Appellate Court Says Winn-Dixie Website Need Not Comply With ADA
(April 29, 2021) Federal appellate courts continue to disagree as to when a website must comply with the accommodations requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
The Eleventh Circuit reversed a trial court’s finding that Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a southeastern-based grocery store chain, violated the ADA because the legally blind plaintiff, Juan Gil, was unable to access the chain’s website with his screen reader software. Gil requested an order that Winn-Dixie update its website “to remove barriers in order that individuals with visual disabilities can access the website to the full extent required” by the ADA. Gil argued that he was unable to have his prescriptions filled online and that he could not download coupons onto the store’s app. He argued the website was “a place of public accommodation under the ADA.”
The trial judge said it was not making a finding as to whether the website itself was a place of public accommodation “in and of itself” but found because the website is “heavily integrated” with Winn-Dixie’s physical stores “operating as a gateway to the physical stores,” the ADA applied. The trial court ordered Winn-Dixie to make its website accessible to individuals with disabilities and ordered that the website conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (“WCAG 2.0”).
The ADA forbids discrimination against disabled individuals in several areas including “public accommodations.” Although the trial court declined to make a finding that the website was a place of public accommodation, the appellate court majority concluded that the ADA’s list of what is a place of public accommodation does not include websites, so “pursuant to the plain language of Title III of the ADA, public accommodations are limited to actual, physical places.”
The appellate court rejected Gil’s argument that the website was an intangible barrier to his equal access to the services at Winn-Dixie’s physical stores. Gil argued that because he could not order his prescriptions online that he had to spend more time in the store to have the prescriptions filled. The majority wrote that “Winn-Dixie’s limited use website, although inaccessible by individuals who are visually disabled, does not function as an intangible barrier to an individual with a visual disability accessing the goods, services, privileges, or advantages of Winn-Dixie’s physical stores.” Most importantly, the majority said, the website is “not a point of sale; all purchases must occur at the store.” As a result, the website is not an “intangible barrier to Gil’s ability to access and enjoy” the store, which the appellate court said was a place of public accommodation.
The dissent argued that the ADA’s “guarantee of freedom from discrimination for disabled individuals is broad.” Sighted customers received greater privacy protections because they could order prescriptions online and “were relieved of the need to wait in-store for pharmacists to refill their prescriptions. Gil had to verbally request prescription refills in-store and endure extended wait times.”
The dissent concludes that the opinion will have “widespread consequences” by allowing stores and restaurants to offer websites and apps that are safer, more efficient, and more flexible in providing access to goods and services while allowing those websites and apps to be “inaccessible to visually-impaired customers so long as those customers can access an inferior version of these public accommodations’ offerings. That result cannot be squared with the ADA.”
Juan Carlos Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 11th Circuit No.17-13467, published April 7, 2021.