11th Circuit finds websites aren't places of public accommodation

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides "no individual shall be discriminated against 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." In a recent case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama employers) for the first time addressed whether websites are covered by Title III's prohibition against disability discrimination in places of public accommodation.

The court concluded (1) the protection is limited to actual physical places and doesn't cover websites, and (2) a grocery chain's limited-use website didn't function as an intangible barrier to accessing the goods or services at its physical stores.

Facts

Juan Carlos Gil, who is legally blind, said he frequently shopped at Winn-Dixie's physical grocery stores in the past. He claimed he then sought to use the company's website to refill his prescriptions and obtain coupons, but it wasn't compatible with the screen reader software he used to try to access the site and vocalize its content.

Gil alleged Winn-Dixie violated Title III because the website was inaccessible to visually impaired individuals. In response, the company argued it hadn't violated the ADA because its website wasn't a "place of public accommodation." Unlike its physical stores, the website lacked a physical location or sufficient nexus to any physical location to be considered a public accommodation, according to the company.