Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
The Winn-Dixie case (2016-2021) was the first website accessibility case to go to trial, resulting in a landmark plaintiff victory. Although later reversed on appeal, the case remains influential in defining the scope of ADA web accessibility requirements.
Historic Trial
This was the first ADA website accessibility case to result in a trial verdict. The district court ordered Winn-Dixie to make its website accessible, though the Eleventh Circuit later reversed on jurisdictional grounds.
Case Overview
Case Information
- Full Citation
- Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2017)
- Appeal
- Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 993 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2021)
- Plaintiff
- Juan Carlos Gil (blind individual)
- Defendant
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
Key Issues
- Does ADA Title III apply to websites?
- Is a website a "place of public accommodation"?
- What is required for injunctive relief?
- Does the "nexus" test apply?
Background & Facts
Juan Carlos Gil, a blind man who uses screen reading software, attempted to use Winn-Dixie's website to refill prescriptions and find store locations but encountered significant accessibility barriers. Key facts included:
Accessibility Barriers on Winn-Dixie.com
- Prescription Refills: Online pharmacy refill system inaccessible to screen readers
- Store Locator: Could not find store locations or hours
- Digital Coupons: Coupon functionality not keyboard accessible
- Navigation: Site structure incompatible with assistive technology
Gil testified that he had to rely on sighted assistance to use the website features that Winn-Dixie promoted as convenient alternatives to in-store services.
Case Timeline
Gil files complaint in Southern District of Florida
Court conducts one-day bench trial
District court rules for plaintiff, orders website accessibility
Winn-Dixie appeals to Eleventh Circuit
Eleventh Circuit reverses district court decision
District Court Decision (2017)
Plaintiff Victory at Trial
Judge Robert N. Scola ruled in favor of Gil, finding:
1. Nexus to Physical Stores
The website was heavily integrated with Winn-Dixie's physical stores, providing pharmacy services, coupons, and store information. This nexus brought the website within ADA coverage.
2. Discrimination Occurred
The inaccessible website denied Gil the "full and equal enjoyment" of Winn-Dixie's services.
3. Remedy
Court ordered Winn-Dixie to:
- Conform website to WCAG 2.0 Level AA
- Hire accessibility consultant
- Train web developers
- Conduct annual third-party audits
"The ADA was meant to be a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and its provisions should be construed broadly."
Eleventh Circuit Reversal (2021)
Appeal Overturns Trial Verdict
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court on narrow grounds:
1. Website is Not a "Place"
The court held that ADA Title III requires discrimination to occur at or in a physical place. Since the website itself is not a physical place, it cannot independently violate the ADA.
2. No Barrier to Physical Store
The court found that the inaccessible website did not create a barrier to accessing Winn-Dixie's physical stores. Gil could still enter stores and use in-person services.
3. Nexus Test Rejected
The Eleventh Circuit rejected the "nexus" approach used by other circuits, taking a narrower view of ADA coverage.
Circuit Split Analysis
| Issue | Ninth Circuit (Domino's) | Eleventh Circuit (Winn-Dixie) |
|---|---|---|
| Website as "place" | Services of a place are covered | Must occur at physical place |
| Nexus test | Websites connected to stores covered | Nexus insufficient for coverage |
| Online-only businesses | May be covered | Likely not covered |
| States covered | AZ, CA, NV, OR, WA, ID, MT, AK, HI | AL, FL, GA |
Practical Implications
For Organizations
- Risk varies by circuit location
- National companies should assume coverage
- WCAG 2.1 AA remains best practice
- Proactive accessibility reduces litigation risk
- State laws may still apply (CA, NY)
For Plaintiffs
- Venue selection critical
- State law claims may be stronger in 11th Circuit
- Focus on connection to physical access barriers
- Document specific harm from inaccessibility
Lessons from Winn-Dixie
- Legal uncertainty continues: Different circuits have different standards
- State laws fill gaps: California, New York, and other state laws provide broader protection
- Business case remains: Regardless of legal requirements, accessible websites serve more customers
- Compliance is prudent: National businesses should assume ADA coverage
- DOJ rulemaking awaited: Clear federal guidance would resolve circuit split
Related Cases
Case Summary
- Trial Verdict
- Plaintiff won (2017)
- Appeal Result
- Reversed by 11th Circuit (2021)
- Significance
- First ADA web trial; created circuit split
- Coverage
- 11th Circuit: AL, FL, GA
Circuit Split
Narrower View: 11th Circuit (Winn-Dixie)
Broader View: 9th Circuit (Domino's), 1st, 2nd, 7th Circuits