Faycal Manz, a pro se appellant from Germany, visited a Walmart Supercenter in New Jersey and attempted to use the store's Wi-Fi. He was unable to connect because the store required users to enter a United States phone number. Manz sued Walmart, alleging that this policy violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against him based on national origin and effectively segregating international visitors. He also brought state-law claims for unfair trade practices, breach of contract, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Walmart moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The District Court granted the motion, ruling that Manz failed to plausibly allege discrimination and that further amendment would be futile. The District Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissed the entire amended complaint with prejudice. Manz appealed to the Third Circuit.
The Third Circuit applied plenary review to the District Court's dismissal, accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true but requiring them to show facial plausibility. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Title II claim because Manz did not plead facts showing that Walmart treated individuals outside his protected class differently or displayed discriminatory animus. The court cited Third Circuit precedent establishing that a claim requires more than a conclusory assertion of discrimination. Even assuming a disparate-impact theory was cognizable under Title II, Manz's complaint failed to allege facts supporting that the Wi-Fi policy disproportionately excluded foreign nationals. The court found the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining that further amendment would be futile. Regarding the state-law claims, the court agreed that the District Court lacked supplemental jurisdiction but modified the disposition. Instead of dismissing these claims with prejudice, the court held they should be dismissed without prejudice, as the lack of federal jurisdiction does not preclude the plaintiff from pursuing them in state court.
The decision confirms that a policy requiring a U.S. phone number for Wi-Fi access does not automatically constitute national origin discrimination under Title II without specific factual allegations of discriminatory intent or disparate impact. The ruling limits the ability of plaintiffs to bring Title II claims against businesses for neutral policies that incidentally affect foreign nationals. Practically, Manz is barred from pursuing his federal discrimination claim, but he retains the ability to refile his state-law claims in New Jersey state court, as the Third Circuit modified the dismissal of those claims to be without prejudice.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download