81 Cal.App.5th 1026
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Plaintiff (Abelardo Martinez, Jr.; successor Alejandro Martinez on appeal) is blind and uses screen-reading software; he sued Cot’n Wash, Inc. (CW) after its retail website allegedly was incompatible with screen readers.
- FAC alleges CW operates solely through its website (no physical retail locations alleged) and that the website lacked basic accessibility features, denying blind users equal access in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
- Plaintiff’s counsel sent a demand letter and an accessibility audit (using the WAVE tool) identifying barriers; CW replied that its site conformed to WCAG and had retained a consultant.
- Trial court sustained CW’s demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend and entered judgment of dismissal; plaintiff appealed, arguing (1) the FAC sufficiently pleads intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act, and (2) CW’s website is a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: (1) allegations of disparate impact and failure to remediate do not, by themselves, establish the intent required under the Unruh Act; and (2) under current law and statutory text, a standalone retail website unconnected to a physical place is not a Title III “place of public accommodation.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAC pleads intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act absent an ADA violation | CW’s continued inaction after notice of accessibility barriers shows willful, affirmative misconduct and specific intent to discriminate | The website’s structure is facially neutral; disparate impact and failure to fix do not prove discriminatory intent under Koebke | Allegations of disparate impact and failure to remediate are insufficient to infer intent; demurrer properly sustained |
| Whether CW’s website is a “place of public accommodation” under Title III of the ADA | A retail website should qualify as a public accommodation and thus be covered by Title III | Title III’s text and regulations refer to physical “places”/“facilities”; a purely digital site without nexus to a physical place is not covered | Under the statute, regulations, and interpretive canons, a standalone website is not a Title III place of public accommodation; ADA-based Unruh claim fails |
| Weight to give DOJ informal positions and amicus briefs supporting website coverage | DOJ’s longstanding amicus positions and guidance support reading the ADA to cover websites | DOJ has not issued formal regulations; its informal positions and consent decrees are case-specific and do not compel deference | DOJ’s informal pronouncements and litigation positions do not justify judicial expansion; agency inaction counsels against adopting the broad interpretation |
| Whether dismissal should have been without prejudice/leave to amend | Plaintiff could plead additional facts or evidence showing intent if given leave | Even if alleged breaches continued, failure to remedy a facially neutral policy cannot establish Unruh intent | Dismissal without leave was proper because further amendment could not cure the lack of intent under Unruh |
Key Cases Cited
- Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (Cal. 2005) (facially neutral policy’s disparate impact alone cannot establish intentional discrimination under the Unruh Act)
- Martinez v. San Diego County Credit Union, 50 Cal.App.5th 1048 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (discusses ADA nexus approach for websites tied to physical facilities)
- Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (Title III requires a nexus to a physical place for website-based ADA claims)
- Carparts Distrib. Ctr. v. Automotive Wholesaler’s Ass’n, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (interpreting ‘‘service establishment’’ and supporting broader view that some nonphysical services may be covered)
- Belton v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, 151 Cal.App.4th 1224 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (digital cable service is not a Title III public accommodation)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements required for a Title III ADA claim)
- Thurston v. Midvale Corp., 39 Cal.App.5th 634 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (applies nexus standard where website connects to physical place)
- Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co. v. Doe, 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) (caution against giving great weight to agency amicus positions when the agency has not used rulemaking)