Rulings
On June 6th, 2017 District Court Judge Robert Scola brought forward the final ruling of Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. In the proceedings, he stated the Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. is held liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Article III. He further explained that there is a nexus between Winn-Dixie Store Inc.'s physical stores their website, Winn-Dixie.Com. The injunction of the case was that Mr. Gil was fully entitled to attorney fees, Winn-Dixie is required to comply with the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), and Winn-Dixie will provide accessibility training to all employees who perform work on Winndixie.com. Along with this, they must ensure that any third-party vendors that they use will understand the terms …show more content…
Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. was the first time that there was a lawsuit on website accessibility under the ADA to go to trial. However, since then there have been similar cases. The common ruling behind all of these cases are that the court found that there was a common nexus between website's goods and services, and those provided at the physical stores. One example is the National Federation for the Blind v. Target. This case included a group of visually impaired plaintiffs that claimed they could not access Target's website to purchase products, redeem gift cards, or find Target store locations via website. This case was ruled in the favor of the National Federation for the Blind, and Target was forced to make their website more …show more content…
Winn Dixie Stores Inc., and the violation of the American with Disabilities Act, Article III it is clear that Winn-Dixie was not abiding by the terms of the ADA. Mr. Gil could have handled the situation differently by not filing a complaint, but because he took action he brought the problem to Winn-Dixie's attention. This case shows us that public places of accommodations should hire third parties to assist them to ensure their websites meet ADA requirements. It was reported that Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. set aside $250,000 to revamp their website to provide goods and services to those with disabilities. I visited WinnDixie.Com. and I noticed that they now have a bolded section about website accessibility. This section explains how to contact them with issues and accessibility questions. It also explains that their website is currently in the process of abiding by the WCAG, as its accessibility standard. They also have stated on their website that, "Our website will be tested on a periodic basis with assistive technology such as screen readers and screen magnifiers, and with users with disabilities who use these technologies." I believe this shows that Winn-Dixie is making huge efforts to follow the law. I admire Winn-Dixie for following their code of ethics, and following the procedure set forth by the
On June 6th, 2017 District Court Judge Robert Scola brought forward the final ruling of Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. In the proceedings, he stated the Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. is held liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Article III. He further explained that there is a nexus between Winn-Dixie Store Inc.'s physical stores their website, Winn-Dixie.Com. The injunction of the case was that Mr. Gil was fully entitled to attorney fees, Winn-Dixie is required to comply with the Website Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), and Winn-Dixie will provide accessibility training to all employees who perform work on Winndixie.com. Along with this, they must ensure that any third-party vendors that they use will understand the terms …show more content…
Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. was the first time that there was a lawsuit on website accessibility under the ADA to go to trial. However, since then there have been similar cases. The common ruling behind all of these cases are that the court found that there was a common nexus between website's goods and services, and those provided at the physical stores. One example is the National Federation for the Blind v. Target. This case included a group of visually impaired plaintiffs that claimed they could not access Target's website to purchase products, redeem gift cards, or find Target store locations via website. This case was ruled in the favor of the National Federation for the Blind, and Target was forced to make their website more …show more content…
Winn Dixie Stores Inc., and the violation of the American with Disabilities Act, Article III it is clear that Winn-Dixie was not abiding by the terms of the ADA. Mr. Gil could have handled the situation differently by not filing a complaint, but because he took action he brought the problem to Winn-Dixie's attention. This case shows us that public places of accommodations should hire third parties to assist them to ensure their websites meet ADA requirements. It was reported that Winn-Dixie Stores Inc. set aside $250,000 to revamp their website to provide goods and services to those with disabilities. I visited WinnDixie.Com. and I noticed that they now have a bolded section about website accessibility. This section explains how to contact them with issues and accessibility questions. It also explains that their website is currently in the process of abiding by the WCAG, as its accessibility standard. They also have stated on their website that, "Our website will be tested on a periodic basis with assistive technology such as screen readers and screen magnifiers, and with users with disabilities who use these technologies." I believe this shows that Winn-Dixie is making huge efforts to follow the law. I admire Winn-Dixie for following their code of ethics, and following the procedure set forth by the