Gil v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
OPINION, VERDICT AND ORDER Following Non-Jury Trial Signed by Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr on 6/12/2017. (yha) Modified to convert to Opinion on 6/13/2017 (yha).
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
Juan Carlos Gil, Plaintiff
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., Defendant
) Civil Action No. 16-23020-Civ-Scola
Verdict and Order Following Non-Jury Trial
The Plaintiff brings this action under Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189 (the “ADA”), alleging that
the Defendant’s website, www.winndixie.com, is inaccessible to the visually
impaired. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as
attorneys’ fees and costs.
Juan Carlos Gil is a visually impaired individual who is a customer of
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. (“Winn-Dixie”). Winn-Dixie is the owner and operator of
a regional chain of grocery stores, some of which have pharmacies. The parties
do not dispute that Gil has a qualified disability under the ADA. The parties
also do not dispute that Winn-Dixie’s grocery stores and pharmacies are public
accommodations as defined by the ADA. The issues remaining to be
determined are: (1) whether Winn-Dixie’s website is subject to the ADA as a
service of a public accommodation, or, in the alternative, whether the website
is a public accommodation in and of itself; (2) whether Gil was denied the full
and equal enjoyment of Winn-Dixie’s goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations because of his disability; and (3) whether the
requested modifications to Winn-Dixie’s website are reasonable and readily
On June 5 and 6, 2017, the Court held a non-jury trial. Prior to the trial,
the parties submitted a Joint Pretrial Stipulation (ECF No. 34), as well as their
proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (ECF Nos. 38, 39.) The Court
has carefully reviewed these submissions. After considering the credible
testimony and evidence, and the applicable law, the Court finds that the
Defendant has violated the Plaintiff’s rights under the ADA. As a result, the
Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff on Count One of the Complaint.
1. Findings of Fact
The Court heard testimony from three witnesses: Juan Carlos Gil,
Rodney Cornwell, and Chris Keroack. There were virtually no disputes in the
testimony and evidence and the Court found all three witnesses to be credible
Plaintiff, Juan Carlos Gil, has resided in Miami for 25 years. He is
visually impaired, is legally blind and has cerebral palsy. He lives in the area of
SW 27th Avenue and Coral Way. He wears glasses because he has optic nerve
hypoglasia. The glasses help protect his eyes from foreign objects.
He is able to use a computer but cannot see the screen. He uses access
technology software. He uses JAWS or other screen reader software. The screen
reader automatically tells Gil what is going on on the website. Every time he
hits the tab or shift tab the program will tell him what he needs to type. He
cannot use a mouse but uses a keyboard.
He uses JAWS 95% of the time. If JAWS crashes, he needs to have
alternate screen access programs. He has used these screen access programs
for over 25 years. He uses JAWS most often because it is the industry
NVDA is a consortium of individuals who are blind who have created an
access method for people who cannot afford JAWS. JAWS costs about $1200.
Gil uses NVDA sometimes but its functions are rudimentary and JAWS works
much better than NVDA.
NVDA has human sounding voices and JAWS has robotic voices.
Gil has also used Voiceover software when he uses his Mac Book Pro
which is an excellent screen access program.
Windows has the Narrator screen access software but it does not work
well at all.
There is no federal organization that mandates particulars of website
accessibility. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) is produced by
a consortium of private organizations whose goal is to make websites accessible
Gil also uses the Google search engine to locate businesses but it is
faster to go directly to the business’ website.
Gil used internet browsers Firefox, Internet Explorer and Safari on his
different computers to access the Winn-Dixie website. He used Dell laptop and
Mac computers to try to access the website.
Gil has worked with Florida Vision Technology for the past five years
helping individuals maximize their potential with software. Prior to that, he
volunteered for different organizations.
Gil has been a customer of Winn-Dixie. He went to school in 1999-2000
at the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind in St. Augustine, Florida. He
graduated in 2002.
He was in a vending program and the school did a trip for the students to
go to Winn-Dixie to learn how to use the services to buy products for the
vending stand they were operating.
Since his only income at the time of graduation was from Social Security,
Gil continued to use Winn-Dixie due to its low prices. The majority of WinnDixies have pharmacies and Gil sometimes used the pharmacies to fill his
Gil most recently used the Winn-Dixie in the summer of 2015 in the area
of 27th Avenue. He has a Winn-Dixie rewards card.
Over the years, he shopped at Winn-Dixie 30 – 40 times. It is his main
grocery store because of its low prices.
The last time he filled a prescription at Winn-Dixie was 2.5 to 3 years
To refill the prescription, he would go into the store and ask someone to
assist him. A store employee would walk him to the area of the pharmacy and
he would tell the pharmacist what he needed. But he felt uncomfortable
because he did not know who else was nearby listening.
He has used Walgreens and Publix to fill prescriptions. Sometimes he
goes to the store to pick up the prescription and sometimes they would deliver
the prescription to his home by carrier.
Without an accessible website, his only way of getting coupons was to
have a friend read the coupons from a newspaper. He would also ask
employees to find coupons for him but sometimes the employees seemed
annoyed by his request for help.
In 2015-2016, he learned Winn-Dixie had a website and people in
numerous organizations, including the Center for Independent Living,
American Council of the Blind and National Federation of the Blind, told him
the website was accessible. Gil was already familiar with using the screen
Gil heard ads on TV for the Winn-Dixie website and heard one could
access coupons and refill prescriptions online. He was interested since he
could finally do something independently without asking somebody for help.
When he accessed the Winn-Dixie website, some tabs worked but 90%
did not work. Once you enter the website, you usually hit tab until you find a
combo box like a box announcing “store hours” or “pharmacy.” When the
website is interfacing properly with the JAWS, you would then press enter and
that would take you into the specific sub-category. But, when he tabbed
through the website he could not access any of the sub-categories. He spent
about a half an hour on the website but was not able to access any information
including store locator. On other websites, he has been able to access store
locations. By pressing “control s” most websites take you to a search box in
which you can type the specific information you are looking for. But this was
not available on the Winn-Dixie website.
Gil has been on 500-600 other websites that actually work with the
screen reader software.
An accessibility notice is put on a website by the creator to showcase
that the website is working diligently to create a better experience for the lowvision or blind users. No accessibility notice was found on the Winn-Dixie
website. Nothing on the Winn-Dixie website announced any proposed changes
to be made in 2017.
When the website is accessible, Gil is 100% certain he will return to
using Winn-Dixie stores. The inaccessibility of the website has deterred Gil
from enjoying Winn-Dixie’s goods and services.
Gil wants to be able to refill prescriptions online so he does not have to
orally announce to the person at the store what medications he is filling to
protect his privacy under HIPPA.
Gil travels to several cities in Florida including Jacksonville, Tampa,
Orlando and Tallahassee to participate in Para-Olympic events. He travels with
a laptop with screen reader software and he would want to be able to find a
Winn-Dixie store through the Winn-Dixie website.
Gil has used other grocery stores because from their website he can
create a shopping list and just hand it to the employee and he could use
coupons he obtains from the website and he can pick up prescriptions in
privacy. Both Publix and Walgreens have websites which he can use with his
screen reader software.
Gil has gone on several federal government websites including NOAA and
the Social Security Administration and his screen reader software, both for
Windows and Mac, works well on those federal websites.
Rodney Cornwell testified in his capacity as corporate representative for
Winn-Dixie. Southeastern Grocers is the parent company of Winn-Dixie and he
is the vice president of IT, Application and Delivery. He is the person with the
most knowledge regarding website digital applications.
Winn-Dixie currently is building an ADA policy for its website but does
not have one as of today. It is feasible for the website to be modified to be
accessible to the disabled and independent of this law suit, Winn-Dixie is
taking steps to modify the website and will modify the website to make it
accessible to the disabled. Winn-Dixie is considering the WCAG guidelines
among other sources in determining how to address the accessibility issue. The
present website has not been tested by Winn-Dixie for use with universal
There is a whole new group in the executive management of Winn-Dixie
and many of the new leaders came from Australia where disability accessibility
was mandated and this new group decided to modify the website to make sure
it is accessible by the disabled.
There are 6 different third parties, including Google and American
Express, who interface with Winn-Dixie’s website so Winn-Dixie needs to make
sure that those third parties also make sure that their websites are accessible.
Winn-Dixie intends to implement the modification to its website by getting
everyone, including the third party vendors, on board.
Winn-Dixie has set aside $250,000 for the project to make its website
accessible. Winn-Dixie is trying to determine what the appropriate standard for
the website should be. There are multiple screen readers and multiple browsers
that need to be accommodated. There are quite a few screen reader companies
Winn-Dixie does not conduct any sales directly from its website but the
website does allow customers to access digital coupons and click a “plus” sign
which would link that coupon to the customer’s Winn-Dixie card and when the
customer purchased the item in the store, the value of the coupon would be
automatically applied. The only way to have a digital coupon that links up to a
customer’s reward card is through the Winn-Dixie website.
The website also allows a customer to locate a store near him or her.
There are currently 495 stores in Georgia, Florida, Alabama Louisiana and
From the “pharmacy” tab on the website, one can refill prescriptions,
manage your account among other options. The website allows one to choose
any of the Winn-Dixie stores with a pharmacy to pick up the prescription.
A new prescription cannot be filled online but existing prescriptions can
be refilled online. A customer would need to go to the Winn-Dixie store to pick
up the prescription. There is no delivery service.
Cornwell has learned that technology exists that allows a website to be
coded in such a way to interface with screen reader software.
Winn-Dixie knows that it is feasible to make its website accessible to
screen reader software and has set aside $250,000 to do this. This amount was
based upon high level input, including from prior experience in Australia where
accessibility was mandated.
The current website was created in September 2015 and at that time,
there was no discussion whatsoever about the website’s accessibility to the
When the Plenti rewards program was rolled out in early 2017 there were
modifications made to the website at the cost of $7 million but there was no
effort to make the website accessible to the disabled. The modifications to the
website went far beyond just implementing the Plenti program. There is a
template component, content component and functionality component.
Chris Keroack resides in Bothel, Washington and works at Equal Entry,
a company that tests mobile and web software for accessibility issues.
Keroack started at Microsoft in 1994 and was a software tester on the
team for Microsoft Works. He later worked on the Windows development group
and was responsible for accessibility testing advice.
He worked for another company specializing in web accessibility until
working for Equal Entry.
Web accessibility is about ensuring that all people are able to use the
web regardless of any physical or mental disabilities.
Keroack is familiar with screen reader software which works with a web
browser and page to describe the contents of the web page with a user-selected
If the web page is using the common industry standards or following the
World Wide Web Consortium accessibility guidelines then screen reader
software should work on the web page. The consortium is made up of a group
of committees and subcommittees with representatives from government and
Keroack was asked to do an analysis of the Winn-Dixie website. He used
automated and manual means. The automated means called Access Lint
searches for source code of the website. He also used manual testing including
using the NVDA screen reader software to test whether the software allowed
one to successfully obtain information from the website.
Keroack is familiar with the JAWS screen reader software which is one of
the original technologies. Both JAWS and NVDA are substantial market
leaders. NVDA adheres as closely as possible to the WCAG guidelines. JAWS
has additional codes that allows it to work around or anticipate common issues
on a website or webpage.
Keroack tested the main website as well as the digital coupon, store
locator, and pharmacy sections.
Keroack did not conduct a complete audit but did a brief overview of the
most critical and obvious functionality on the Winn-Dixie website attempting to
perform simple tasks that it would be reasonable to expect someone to do who
used the website.
Keroack opines that most of the accessibility issues can be corrected
with simple modifications of one or two source codes. The WCAG address all of
the issues/problems found on the Winn-Dixie website.
WCAG is the industry standard for accessibility and the current version
WCAG 2.0 was finalized in 2008 and was adopted as an international
organizations standard in 2012.
The federal government’s Access Board, through a refresh of § 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act which was finalized in January 2017, has virtually adopted
the WCAG guidelines.
Keroack estimates that thousands of businesses in E-commerce are
using the WCAG guidelines.
Keroack recommends that Winn-Dixie conduct a full audit of the website
which would take three weeks. A report would then be prepared which would
be referred to in making the modifications.
Keroack believes that if Equal Access were hired to conduct a full audit it
would cost $9,000 to $11,000. After identifying the problems through the
audit, it would take 80 to 100 hours at a billable rate of $200 per hour or
$16,000 to $20,000. This would be followed by a smaller version of the audit at
a cost of $4,000 to $6,000. Thus, his company could fix all the problems for
$37,000 or less. This is a ballpark estimate which could change based upon
the results of the full audit. Keroack can’t imagine that it would ever cost in the
neighborhood of $250,000 to fix the issues.
In Keroack’s experience, it is not difficult to work with third parties who
are part of the website. And, many of the third party vendors may already have
appropriate accessibility software consistent with WCAG guidelines.
For instance, Google Maps, which is used as part of the store locator
feature on the Winn-Dixie website, already has WCAG compliant accessibility.
All of the main internet browsers such as Google Chrome, Internet
Explorer, and Safari comply with WCAG guidelines. If your website is
accessible through one of those browsers, it should be accessible for anyone
using the other main browsers. There are other lesser known and lesser used
browsers. If a company’s website is accessible to the main browsers but not for
a lesser browser, it is most likely the responsibility of the browser, not the
company, to correct any problems. The same reasoning applies to screen
reader programs. If a company’s website is compatible with a main screen
reader program such as NVDA or JAWS and is not compatible with a lesser
used screen reader program, the burden is on the program, not the company to
resolve the problem.
The Court finds that whether the cost to modify the website is $250,000
or $37,000 is of no moment. Though that higher cost seems high, it pales in
comparison to the $2 million Winn-Dixie spent in 2015 to open the website and
the $7 million it spent in 2016 to remake the website for the Plenti program.
Plus, Cornwell unequivocally testified that it is feasible to make the
modifications and that Winn-Dixie is currently in the process of making those
The Court also finds that the fact that third party vendors operate certain
parts of the Winn-Dixie website is not a legal impediment to Winn-Dixie’s
obligation to make its website accessible to the disabled. First, many, if not
most, of the third party vendors may already be accessible to the disabled and,
if not, Winn-Dixie has a legal obligation to require them to be accessible if they
choose to operate within the Winn-Dixie website.
2. Conclusions of Law
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter under the ADA. As an initial
matter, the Court must address whether Gil has standing to bring his claim. A
plaintiff has standing to bring a claim if the following three elements are met:
(1) the plaintiff has suffered an injury in fact; (2) there is a causal connection
between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it is likely that the
injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (citations omitted). In order to obtain injunctive relief,
a party must also show a sufficient likelihood that he will be affected by the
allegedly unlawful conduct in the future. Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of Univ.
System of Georgia, 247 F.3d 1262, 1283 (11th Cir. 2001).
A plaintiff’s allegation that he intends on visiting the subject premises in
the near future is sufficient to establish standing to seek injunctive relief under
the ADA. See Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc., 215 F.3d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir.
2000) (holding that allegation that the plaintiff would take another cruise
aboard the defendant’s ship in the near future was sufficient to properly plead
standing to seek injunctive relief under the ADA). Since Gil alleges that he tried
unsuccessfully to access Winn-Dixie’s website and that he intends to patronize
Winn-Dixie stores again if he can access Winn-Dixie’s website, he has
sufficiently alleged both an injury in fact and a sufficient likelihood that he will
continue to be affected by the inaccessibility of the website. In addition, there is
a causal connection between the injury and the alleged inaccessibility of the
website, and it is likely that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.
Therefore, Gil has standing to bring his claim.
Title III of the ADA prohibits the owner of a place of public
accommodation from discriminating “on the basis of disability in the full and
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations of any place of public accommodation . . . .” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12182(a). There is no dispute that Gil is visually impaired, or that WinnDixie’s physical store locations are public accommodations. Thus, the Court
must determine whether, as a result of the fact that he is visually impaired, Gil
was denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.
The ADA defines a public accommodation as a private entity whose
operations affect commerce, and which falls within one of twelve enumerated
categories. 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7). Courts are split on whether the ADA limits
places of public accommodation to physical spaces. Those circuits that have
concluded that places of public accommodation must be physical spaces have
held that the goods and services provided by a public accommodation must
have a sufficient nexus to a physical place in order to be covered by the ADA.
See, e.g., Earll v. Ebay, Inc., 599 Fed. App’x. 695, 696 (9th Cir. 2015) (the term
“place of public accommodation” requires some connection between the good or
service alleged to be discriminatory and a physical place); see also Rendon v.
Valleycrest Prods., Inc., 294 F.3d 1279, 1284 n.8 (11th Cir. 2002) (noting that
some courts require a nexus between the challenged service and the premises
of the public accommodation). The Eleventh Circuit has not addressed whether
websites are public accommodations for purposes of the ADA. However, in
Rendon v. Valleycrest Prods., Inc., the Eleventh Circuit noted that the plain
language of Title III of the ADA covers both tangible, physical barriers that
prevent a disabled person from accessing a public accommodation, as well as
“intangible barriers, such as eligibility requirements and screening rules or
discriminatory policies and procedures that restrict a disabled person’s ability
to enjoy the defendant entity’s goods, services and privileges . . . .” 249 F.3d at
Where a website is heavily integrated with physical store locations and
operates as a gateway to the physical store locations, courts have found that
the website is a service of a public accommodation and is covered by the ADA.
Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F.Supp.2d 946, 953-55 (N.D. Cal.
2006); see also Gomez v. J. Lindeberg, Inc., No. 16-22966, ECF No. 23, at *3
(S.D. Fla. Oct. 17, 2016) (Williams, J.) (finding that a plaintiff stated a claim
that the defendant’s website violated the ADA because the plaintiff alleged that
the website was inaccessible to blind individuals and allowed customers to
purchase the defendant’s clothing online and search for store locations). On
the other hand, where a website is wholly unconnected to a physical location,
courts within the Eleventh Circuit have held that the website is not covered by
the ADA. Gomez v. Bang & Olufsen Am., Inc., No. 16-23801, at 8 (S.D. Fla. Feb.
2, 2017) (Lenard, J.) (holding that a website that is wholly unconnected to a
physical location is generally not a place of public accommodation under the
ADA); Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines, Co., 227 F.2d 1312, 1321 (S.D.
Fla. 2002) (Seitz, J.) (dismissing complaint because the plaintiffs failed to
establish a nexus between the defendant’s website and a physical, concrete
place of public accommodation); Kidwell v. Florida Comm’n on Human
Relations, No. 2:16-403, 2017 WL 176897, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 17, 2017)
(holding that a website is not a public accommodation under the ADA, and
dismissing the plaintiff’s ADA claim in part because the plaintiff could not
demonstrate that the website’s inaccessibility prevented his access to a
specific, physical, concrete space).
The Court need not decide whether Winn-Dixie’s website is a public
accommodation in and of itself, because the factual findings demonstrate that
the website is heavily integrated with Winn-Dixie’s physical store locations and
operates as a gateway to the physical store locations. Although Winn-Dixie
argues that Gil has not been denied access to Winn-Dixie’s physical store
locations as a result of the inaccessibility of the website, the ADA does not
merely require physical access to a place of public accommodation. Rather, the
ADA requires that disabled individuals be provided “full and equal enjoyment of
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any
place of public accommodation . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). 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. These services, privileges, advantages, and accommodations
are especially important for visually impaired individuals since it is difficult, if
not impossible, for such individuals to use paper coupons found in newspapers
or in the grocery stores, to locate the physical stores by other means, and to
physically go to a pharmacy location in order to fill prescriptions.
The factual findings demonstrate that Winn-Dixie’s website is
inaccessible to visually impaired individuals who must use screen reader
software. Therefore, Winn-Dixie has violated the ADA because the
inaccessibility of its website has denied Gil the full and equal enjoyment of the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations that
Winn-Dixie offers to its sighted customers.
Accordingly, the Court finds in favor of the Plaintiff on Count One of the
Under the ADA, a prevailing plaintiff is not entitled to damages, but he
may recover reasonable attorneys' fees. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188(a), 12205, 2000a–
3(b). Injunctive relief is available under the ADA if the discrimination includes
“a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that
are structural in nature, in existing facilities . . . where such removal is readily
achievable.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188(a)(2), 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). In addition, the ADA:
[R]equires without exception that any policies, practices, or procedures of
a public accommodation be reasonably modified for disabled individuals
as necessary to afford access unless doing so would fundamentally alter
what is offered. To comply with this command, an individualized inquiry
must be made to determine whether a specific modification for a
particular person’s disability would be reasonable under the
circumstances as well as necessary for that person, and yet at the same
time not work a fundamental alteration.
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 688 (2001) (internal quotations and
citations omitted); see also Ass’n for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Concorde
Gaming Corp., 158 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (Highsmith, J.)
(citations omitted) (the determination of whether a particular modification is
reasonable involves a fact specific inquiry that considers, among other things,
the effectiveness of the modification and the cost of implementation).
Winn-Dixie has presented no evidence to establish that it would be
unduly burdensome to make its website accessible to visually impaired
individuals. To the contrary, its corporate representative unequivocally testified
that modifying the website to make it accessible to the visual impaired was
feasible. Remediation measures in conformity with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
will provide Gil and other visually impaired consumers the ability to access
Winn-Dixie’s website and permit full and equal enjoyment of the services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided through WinnDixie’s website. Gil has proven that he is entitled to injunctive relief.
4. Attorneys’ Fees
As the prevailing party, the Court, in its discretion, may allow Gil to
recover reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12188(a), 12205,
2000a–3(b). If a motion for fees is required, Gil shall file such a motion in a
Irrespective of the motion, within 10 days from this order, Gil shall
provide Winn-Dixie with its detailed, itemized request for attorneys’ fees.
Within 10 days of receipt, Winn-Dixie shall notify Gil of any objections to
the fees request. The objection shall be specific and particularized as to date,
time expended and reason for the objection.
Within 5 days of receipt of the objections, Gil shall notify Winn-Dixie of
its position on the objections.
If there are unresolved objections, the Court will schedule an evidentiary
hearing to resolve those objections. The parties must take depositions of any
anticipated witnesses prior to the hearing.
If after the hearing the Court determines that Winn-Dixie has
unreasonably objected to any of the fees, the Court will not hesitate to impose
sanctions against Winn-Dixie and its attorneys, including, but not limited to,
attorneys’ fees and costs.
Conversely, if after the hearing Court determines that Gil has
unreasonably sought any of its fees, the Court will not hesitate to impose
sanctions against Gil and his attorneys, including, but not limited to,
attorneys’ fees and costs.
5. Terms of Injunction
The parties shall meet and confer to attempt to agree on the time periods
for the following terms which shall be included in the injunction and shall file a
joint report with their positions by no later than June 30, 2017. Any terms
about which the parties agree shall be in regular font. For terms about which
the parties disagree, the Plaintiff’s proposal shall be presented in underlined
font and the Defendant’s proposal shall be in bold font. Any additional terms
requested by either party shall also be included in the joint report.
Pursuant to the terms of this Order and Injunction, Winn-Dixie, Inc.:
Shall not, no later than __(date)__________, deny individuals with
disabilities, including the Plaintiff, the opportunity to participate and benefit
from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations
provided through its website www.winndixie.com. The website must be
accessible by individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops, tablets,
and smart phones.
Shall not, no later than __(date)__________, provide individuals with
disabilities, including the Plaintiff, an unequal opportunity to participate and
benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations provided through its website www.winndixie.com. The website
must be accessible by individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops,
tablets and smart phones.
No later than ________(date)_______, shall adopt and implement a Web
Accessibility Policy which ensures that its website conforms with the WCAG 2.0
No later than __(date)__________, shall require any third party vendors
who participate on its website to be fully accessible to the disabled by
conforming with WCAG 2.0 criteria.
No later than __(date)__________, shall make publicly available and
directly link from the www.winndixie.com homepage, a statement of WinnDixie’s Accessibility Policy to ensure the persons with disabilities have full and
equal enjoyment of its website and shall accompany the public policy
statement with an accessible means of submitting accessibility questions and
No later than __(date)__________, and at least once yearly thereafter, shall
provide mandatory web accessibility training to all employees who write or
develop programs or code for, or who publish final content to,
www.winndixie.com on how to conform all web content and services with
WCAG 2.0 criteria.
No later than __(date)__________, and at least once every three months
thereafter, shall conduct automated accessibility tests of its website to identify
any instances where the website is no longer in conformance with WCAG 2.0.
If the Plaintiff believes the Injunction has been violated, he shall give
notice (including reasonable particulars) to the Defendant of such violation.
The Defendant shall have 30 days from the notice to investigate and correct
any alleged violations. If the Defendant fails to correct the violation, the Plaintiff
may then seek relief from the Court.
In light of what the Court has already found to be the Defendant’s
sincere and serious intent to make its website accessible to all, this Injunction
will expire in three years.
Done and ordered at Miami, Florida on June 12, 2017.
Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?