'Winn-Dixie' Ruling Stresses Importance of Website Accessibility
This week, a much-anticipated ruling on website accessibility was issued out of the Southern District of Florida. The ruling in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, case no. 16-23020-civ-Scola (S.D. FL 2017), will require the attention of businesses across the country that host websites. To recap, this was a case of first impression. After a two-day nonjury trial, Judge Robert Scola determined that Winn-Dixie's website operates as a "gateway" to its physical store locations and therefore is required to be accessible to individuals with disabilities, write Carol C. Lumpkin, Stephanie Moot and Shawn Hogue.
June 28, 2017 at 12:00 AM
8 minute read
This week, a much-anticipated ruling on website accessibility was issued out of the Southern District of Florida. The ruling in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, case no. 16-23020-civ-Scola (S.D. FL 2017), will require the attention of businesses across the country that host websites. To recap, this was a case of first impression. After a two-day nonjury trial, Judge Robert Scola determined that Winn-Dixie's website operates as a “gateway” to its physical store locations and therefore is required to be accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The court determined that “the services offered on Winn-Dixie's website, such as the online pharmacy management system, the ability to access digital coupons that link automatically to a customer's rewards card, and the ability to find store locations, are undoubtedly services, privileges, advantages and accommodations offered by Winn-Dixie's physical store locations.” Commentary to the court's decision has focused mainly on two portions of the decision: (1) having an inaccessible website violates Title III of the ADA; and (2) a business is required to make its website accessible even though it is a fact that, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has never promulgated enforceable regulations. Instead, the DOJ has relied upon the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) to shape this guidance known as, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). While this opinion is the first of its kind, the ruling also addresses an important issue specifically ADA liability arising from third-party links featured on a website. While we agree with commentary to date, we believe this third issue has not received the attention it deserves.
|Court Finds That WCAG 2.0 is the Standard
In the Winn-Dixie case, the court ruled that WCAG 2.0 AA were the guidelines Winn-Dixie was required to follow. Conversely, in March, a federal court in California struck down web accessibility claims where the plaintiff attempted to use WCAG 2.0 as an appropriate standard to make a website accessible. In Robles v. Domino's Pizza, No. cv-106599 (C.D. Cal 2017), the court held that forcing Domino's to impose a standard to website accessibility in the absence of regulations “flies in the face of due process.” Winn-Dixie not only holds that WCAG 2.0 is the standard to follow, but also requires website audits reoccur every three months to ensure compliance.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Eleventh Circuit Rules for Moms for Liberty in Free Speech Case Against School Board
4 minute read
Judge Dismisses Civilian Investigative Panel Lawsuit: A Setback for Miami's Police Oversight
5 minute read
Judge Sends City of Fort Lauderdale to Trial Over Alleged Police Misconduct in Protest Shooting
4 minute read
Harvard Can't Escape Suit Alleging Indifference to Campus Antisemitism, Judge Rules
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
