Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

993 F.3d 1266

Juan Carlos GIL, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., Defendant - Appellant.

No. 17-13467

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

April 7, 2021

David Ferleger, Law Office of David Ferleger, Jenkintown, PA , Joshua Michael Entin, Entin & Della Fera, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Susan Virginia Warner, FisherBroyles, LLP, MIAMI, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Joyce Ackerbaum Cox, Kevin W. Shaughnessy, Baker & Hostetler, LLP, Orlando, FL, for Amicus Curiae the Restaurant Law Center, American Bankers Association, American Hotel & Lodging Association, Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Theatre Owners, National Federation of Independent Businesses, National Multifamily Housing Council, National Association of Convenience Stores, National Association of Realtors, National Retail Federation, American Resort Development Association.

Carol Celeiro Lumpkin, Stephanie N. Moot, K&L Gates, LLP, Miami, FL, for Amicus Curiae Florida Justice Reform Institute.

Gregory Prescott Care, Brown Goldstein & Levy, LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Amicus Curiae National Federation of the Blind, American Council of the Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, Association of Late Deafened Adults, Disability Independence Group, Inc., Disability Rights Advocates, Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, Disability Rights Florida, Florida Council of the Blind, National Association of the Deaf, National Disability Rights Network, National Council on Independent Living, National Federation of the Blind of Florida, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, World Institute on Disability.

Before JILL PRYOR and BRANCH, Circuit Judges, and REEVES,^* District Judge.

BRANCH, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ("Winn-Dixie"), a grocery store chain, operates a website for the convenience of its customers but does not offer any sales directly through the site. Appellee Juan Carlos Gil ("Gil") is a long-time customer with a visual disability who must access websites with screen reader software, which vocalizes the content of the web pages. Unable to access Winn-Dixie's website with his software, Gil filed suit against Winn-Dixie under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").¹ After a bench trial, the district court found that Winn-Dixie's website violated the ADA. Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. , 257 F. Supp. 3d 1340, 1345 (S.D. Fla. 2017). Winn-Dixie timely appealed. After the benefit of oral argument and careful consideration, we vacate and remand.

I.

Winn-Dixie owns and operates grocery stores in the Southeastern United States. It is undisputed that Winn-Dixie only sells goods in its physical stores and does not offer any sales directly through its limited use website. The website's primary functions at issue in this appeal are the ability to re-fill existing prescriptions for in-store pickup, and to link digital manufacturer coupons to the customer's Winn-Dixie rewards card so that the coupons are applied automatically upon check out at a physical store.²

For over fifteen years, Gil, who is legally blind, frequented Winn-Dixie's physical grocery stores to shop and occasionally to fill his prescriptions. Upon learning of the existence of Winn-Dixie's website, Gil visited the site and discovered that it was incompatible with screen reader software, which he uses to access websites and vocalize the site's content.³

On July 1, 2016, Gil brought this action in the form of a single claim under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 – 12189, alleging in his complaint that he was a Winn-Dixie customer, and that he was "interested in filling/refilling pharmacy prescriptions on-line," but was unable to access the website because it was incompatible with screen reader software. Gil alleged that the website itself was "a place of public accommodation under the ADA," and that the website had "a direct nexus to Winn Dixie grocery stores and on-site pharmacies." Thus, he asserted that Winn-Dixie violated the ADA because the website was inaccessible to visually impaired individuals, and, therefore, Winn-Dixie "ha[d] not provided full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations provided by and through its website www.winndixie.com." Gil sought declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney's fees, and costs. In particular, Gil requested an order requiring Winn-Dixie to update its website "to remove barriers in order that individuals with visual disabilities can access the website to the full extent required" by Title III.⁴

Winn-Dixie answered the complaint, admitting that "its physical grocery stores and pharmacies are places of public accommodation," but denying the complaint's allegations that its website was a place of public accommodation and in violation of the ADA. The parties then engaged in discovery, and on October 24, 2016, Winn-Dixie filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), arguing that the ADA's "public accommodation" provisions do not apply to its website because the site is not a physical location and lacks a sufficient "nexus" to any physical location.

On March 15, 2017, the district court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings. Gil v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. , 242 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2017). The court acknowledged that the circuit courts are split on the issue of whether the ADA limits places of public accommodation to physical locations. Id. at 1318. It noted that this Circuit has not specifically determined whether websites are public accommodations under the ADA, but cited Rendon v. Valleycrest Productions, Ltd. , 294 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2002) as offering guidance. The court reasoned that Rendon extends the ADA's coverage to "intangible barriers" that restrict a disabled person's enjoyment of the "goods, services, and privileges" of a public accommodation. Gil , 242 F. Supp. 3d at 1319. It agreed with other district courts within this Circuit that have held that websites are subject to the ADA if a plaintiff shows a sufficient "nexus" between the website and physical premises. Id. at 1319–20. Ultimately, the court concluded that "Winn-Dixie's website is heavily integrated with, and in many ways operates as a gateway to, Winn-Dixie's physical store locations." Id. at 1321. The court thus found that Gil had shown a sufficient nexus between the website and Winn-Dixie's physical stores such that Winn-Dixie was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Gil, the district court held that the website's inaccessibility denied Gil "equal access to the services, privileges, and advantages of Winn-Dixie's physical stores and pharmacies." Id. at 1321. The court also concluded that it "need not determine whether Winn-Dixie's website is a public accommodation in and of itself." Id.

At the bench trial, Gil testified that in the fifteen years during which he shopped in Winn-Dixie stores, when he needed to re-fill a prescription, he would ask an associate to guide him to the pharmacy area where he would tell the pharmacist what he needed, and he would wait anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes for the prescription. He explained that he was uncomfortable requesting his prescription refills in person because he did not know who might be standing near him and could overhear his conversation. Therefore, when he learned Winn-Dixie had a website, he was interested in utilizing its potential online capabilities so that he would not have to request help from Winn-Dixie employees in refilling his prescriptions. Upon determining that he was unable to use much of the website's functionality, however, Gil decided to discontinue shopping at Winn-Dixie's physical stores entirely. He testified at trial that he was "deterred" from going to the physical store, not by any change in the physical access available to him at the physical store, but due to his frustration with the lack of functionality on the website. He last shopped there in the summer of 2016 but testified that he will return to shopping at Winn-Dixie's physical stores when the website is accessible to him.

Gil also mentioned for the first time at trial that he was interested in using the coupon linking option of the website, which permits customers to use the website to link manufacturer's digital coupons to the customer's Winn-Dixie rewards card for automatic application at checkout.⁵ He explained that he used coupons before when he shopped in the physical stores, but due to his visual impairment, the only way for him to get coupons was to ask a friend to read the newspaper coupons to him or ask Winn-Dixie employees for assistance.

After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of Gil, finding that Winn-Dixie had violated Gil's rights under Title III of the ADA.

Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. , 257 F. Supp. 3d 1340 (S.D. Fla. 2017). Specifically, the court noted again that it need not decide whether Winn-Dixie's website is a public accommodation "in and of itself," because the website is "heavily integrated" with Winn-Dixie's physical stores—so much so that it "operates as a gateway to the physical store locations," id. at 1348–49. It held that, as the ADA "requires that disabled people be provided ‘full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation ... ,’ " the fact that the website is "inaccessible to visually impaired individuals who must use screen reader software" means that Winn-Dixie has violated the ADA. Id. at 1349 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) ). The district court issued an injunction that, among other terms, required Winn-Dixie to make its website accessible to individuals with disabilities, specifically by conforming its website—including "third party vendors who...