PITTSBURGH – Kohl’s alleges it has no liability in a civil rights class action lawsuit brought against it for its alleged commission of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Ronald J. 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,” U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV 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.”
Stickman ultimately denied Kohl’s motion to dismiss.
UPDATE
Attorneys for Kohl’s filed an answer to the complaint on Oct. 13, in denying its allegations and asserting 18 separate affirmative defenses, including:
• Plaintiff lacks standing to sue defendant in relation to stores in which he has never been present and alleged barriers that he never encountered;
• Plaintiff’s claims are barred to the extent they did not accrue within the relevant time period prescribed by applicable law;
• Plaintiff’s generalized request for modifications to department stores statewide would require a fundamental alteration in the way goods and services are provided and/or would result in an undue burden;
• Any alleged violations do not affect plaintiff’s alleged disability;
• No actual or constructive notice regarding accessibility issues was provided to defendant.
The plaintiff is represented by R. Bruce Carlson of Carlson Lynch, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Emily B. Thomas, Bonnie Keane DelGobbo and Joel C. Griswold of Baker & Hostetler in Philadelphia, Chicago, Ill. and Orlando, Fla.
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