Southern District of Florida Holds Winn-Dixie's Website is Subject to the ADA | Practical Law

Southern District of Florida Holds Winn-Dixie's Website is Subject to the ADA | Practical Law

The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida held that if a sufficient nexus between a retailer website and its brick and mortar stores exists, the website must comply with the American with Disabilities Act. The court did not determine whether the store's website should be considered a public accommodation under the ADA.

Southern District of Florida Holds Winn-Dixie's Website is Subject to the ADA

Practical Law Legal Update w-008-9842 (Approx. 5 pages)

Southern District of Florida Holds Winn-Dixie's Website is Subject to the ADA

by Practical Law Commercial Transactions
Published on 06 Jul 2017 • USA (National/Federal)
The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida held that if a sufficient nexus between a retailer website and its brick and mortar stores exists, the website must comply with the American with Disabilities Act. The court did not determine whether the store's website should be considered a public accommodation under the ADA.
The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida has held under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that a legally blind plaintiff alleged a sufficient nexus between a retail store's website and its physical stores to enable the plaintiff to proceed with a claim that the store's website discriminates based on disability (Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., (S.D. Florida March 15, 2017)).

Background

Juan Carlos Gil is legally blind and has a learning disability that requires him to use screen reader software to access and comprehend information on the internet. When Gil attempted to access the website for Winn-Dixie, a grocery and pharmacy store chain, he alleges that:
  • The website failed to integrate with his screen reader software.
  • There was no other function within the website to enable access for visually impaired customers.
Gil filed a lawsuit claiming that Winn-Dixie's website violated the ADA because it was inaccessible to the visually impaired. Specifically, Gil alleged that:
  • Winn-Dixie failed to provide full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided by and through its website, including:
    • store location services; and
    • online prescription services.
  • The internet is one of few available ways of accessing goods and services for individuals who are limited in their ability to travel outside their homes.
Winn-Dixie responded by asserting that websites are not places of public accommodation under the ADA, so as a matter of law, the company's website could not have violated the ADA.

Outcome

The District Court denied Winn-Dixie's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court held that a sufficient nexus existed between Winn-Dixie's physical stores, which the company acknowledged fell within the scope of the ADA, and the website. The court noted that the website services identified by the plaintiff in his complaint, including store locations and prescriptions, were directly related to Winn-Dixie's physical stores. The court therefore held that if the website was inaccessible to the plaintiff, he would be denied equal access to the services, privileges, and advantages of Winn-Dixie's physical stores.
Because the court found a sufficient nexus between Winn-Dixie's website and physical stores, it did not examine whether Winn-Dixie's website could be considered a public accommodation under the ADA in and of itself.

Disagreement Over Websites as Places of Public Accommodation

The ADA applies to places of public accommodation, defined as a private entity whose operations affect commerce and fall within at least one of twelve categories, which include sales and rental establishments such as bakeries, grocery stores, hardware stores, or shopping centers (42 U.S.C. §12181(7)).
The ADA does not specifically identify websites as places of public accommodation, and courts have split on whether the law limits the definition to physical spaces. The Gil decision categorizes the split into three groups:
  • Some courts have found that a website can be a place of public accommodation independent of any connection to a physical space. The First, Second, and Seventh Circuits fall into this category.
  • Some courts have concluded that places of public accommodation must be physical places, but that websites may fall within the ADA if they have a sufficient nexus to a physical place. The Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits fall into this category.
  • The remaining Circuits (Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, Eleventh, and Federal) have not yet addressed this issue.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken an interest in the issue, though it has not yet weighed in on either side. In 2010, the DOJ issued a notice that it was considering revising the regulations under the ADA to include websites (75 FR 43460-01). However, so far no regulations have been adopted, and the court split persists.
The court in Winn-Dixie is in the Eleventh Circuit. Though the Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet addressed this issue, district courts within the Eleventh Circuit have uniformly held that a website unconnected to a physical location does not fall within the ADA.

The Sufficient Nexus Test

According to the decision in Winn-Dixie, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit have held that the ADA does not apply to a website unconnected to a physical location, but that websites are subject to the ADA if a plaintiff can establish a nexus between the website and a physical place of public accommodation.
In applying the nexus test to Winn-Dixie, the court relied in part on Rendon v. Valleycrest Prods, Inc. (294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002), in which the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that the ADA covers both tangible, physical barriers to access, but also intangible barriers that restrict access. The court noted that Gil has alleged that Winn-Dixie's website enables customers to locate Winn-Dixie stores and fill and refill prescriptions, but that these services are not accessible to Gil resulting from his disability.
The court also cited a case in the Northern District of California with a similar fact pattern and procedural history, Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind v. Target Corp. In Target Corp., which also concerned access to a store's website services by blind individuals, the court found that Target's website was "heavily integrated with the brick-and-mortar stores and operates in many ways as a gateway to the stores" (452 F.Supp.2d 946, 955 (N.D. Cal 2006)).
Guided by both Rendon and Target Corp., the court in Winn-Dixie found that the plaintiff alleged a sufficient nexus between Winn-Dixie's physical stores and website and denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Notably, the court refrained from determining whether the website is a public accommodation in and of itself, since the plaintiff's claim may proceed on the narrower basis of a nexus between the website and physical location.

Practical Implications

The decision in Winn-Dixie demonstrates that even if courts decline to find that a website is a place of public accommodation, business websites may still be subject to the ADA where a sufficient nexus may be found. Therefore, businesses that use their websites to provide access to services at their physical locations should ensure their websites are in compliance. Both Winn-Dixie and Target Corp. suggest that the following website services may create a nexus:
  • Location services.
  • Information about store hours.
  • Prescription fill and refill services for either pick-up or delivery.
  • Photo print services.
Where a business has a nexus between its website and physical locations, it should ensure that its website is accessible to customers with disabilities. The facts in Winn-Dixie provide guidance for how businesses might approach the issue of accessibility:
  • If disabled individuals use common applications to enable them to access information on the internet, such as the screen reader employed by the plaintiff in Winn-Dixie, businesses should seek to develop or re-design websites that are compatible with such applications.
  • If it is not possible to make a website compatible with accessibility applications, businesses should offer alternatives to disabled individuals seeking access, such as built-in screen readers.
Both Winn-Dixie and Target Corp. illustrate how retailers' websites are particularly susceptible to an alleged nexus with physical retail stores. However, any business that uses its website to offer services to the general public should be aware of potential ADA compliance issues, and seek to ensure accessibility where possible.