robles: Yes — the website/app provide access to goods/services of Domino’s physical restaurants and must be accessible. | Domino’s: No — online offerings are not covered places of public accommodation; ADA should not reach its website/app. | Yes — ADA covers services of a place of public accommodation; the site/app connect users to Domino’s physical restaurants. |
| Does applying the ADA to Domino’s website/app violate Domino’s due process rights (vagueness/fair notice)? | Robles: No — ADA and DOJ guidance require provision of auxiliary aids and effective communication; Domino’s had fair notice. | Domino’s: Yes — lack of specific DOJ technical standards (and reliance on private WCAG) means Domino’s lacked fair notice. | No — general ADA standards provide sufficient notice; lack of technical regs does not eliminate statutory duty; plaintiff does not seek liability based solely on WCAG. |
| Can WCAG 2.0 be imposed as the legal standard for liability? | Robles: WCAG 2.0 may serve as an appropriate equitable remedy if site/app fail to meet ADA requirements after discovery. | Domino’s: Liability based on WCAG would be unfair because WCAG are private guidelines and not mandatory DOJ rules. | WCAG may be adopted as a remedy but liability is based on ADA statutory obligations, not WCAG per se. |
| Should the district court have invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine and deferred to DOJ rulemaking? | Robles: No — DOJ had signaled and later withdrew rulemaking; courts are competent to apply ADA standards without waiting. | Domino’s: Yes — technical standards are within DOJ expertise; court should defer pending agency action. | No — primary jurisdiction was improperly invoked; DOJ had shown no present interest and withdrawal made delay inevitable; courts can decide these issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (ADA’s purpose is elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities).
- Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2000) (ADA covers goods/services connected to a physical place only when there is a sufficient nexus to that place).
- United States v. AMC Entertainment, Inc., 549 F.3d 760 (9th Cir. 2008) (due process limits on imposing retroactive remedies where regulated parties lacked fair notice of an agency’s interpretation).
- Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2014) (lack of specific regulations does not eliminate statutory obligations under the ADA).
- Astiana v. Hain Celestial Group, Inc., 783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015) (doctrine of primary jurisdiction is discretionary and should be invoked only when agency input is necessary and would promote efficiency).