335 F. Supp. 3d 1278
N.D. Ga.2018Background
- Plaintiff VaShaun Jones, who is blind and uses a screen reader, sued Piedmont Plus Federal Credit Union under the ADA alleging its website contains accessibility barriers (missing alt text, empty/redundant links) that prevent full use.
- Jones alleges multiple attempts to use the website, was denied full use, and intends to return, seeking injunctive relief to make the site accessible plus fees and costs.
- Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing (because Jones is not and cannot be a credit-union member) and for failure to state an ADA claim (arguing websites are not places of public accommodation and that no DOJ web-accessibility standard exists).
- The Court accepted the complaint facts as true for the motion to dismiss and treated Jones’ status as a tester as not defeating standing.
- The Court found the alleged website barriers caused a concrete injury traceable to Defendant and likely redressable by an injunction ordering removal of website barriers.
- The Court concluded the website has a sufficient nexus to the credit union’s physical locations (it provides location/service information and acts as a gateway), so the ADA applies and Jones pleaded facts plausibly showing discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue for injunctive relief | Jones alleged actual injury using the site and intent to return, so future harm is plausible | Jones lacks standing because he is not and cannot become a credit-union member | Court: Jones has standing; membership not required and alleged intent to return shows future injury and redressability |
| Whether website is a "place of public accommodation" under the ADA | Website that provides info and gateway to physical locations is covered | Websites are not places of public accommodation absent a physical nexus | Court: Under the nexus test, Jones alleged sufficient connection to physical locations; ADA applies |
| Sufficiency of pleadings without DOJ web-accessibility regulations | ADA’s text prohibits discrimination in enjoyment of goods/services; statutory standard suffices to plead discrimination | No DOJ accessibility standards means no recognized violation | Court: Lack of DOJ rule does not preclude an ADA claim; statutory language and facts can state a claim |
| Whether alleged defects (missing alt text, empty/redundant links) state discrimination | These deficiencies impede screen-reader access and deny full enjoyment | The alleged deficiencies are not necessarily ADA violations | Court: At the motion-to-dismiss stage, allegations suffice to plausibly show discrimination; claim survives |
Key Cases Cited
- Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State, 454 U.S. 464 (1978) (Article III standing requirements)
- Shotz v. Cates, 256 F.3d 1077 (11th Cir. 2001) (in ADA suits, plaintiff must plausibly allege likelihood of future discrimination to seek injunctive relief)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (Title III’s coverage is not limited to customers or members)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must contain factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Gil v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (website with features that connect to physical stores can fall under the ADA)
- Fla. Wildlife Fed'n, Inc. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 647 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2011) (redressability explained)