556 F.Supp.3d 173
E.D.N.Y2021Background
- Plaintiff Jay Winegard, who is deaf, sued Newsday after he could not view videos on newsday.com because they lacked closed captioning.
- Newsday is a newspaper publisher that operates no public-facing retail or customer-serving physical locations; its content is distributed in print and on its website.
- Winegard brought Title III ADA claims (denial of full and equal enjoyment; failure to make reasonable modifications) and parallel New York state and city human-rights claims.
- Newsday moved to dismiss for lack of Article III standing (arguing the videos were accessible on YouTube) and for failure to state a Title III claim (arguing a website is not a "place of public accommodation").
- The court rejected Newsday’s standing challenge but held that the ADA’s definition of "place of public accommodation" in 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7) refers to physical places and does not encompass stand-alone websites.
- The court granted dismissal of the federal ADA claims, declined supplemental jurisdiction, and dismissed the state-law claims without reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing | Winegard: he suffered concrete injury because he could not access videos on Newsday’s site | Newsday: videos were available on YouTube with captions, so no concrete injury | Court: denied dismissal; plaintiff plausibly alleged injury-in-fact despite alternative access elsewhere |
| Whether a website is a "place of public accommodation" under Title III | Winegard: a website is a public accommodation (residual clauses: exhibition, recreation, sales, service); ADA should be read to cover web access | Newsday: statutory text and history limit "place" to physical locations; Congress listed physical examples | Court: Title III’s text and context show "place of public accommodation" refers to physical places; stand-alone websites are excluded |
| Effect of Pallozzi v. Allstate | Winegard: Pallozzi supports treating online offerings as covered | Newsday: Pallozzi concerned goods/services sold at a listed physical "insurance office," not standalone online-only operations | Court: Pallozzi is consistent with coverage only when website is adjunct to a physical place; it does not compel treating stand-alone websites as places |
| State-law claims / supplemental jurisdiction | Winegard: state claims should proceed if federal claim viable | Newsday: argued dismissal of federal claims supports dismissal of state claims | Court: declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims after ruling federal claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pallozzi v. Allstate Life Insurance Co., 198 F.3d 28 (2d Cir.) (interpreting Title III as covering goods/services sold through an identified physical insurance office)
- Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.) (holding Section 12181(7) items are physical places)
- Ford v. Schering–Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601 (3d Cir.) (construing "public accommodation" to refer to physical locations)
- Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir.) (addressing ADA applicability to a website/app tied to physical restaurants)
- Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 993 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir.) (holding Title III limited to actual, physical places)
- Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (discussing historical focus on "traditional places" of public accommodation)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (treating "golf course[s]" as a statutory example of a place of public accommodation)
- In re Cray, Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir.) (interpreting "place" to require a physical location)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (standing framework cited regarding concrete injury)