Federal court finds website subject to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
On June 12, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Court) ruled that Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (Store) discriminated against Juan Carlos Gil (Customer), a visually impaired person, due to the inaccessibility of Store’s website under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Act). Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 16-23020-Civ-Scola, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90204, 2017 WL 2547242 (Jun. 12, 2017).
Customer had patronized Store’s physical locations. The Store also operated a retail website, which Customer visited. Because of his visual impairment, Customer used screen reading technology to assist him with visiting websites such as Store’s website. Customer sued Store claiming its website violated his rights under the Act because it was not accessible to him, as a visually impaired person, with use of his screen reading technology.
At trial, the parties did not dispute that Store’s physical locations were subject to the Act as “places of public accommodation.” The significant issue that remained was whether the Store’s website was subject to the Act as “a service of a place of public accommodation,” or in the alternative, is the website a “public accommodation” in and of itself.
The Court first noted evidence of connections between Store’s physical locations and its website, such as the ability to locate stores, fill prescriptions, and use coupons on the Store’s website.
The Court then discussed other court decisions on the applicability of the Act to websites. It noted that some federal appeals courts are split on whether the Act applies only to physical spaces, versus extending coverage to something “intangible” like a website. It also noted that some courts have found websites that are “heavily integrated with physical store locations and operate as a gateway to the physical store locations” are a “service of a public accommodation and [are] covered by the [Act].” The Court ultimately followed that approach, finding that the evidence in this case showed the Store’s website “is heavily integrated with [Store]’s physical store locations and operates as a gateway to the physical store locations.” As such, the Act applied to the Store’s website.
The Court also said the Store “presented no evidence to establish that it would be unduly burdensome to make its website accessible to visually impaired individuals,” which was a potential defense.
The Court then issued, in part, an injunction that notably required the Store to adopt and implement a web accessibility policy which ensures that its website conforms with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 criteria. The Court noted that “there is no federal organization that mandates particulars of website accessibility,” but that “the [WCAG] is produced by a consortium of private organizations whose goal is to make websites accessible for all.” The Court also awarded attorney’s fees, which is permitted under the Act.
Editor’s Note: In December 2015, several electric cooperatives received demand letters claiming their websites were not accessible to those with disabilities – namely hearing and vision impaired persons – in violation of the Act. NRECA issued a memorandum to its members addressing the issue and an editorial on website accessibility was published in the April 2016 issue of NRECA’s Legal Reporting Service (LRS). Readers should review those documents for more details on the demand letters and the legal issues arising out of whether a website is subject to the Act. The memorandum is available on Cooperative.com and ECBA.coop. The April 2016 issue of LRS is available to subscribers in the Web Archives.
This case was the first known case where the issue of whether a website is subject to the Act went to trial on the merits, and was decided on a full record of evidence.
If you have questions or comments, please contact Nick Pascale, NRECA Assistant General Counsel, at 703-907-5557.