Web Access Federal Appeals Court Addresses Accessibility

Jackson Lewis: Federal Appeals Court Holds ADA Does Not Require Websites To Be Accessible

Awebsite is not a “place of public accommodation,” and an inaccessible website is not necessarily equal to the denial of goods or services, a federal appeals court held in a groundbreaking decision under Title III of the ADA. Gil v. WinnDixie Stores, Inc., No. 17-13467 (11th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021).

The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

Places of Public Accommodation On the issue of whether websites are “places of public accommodation,” the 11th Circuit held that a website is not a place of public accommodation because the statutory definition of “public accommodation” clearly included only physical locations, and the court refused to judicially amend Title III’s definition to include websites.

Access to Goods or Services The 11th Circuit also held that, even if a website was a service of a place of public accommodation, Winn-Dixie did not discriminate by not having a screen-reader-compatible website as an auxiliary aid because individuals with disabilities had full access to the goods and services offered in the physical store.

The court found significant that the plaintiff had filled prescriptions and used paper coupons in the store for many years without difficulty. The court noted that he could continue to do so in the store despite the website’s alternative, and often faster, ways to do so. The 11th Circuit held the ADA requires that disabled patrons be given equal access to those goods and services but not necessarily in the identical way as non-disabled patrons.

While the 11th Circuit appeared to say that as long as a disabled patron is able to purchase goods and services at the physical store, there is no claim under Title III if the disabled patron cannot also purchase such goods through a website, the court did not squarely address this issue given that Winn-Dixie’s website did not sell goods.

Implications The 11th Circuit’s decision is significant for businesses that operate only online because it holds that a website itself is not a place of public accommodation to which the ADA applies. In addition, brick-and-mortar businesses, such as restaurants, that provide alternative means for disabled patrons to obtain goods and services, such as in-person or by phone or email instead of just through a website, would find good points in the court’s decision. The 11th Circuit’s decision also underscores the utility of having an accessibility statement providing an alternative means of obtaining information or goods contained on a website or providing assistance in using the website.

It remains possible that the plaintiff will seek further review that could impact this decision. Moreover, other laws may apply that change the analysis. You should seek legal guidance to determine the correct course with respect to your website-related operations.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about this case.

©2021 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Focused on labor and employment law since 1958, Jackson Lewis P.C.’s 950-plus attorneys located in major cities nationwide consistently identify and respond to new ways workplace law intersects business. We help employers develop proactive strategies, strong policies and business-oriented solutions to cultivate high-functioning workforces that are engaged, stable and diverse, and share our clients’ goals to emphasize inclusivity and respect for the contribution of every employee. For more information, visit JacksonLewis.com.