Federal Appellate Court Holds That Not All Business Websites Must Be Accessible To Disabled Persons


On April 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (“11th Circuit”) held in Gil v. Winn-Dixie that a business’s website is not a place of public accommodation under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  A public accommodation is defined as a business that is generally open to the public, and that falls into one of 12 categories listed in the ADA, such as restaurants, movie theaters, schools, daycare facilities, recreation facilities, and doctors' offices. The ADA’s Title III prohibits discrimination in the services and activities offered by places of public accommodation based on an individual’s disability.  Although websites are not specifically defined by ADA as places of public accommodation, nonetheless, some courts have held that they are such, and therefore the ADA’s regulations apply to them.

A spate of lawsuits has been filed against employers based on the theory that websites are places of public accommodation.  In particular, these lawsuits allege that customers with visual impairments cannot access these websites, and therefore the services and activities offered to them by the business that hosts the website are not the same as that offered to non-visually impaired customers, therefore the websites are discriminatory.

Gil v. Winn-Dixie

The case of Gil v. Winn-Dixie (a supermarket chain), was decided on April 7, 2021 by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  The plaintiff in Winn-Dixie, Juan Carlos Gil, who is legally blind, alleged that he could not use the Winn-Dixie website to re-fill pharmaceutical prescriptions and link online coupons to his Winn-Dixie store card. Winn-Dixie’s website did not integrate with screen reader software for the visually impaired, preventing him and other visually impaired customers from using it. Gil claimed that he was denied “the full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations” of the retailer because he could not use Winn-Dixie’s website.

The 11th Circuit concluded that the Winn-Dixie website is not a place of public accommodation. The Court further ruled that Gil could access the goods and services of the supermarket chain because he had access to the physical locations of the store. Indeed, Gil had to visit Winn-Dixie’s physical stores to purchase goods, fill his prescriptions, and use coupons.  The 11th Circuit noted that Gil had shopped at Winn-Dixie’s physical stores for approximately 15 years, and nothing prevented him from continuing to do so.  Therefore, the Court explained, failing to have access to the Winn-Dixie website does not constitute discrimination.  

Although the 11th Circuit decision offers some hope for employers in defending against lawsuits alleging their websites are not ADA compliant, there are other circuits that have already ruled that websites are a public accommodation.  Down the line, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to resolve this split in the circuit courts. 

TAKEAWAY: Until New Jersey courts clarify exceptions to the general rule that websites must be accessible to the visually impaired, New Jersey employers should continue to make all websites ADA compliant.

If you are an employer and need help navigating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act or any other employment laws, contact Stephanie Gironda or any member of the Wilentz Employment Law Team.


The postings on this blog were created for general informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services.  Although we attempt to ensure that the postings are complete, accurate, and current as of the time of publication, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.  The information in this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship.  Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.

This blog may contain links to independent third party websites and services, including social media. We provide these links for your convenience, and you access them at your own risk.  We have no control over and do not monitor the content or policies (including privacy policies) of these third-party websites and have no responsibility for, and no liability with respect to, their content, accuracy, or reliability.  Unless expressly stated, we do not endorse any of the linked websites or any product, service, or publication referenced herein or therein.  We will remove a link to any site from this blog upon request of the linked entity.

We grant permission to readers to link to this blog so long as this blog is not misrepresented. This site is not sponsored or associated with any other site unless so identified.

If you wish for Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, P.A., to consider representing you, please obtain contact information from the Contact Us area of this blog or go to the firm’s website at www.wilentz.com.  One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. However, the authors of Wilentz blogs are licensed only in New Jersey and/or New York and do not wish to represent anyone who viewed this site in a state where the site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.

Thank you for your interest in Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer P.A.’s legal blogs. You will receive an email sent to the address entered in order to confirm your subscription. Please watch for it and click the link to confirm your subscription.