PITTSBURGH – A lawsuit brought by a woman against a video store chain for refusing her service during the COVID-19 pandemic due to her inability to wear a mask has been dismissed.
Ashley Clark of Indiana, Pa. first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 16, 2020 Family Video, Inc. of Glenview, Ill.
The suit said Clark is a person with a disability who has a physical condition, severe asthma, which substantially limits her major life activity of breathing, and her respiratory system – which also prevents her from wearing a mask.
“The events complained of occurred at the Indiana Family Video & CBD Store on June 11, 2020. Plaintiff attempted to enter the store without wearing a mask. Plaintiff was told she could not shop inside the store without a mask. Plaintiff informed the cashier that she cannot wear a mask because of her medical condition,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff asked to continue shopping without a mask due to her medical condition. The cashier told plaintiff it was store policy that she had to wear a mask regardless of her medical condition and that company policy was ‘no mask, no service.’ Plaintiff left the store without being permitted to shop in the store.”
The suit argued that Family Video’s policies and procedures made “no accommodations for invitees who wish to shop in its Pennsylvania stores who have disabilities that prohibit wearing a mask or make wearing a mask dangerous to the invitees.”
“Family Video’s policy and procedure violated Title III of the ADA and the PHRA because Plaintiff was denied equal access and enjoyment of the public accommodation because of her disability,” per the suit.
After initially being awarded a default judgment due to Family Video’s lack of response or answer to the complaint, the store asked the case to be re-opened and the default judgment to be set aside, which it was in January.
On March 8, counsel for the store motioned for the case to be dismissed, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“The permanent closure of the Family Video store at issue and the imminent closure of all Family Video stores has rendered plaintiff’s claim under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act moot given the absence of any available relief,” the dismissal motion stated.
“Dismissal of plaintiff’s ADA claim disposes of the only claim over which this Court has original jurisdiction. Therefore, defendant also respectfully moves this Court to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claim under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.”
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Judge William S. Stickman IV granted the store’s dismissal motion on April 26.
“Because Family Video’s mootness argument is supported by and premised on the declaration of Scott Westberg, the Court construes Family Video’s jurisdictional challenge as a factual one, in which the Court may consider evidence outside of the pleadings,” Stickman stated.
“Clark did not address Family Video’s mootness argument in her response, and her failure to do so is construed as a concession on this issue. Therefore, Clark’s ADA claim is constitutionally moot. Count I is hereby dismissed with prejudice.”
Stickman likewise dismissed the PHRA claim, in lieu of it being refiled later in state court.
“Furthermore, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Clark’s PHRA claim because ‘considerations of judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the parties [do not] provide an affirmative justification for doing so,” Stickman said.
“Although Clark likens the procedural history of this case to that of an ‘obstacle course’, the Court agrees with Family Video that the procedural posture of this case ‘is anything but ‘extraordinary’, and Clark remains free to refile her PHRA claim in the appropriate state court without much effort. Count II is hereby dismissed without prejudice for Clark to file in state court.”
The plaintiff was represented by Thomas B. Anderson of Thomson Rhodes & Cowie, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant was represented by Emily B. Thomas of Baker & Hostetler, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-00886
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com