ADA Case Law and Statutory Updates
Lawsuits under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, based upon a company’s alleged failure to make its website accessible to the visually impaired or legally blind exploded in 2017 and 2018. In Gil v. Winn-Dixie, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90204, the only known website accessibility case to actually go to trial, Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of Gil, holding that Winn-Dixie’s website was indeed a place of public accommodation inaccessible to persons with visual impairments and holding that: a.) the website had to be fully accessible; and b.) Winn-Dixie was required to implement the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 for its website by an agreed-upon date.
The Gil v. Winn-Dixie case is currently on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. The appellate court heard oral argument on October 4, 2018. Winn Dixie’s arguments were as follows:
- websites are not places of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA;
- the WCAG are not law and the trial court’s adoption of those guidelines violated due process;
- Winn Dixie is in compliance with the ADA because Gil had not been deprived of the full benefit of and equal access to the services and goods in Winn Dixie’s stores.
The 11th Circuit has not yet issued its decision on the appeal. The outcome—particularly if there is a reversal—can potentially dramatically impact the landscape of website accessibility cases, particularly in Florida.
In another important website accessibility case under the ADA, Haynes v. Dunkin’ Donuts, LLC et al., Case No. 18-10373, the 11th Circuit, in a written opinion dated July 31, 2018, reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the website accessibility complaint of Dennis Haynes, a legally blind person. The lower court had concluded that Haynes had failed to properly allege a nexus between barriers to accessing the website and an inability to access services and goods at a physical store. In reversing and remanding the case back down to the trial court, the appellate court found that Haynes had demonstrated “a plausible claim for relief under the ADA.” Thus, the initial victory for those defending ADA lawsuits arising from the trial court’s decision in Haynes was essentially wiped out by the 11th Circuit’s reversal.
Finally the future of the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 remains uncertain. The bill, passed by the House of Representatives, requires amongst other things, pre-suit notice to an owner or operator of a place of public accommodation and an opportunity to cure prior to the filing of a lawsuit under Title III of the ADA. That bill, however, does not appear to have gain any real traction in the Senate where 43 Senators—enough for a filibuster—have pledged, in writing, to block a vote on the Act.
As the law continues to evolve on these matters, please note that this article is current as of date and time of publication and may not reflect subsequent developments. The content and interpretation of the issues addressed herein is subject to change. Cole Schotz P.C. disclaims any and all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this publication to the fullest extent permitted by law. This is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Do not act or refrain from acting upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining legal, financial and tax advice. For further information, please do not hesitate to reach out to your firm contact or to any of the attorneys listed in this publication.
Join Our Mailing List
Stay up to date with the latest insights, events, and more