Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 257 F. Supp. 3d 1340

Background

Plaintiff Juan Carlos Gil is legally blind, uses screen-reader software (primarily JAWS/NVDA), and attempted to use Winn-Dixie’s website to access coupons, store locations, and prescription refills but found it largely inaccessible.
Winn-Dixie operates 495 physical grocery/pharmacy stores; its website links to store locators, digital coupons tied to rewards cards, and online prescription refills for existing prescriptions.
Testing by an accessibility consultant found multiple WCAG-related defects; consultant estimated remediation could be completed for tens of thousands of dollars, while Winn-Dixie allocated $250,000 and acknowledged feasibility of remediation.
Trial testimony established the website is heavily integrated with and serves as a gateway to Winn-Dixie’s physical locations and services used by visually impaired customers.
Court held a non-jury trial, found Gil had standing, concluded Winn-Dixie’s website was inaccessible and denied Gil full and equal enjoyment of services in violation of Title III of the ADA, and granted injunctive relief (remediation per WCAG 2.0) plus process for attorneys’ fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether website is covered by Title III as a service of a public accommodation or as a public accommodation itself	The website is heavily integrated with physical stores and provides services (coupons, pharmacy, store locator) that must be accessible	Website need not be treated as a place of public accommodation; no nexus to physical locations for some websites	Court: website functions as a service/gateway to physical locations and is covered by Title III; no need to decide if websites alone are accommodations
Whether Gil suffered discrimination denying full and equal enjoyment under ADA	Inaccessibility prevented use of digital coupons, private online prescription refills, and store-locator functions, deterring Gil from using Winn-Dixie services	Winn-Dixie argued Gil was not denied access to physical stores and remediation burdens exist	Held: inaccessibility denied full and equal enjoyment of services; violation of ADA proven
Whether remediation of the website is reasonable and readily achievable	WCAG-based fixes are feasible, relatively inexpensive, and effective; consultant offered concrete remediation plan and cost estimate	Winn-Dixie suggested higher projected costs and third-party vendor complexity, but CEO rep conceded feasibility and budgeted funds	Held: remediation is feasible and not unduly burdensome; injunctive relief directing WCAG compliance ordered
Relief and scope/duration of injunction	Plaintiff sought injunctive relief to bring site into WCAG compliance and ongoing policies/testing	Winn-Dixie agreed to remediate but disputed specifics/timing	Held: Court ordered injunctive framework (WCAG 2.0 compliance, accessibility policy, vendor requirements, training, testing, notice-and-cure, three-year injunction) and set procedure for negotiating deadlines and attorneys’ fees process

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability)
Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 247 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir.) (future likelihood of being affected for injunctive relief under ADA)
Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc., 215 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir.) (allegation of intent to patronize again can support ADA injunctive-standing)
Rendon v. Valleycrest Prods., Inc., 294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir.) (Title III covers intangible/communication barriers as well as physical barriers)
Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Target Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 946 (N.D. Cal.) (website integrated with stores can be covered by ADA)
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Fla.) (website without nexus to physical place may not be a public accommodation)
PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (reasonable modification/fact-specific inquiry; fundamental alteration analysis)