Hernandez v. West Texas Treasures, 79 F.4th 464

Plaintiffs Alejandro Hernandez and Edith Schneider-Hernandez attended a private estate sale where the organizer (Walker) required masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plaintiffs informed Walker they had disabilities (asthma, PTSD, deviated septum, endocrine disorders, spinal muscular atrophy) and requested an ADA accommodation exempting them from masks.
Walker told them to make an appointment, yelled at them, pushed Hernandez, said she could "discriminate against anyone for any reason," and ordered them to leave; Enriquez later told Hernandez not to return.
Plaintiffs sued under Title III and Title V of the ADA and for state-law assault/battery; defendants moved to dismiss and for sanctions.
The district court dismissed the ADA claims (finding inadequate pleading of disability/discrimination and invoking the "direct threat" defense) and declined to allow amendment; state claims were dismissed without prejudice.
The Fifth Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend without explanation and by prematurely resolving the direct-threat and pleading issues at the 12(b)(6) stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend	Plaintiffs asked to amend if complaint was deficient	Defendants implicitly opposed further amendment	Court: Abuse of discretion; district court failed to address amendment request and must allow amendment absent futility
Whether complaint plausibly alleged disability discrimination under Title III	Plaintiffs alleged specific breathing-related disabilities and that they were expelled after requesting accommodation	Defendants argued plaintiffs failed to plead disability or discrimination	Court: Allegations, accepted as true, were sufficient to state a plausible discrimination claim at motion-to-dismiss stage
Whether "direct threat" defense justified dismissal on the pleadings	Plaintiffs argued they requested accommodation and were excluded without individualized, objective risk assessment	Defendants argued unmasked patrons posed a direct threat during COVID-19, justifying exclusion	Court: Direct-threat is fact-intensive; premature to resolve as a matter of law on 12(b)(6) without evidence
Whether retaliation (Title V) was adequately pleaded	Plaintiffs linked exclusion/ordering not to return to retaliation for requesting accommodation	Defendants said no protected activity or causal connection was alleged	Court: Because discrimination claims survive, retaliation claims also survive at this stage; remand for further development

Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998) (pro se plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to amend before dismissal)
Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764 (5th Cir. 2009) (leave to amend should be liberally granted unless futile)
Legate v. Livingston, 822 F.3d 207 (5th Cir. 2016) (review of denial of leave to amend is for abuse of discretion)
N. Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., Ltd. v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 898 F.3d 461 (5th Cir. 2018) (preference for explicit reasons when denying leave to amend)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a claim that is plausible, not merely speculative)
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (direct-threat inquiry requires objective, medical or other evidence of significant risk)
Rizzo v. Child.’s World Learning Ctrs., Inc., 84 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 1996) (direct-threat is fact-intensive and not ordinarily resolved as a matter of law)
EPCO Carbon Dioxide Prods., Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 467 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2006) (courts should not decide affirmative defenses at motion-to-dismiss if doing so requires materials outside the complaint)
Cuvillier v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2007) (Twombly standard applied; complaint must raise right to relief above speculative level)
Vizaline, L.L.C. v. Tracy, 949 F.3d 927 (5th Cir. 2020) (12(b)(6) dismissal reviewed de novo)
Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2020) (court accepts well-pleaded facts as true and ignores conclusory allegations)