PITTSBURGH – A federal judge is allowing a class action against the Kohl’s department store for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act to proceed and threw out a dismissal motion from the store chain.
On Sept. 29, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV struck down a motion to dismiss from Kohl’s, brought against plaintiff Ronald J. Migyanko.
Migyanko brought the case on March 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated against Kohl’s, alleging violations of Title III of the ADA towards plaintiffs who are disabled individuals that use wheelchairs or other mobility devices.
“Migyanko alleges that Pennsylvania Kohl’s stores are cluttered with merchandise, merchandise displays and other items that block or narrow interior aisle pathways leaving less than 32 inches of clearance. According to Migyanko, the cluttered and blocked aisles are unlawful access barriers and a deprivation of the basic civil rights guaranteed to people with disabilities by the ADA,” Stickman said.
“He alleges that he has been ‘repeatedly denied full and equal access as a result of accessibility barriers existing in interior paths of travel’ Migyanko notes that he seeks to address persistently inaccessible conditions of Kohl’s stores that are occurring because of Kohl’s practices and policies of cluttering its stores with merchandise and other items within interior paths of travel.”
Migyanko asserted class claims for a permanent injunction, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) to remove the barriers currently present at Kohl’s store and an injunction to modify the policies and practices that have created or allowed inaccessibility to affect Kohl’s stores.
In a June 17 motion to dismiss or alternatively strike class action allegations, Kohl’s argued that Migyanko failed to state a claim because Title III of the ADA does not impose any obligation on Kohl’s “to implement policies to affirmatively seek out and correct any alleged ADA violations” – and contended that “Migyanko’s claim hinges on the legal theory that Kohl’s has an affirmative obligation to seek out potential ADA violations and prevent them from occurring.
Kohl’s further argued that the Court should strike the class allegations under the principle of comity, but Stickman said in his ruling that “a respect for comity does not compel the Court to strike the class allegations at this juncture.”
“The Court that concludes that this is not one of the ‘rare’ cases where the complaint itself demonstrated that the requirements for maintaining a class action cannot be met. This case is distinct from [other] cases cited by Kohl’s where courts have struck class definitions prior to discovery or class certification. Migyanko’s complaint adequately defines the class membership and its claims,” Stickman said.
“While Kohl’s may ultimately be correct regarding the inadequacy of Migyanko’s class certification, the Court will deny the motion to strike the class allegations at this time. Procedurally, this case is in its infancy and the Court does not believe it appropriate to strike the class allegations prior to discovery. This denial is without prejudice to Kohl’s right to raise the issue under Rule 23, assuming Migyanko files a motion for class certification.”
Stickman ultimately denied Kohl’s motion to dismiss.
“Upon review of Migyanko’s complaint, the Court denies Kohl’s motion to dismiss. There is no dispute that Migyanko suffers from a disability, as defined by the ADA. Migyanko has alleged that he encountered various access barriers throughout Kohl’s stores in Pennsylvania that included merchandise, merchandise displays, stocking carts, boxes and other items, all precluding his ability to travel in his wheelchair,” Stickman concluded.
“He further alleges that these barriers are purposely placed by Kohl’s to increase sales, revenue and profit. At this preliminary stage, Migyanko has sufficiently pled facts that he has been denied ‘full and equal access’ to Kohl’s goods and services. Therefore, the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied,”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00328
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com