Teresita Reyes sued McDonald’s Corporation of Illinois, McDonald’s Restaurant No. 11148 & Employees Concerned, and the Fort Collins Police Department in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, raising claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Colorado state law. The district court dismissed Reyes’s federal claims for failure to state a claim and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims. Reyes appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Teresita Reyes, a 68-year-old woman with a disability requiring the use of a walker, visited a McDonald’s drive-thru in Fort Collins, Colorado on September 25, 2023. She ordered a milkshake without whipped cream but received one with whipped cream. When Reyes complained about the error, she was asked to wait in the parking lot. The manager approached Reyes, blamed her for the mistake, and denied her a refund. Reyes called 911, and before the police arrived, the manager returned to Reyes’s vehicle, threw money and a receipt at her, and told her not to return, accusing her of trespassing.
When police officers arrived, Reyes requested their assistance in obtaining security camera footage of the incident, but was informed that no cameras covered the parking lot. After the incident, Reyes reported the alleged assault on McDonald’s website. A month later, McDonald’s informed Reyes that she must waive her right to a jury trial to continue resolving her complaint through the company’s website.
Reyes filed a pro se complaint in October 2023. After several amended complaints and orders to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Reyes filed her final amended complaint, asserting ten claims for relief: three under the ADA, two under the Civil Rights Act, one under § 1983, and four under Colorado law.
Legal Analysis
Failure to State a Federal Claim
ADA and Civil Rights Act Claims: The court found that Reyes failed to state a claim under both the ADA and the Civil Rights Act. To state a claim under Title III of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege discrimination on the basis of disability. Similarly, a claim under Title II of the Civil Rights Act requires allegations of discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin. The court determined that Reyes’s allegations of discrimination were merely conclusory and lacked supporting facts. Without these underlying facts, the court disregarded the conclusory allegations, resulting in Reyes’s failure to state a claim under both statutes.
Section 1983 Claim: The court also found that Reyes failed to state a claim under § 1983. Since Reyes brought her claim against the Fort Collins municipality (through the police department), she was required to identify an official policy or custom that caused her injury. The court noted that while Reyes alleged misconduct by individual police officers, she failed to identify any official policy or custom that led to her injury. Consequently, the court concluded that Reyes had not stated a valid § 1983 claim.
State Law Claims: Having dismissed all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Reyes’s state law claims.
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Reyes’s federal claims for failure to state a claim and its decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over her state law claims.
Schrag on Law 