Opinion
No. 1D21-3749
05-25-2022
Aaron ABADI, Appellant, v. WALT DISNEY WORLD PARKS & RESORTS, Appellee.
Aaron Abadi, pro se, Appellant. Audrey Pumariega Angulo, Miami, for Appellee.
Aaron Abadi, pro se, Appellant.
Audrey Pumariega Angulo, Miami, for Appellee.
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from final action dismissing a disability discrimination complaint filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Because the complaint was not deficient for the reason identified by the Commission, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
During the COVID pandemic, Appellant filed a disability discrimination complaint alleging that Appellee failed to make a reasonable modification that was necessary to accommodate his disability—i.e., that Appellee denied his request for an exemption from Appellee's face-covering policy due to his disability, which prevented him from wearing a face mask or face shield. The Commission dismissed Appellant's complaint after Appellant declined the opportunity to amend the complaint to correct a pleading deficiency identified by the Commission, which informed Appellant that it was unclear how he was denied services since he did not visit Appellee's public accommodation. This appeal followed.
"Prior to filing a civil action alleging discrimination in violation of the FCRA, the individual seeking relief must file a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ... within 365 days of the alleged violation and exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the FCRA." Sheridan v. State, Dep't of Health , 182 So. 3d 787, 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). Once a complaint is filed, the Commission has inherent authority to dismiss the complaint if it fails to meet the pleading requirements to trigger an investigation. Stanton v. Fla. Dep't of Health , 129 So. 3d 1083, 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; Caldwell v. Fla. Dep't of Elder Affairs , 121 So. 3d 1062, 1063–64 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ; Tillery v. Fla. Dep't of Juv. Just. , 104 So. 3d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). However, there is little authority addressing the pleading standards applicable to complaints filed with the Commission. The applicable statute simply requires that the complaint "contain a short and plain statement of the facts describing the violation and the relief sought." § 760.11(1), Fla. Stat. (2021). The applicable rule further provides that "a complaint is sufficient if it is in writing, signed by the Complainant, verified, and sufficiently precise to identify the parties and to describe generally the action or practice complained of." Fla. Admin. Code R. 60Y-5.001(6)(b). In the absence of additional guidance, we look to the law applicable to civil actions alleging discrimination under the FCRA.
The FCRA provides in pertinent part: "All persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, handicap, familial status, or religion." § 760.08, Fla. Stat. (2021). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) similarly provides: "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Due to their similarities, the FCRA is construed in conformity with the ADA. See St. Johns Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. O'Brien , 973 So. 2d 535, 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ; Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc. , 948 So. 2d 921, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ; Lenard v. A.L.P.H.A. "A Beginning" Inc. , 945 So. 2d 618, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ; Brand v. Fla. Power Corp. , 633 So. 2d 504, 509–10 n.8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
To state a claim under the ADA, the plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) the defendant is a place of public accommodation; and (3) the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff by denying the plaintiff a full and equal opportunity to enjoy the goods and services provided by the defendant. Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc ., 789 F.3d 146, 151 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ; Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enters., Inc. , 603 F.3d 666, 670 (9th Cir. 2010) ; Camarillo v. Carrols Corp ., 518 F.3d 153, 156 (2d Cir. 2008). A plaintiff can satisfy the last element by alleging that the defendant failed to make a requested reasonable modification that was necessary to accommodate the plaintiff's disability. Brown , 789 F.3d at 150 ; accord Karczewski v. DCH Mission Valley LLC , 862 F.3d 1006, 1010–11 (9th Cir. 2017).
In this case, the sole pleading deficiency identified by the Commission was Appellant's failure to allege how he was denied services since he did not visit the public accommodation. However, Appellant was not required to allege that he was denied services during a visit to Appellee—i.e., that he physically attempted to enter Appellee's public accommodation and was turned away for not wearing a mask, in order to plead a prima facie case for disability discrimination under the FCRA or the ADA. "[U]nder the ADA, once a plaintiff has actually become aware of discriminatory conditions existing at a public accommodation, and is thereby deterred from visiting or patronizing that accommodation, the plaintiff has suffered an injury." Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods, Inc. , 293 F.3d 1133, 1136–37 (9th Cir. 2002) ; accord Mosley v. Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc. , 942 F.3d 752, 760 (6th Cir. 2019) ; Disabled Americans for Equal Access, Inc. v. Ferries Del Caribe, Inc. , 405 F.3d 60, 64 (1st Cir. 2005) ; see also 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1) ("Nothing in this section shall require a person with a disability to engage in a futile gesture if such person has actual notice that a person or organization covered by this subchapter does not intend to comply with its provisions.").
Appellant alleged that he visited Appellee on a yearly basis before the COVID pandemic; planned to visit Appellee with his family in late September or early October 2021; and requested an exemption from Appellee's face-covering policy due to his disability, which was denied by Appellee. Because Appellant plausibly alleged that he was aware of discriminatory conditions at Appellee's public accommodation and that the denial of his request for a modification deterred him from visiting or patronizing that accommodation, the Commission improperly dismissed Appellant's complaint on an invalid ground. See Johnson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr. , 190 So. 3d 259 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing the Commission's improper summary dismissal of appellant's complaint on timeliness grounds).
Alternatively, Appellee claims that the Commission properly dismissed Appellant's complaint because he failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination insofar as Appellant's requested modification was not reasonable and necessary to accommodate his disability. Appellee further claims that the Commission properly dismissed Appellant's complaint because two "safety defenses" under the ADA barred Appellant's disability discrimination claim. However, we decline to address alleged deficiencies that were not found by the Commission, which is charged with making such findings in the first instance. We simply note that a plaintiff is not required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in the complaint, but must plead sufficient facts in the complaint to set forth a plausible claim. Olivarez v. T-mobile USA, Inc. , 997 F.3d 595, 600 (5th Cir. 2021) ; Iselin v. Bama Cos., Inc. , 690 F. App'x 593, 595 (10th Cir. 2017) ; Hedges v. Town of Madison , 456 F. App'x 22, 23 (2d Cir. 2012). Although this standard applies in civil actions under the ADA, there is nothing to indicate that a more stringent standard should apply to administrative complaints in order to trigger an investigation by the Commission under the FCRA. We further note that Appellee is not precluded from raising any of these issues in an answer filed with the Commission pursuant to section 760.11(1) and Florida Administrative Code Rule 60Y-5.0011. Accordingly, we reverse the Commission's dismissal of Appellant's complaint and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED .
Lewis, Bilbrey, and Jay, JJ., concur.