Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

District Court Denies Certification of Nationwide Class, Finding Individual Retail Stores’ Alleged Failures to Follow Internal Policies Not Suitable for Class Relief

May 18, 2017 by Carlton Fields

An Illinois district court recently denied certification, finding that the putative nationwide class failed the commonality and numerosity prongs of Rule 23(a) and that injunctive relief was not available under Rule 23(b)(2) because the defendants did not have a standard policy or procedure causing injury to class members. The plaintiffs brought a putative class action seeking to hold Kohl’s Corporation and Kohl’s Department Stores, Inc. (“Kohl’s”) liable for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Human Rights Law based on alleged inaccessible counters, restrooms, fitting rooms, and inadequate accessible parking for customers with disabilities. According to the plaintiffs, Kohl’s routinely ignored its internal “Shopability Standards,” which set forth the minimum spacing distance for merchandise racks in its stores.

The plaintiffs’ motion for class certification included in its class definition people with mobile disabilities who “were denied access to the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any Kohl’s Department Store in the United States on the basis of disability because of the existence of aisles which were too narrow (less than 36 inches).” The court denied class certification, stating that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a nationwide class under the proposed definition satisfied Rule 23.

On the issue of commonality, the court found that the plaintiffs did not establish that members of the class had suffered the same injury. Instead, the plaintiffs identified 12 individuals who had reported experiencing difficulty in accessing merchandise in approximately 17 different stores, but could not direct the court to any evidence that Kohl’s, as a practice or policy, routinely required employees to ignore complaints or disregard its Shopability Standards.

The court also denied class certification based on the plaintiffs’ failure to meet the numerosity prong of Rule 23. The plaintiffs argued that numerosity was satisfied based on an estimate that approximately 1,800 individuals had visited a Kohl’s store in the United States and experienced difficulties maneuvering the aisles. However, the court found unpersuasive the plaintiffs’ methodology of relying on publicly-available disability statistics, such as the percentages of people with an ambulatory disability or who use wheelchairs and the population of Kohl’s shoppers, to extrapolate their estimate. The court reasoned that because all stores had varying layouts, as well as discretion to implement Kohl’s Shopability Standards, including the width of the aisles, and because the issue concerned not the standards themselves, but that they were purportedly not enforced, nationwide statistics were insufficient evidence to establish numerosity.

Moreover, aside from the requirements of Rule 23(a), the court found the injunction sought by the plaintiffs, which would have simply directed Kohl’s to follow its own internal standards, would do nothing more than direct Kohl’s to obey the law, which carried the possibility for overbreadth and vagueness. As such, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Equal Rights Ctr. v. Kohl’s Corp., No: 14 C 8259 2017, WL 1652589 (2017) (N.D. Ill. May 2, 2017).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Nationwide Class Claims Under A Single State’s Consumer Protection Laws?

Next Article »

Ninth Circuit Expands American Pipe Tolling to Subsequent Securities Class Action by Unnamed Class Members, but Leaves Related Comity and Issue Preclusion Questions for Another Day
Avatar

About Carlton Fields

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.