The Catholic University of America



Welcome to the Americans With Disabilities Act section of our webpage.

This front page will reflect our most current information on federal disabilities law affecting educational institutions.


Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 (June 5, 2018) 

Website Accessiblity Cases under the ADA: By Cole Schotz, P.C. (June 26, 2018)

Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Case No. 1:16-cv-23020, (S.D. Fla), June 12, 2017  now in the 11th Circuit on appeal, with oral argument scheduled for 10-4-18. (Case #17-13467) 

This is the first case in which a judge found that a a private website is covered by Title III of the ADA as a public accommodation. The vision impaired plaintiff was trying to fill his prescription through the online web page, but the screen reader could not interact with the page, even though plaintiff could use his screen reader for many other sites. the Winn-Dixie website had not been tested by Winn-Dixie for use with universal screen readers. 

There was no accessibility notice on the Winn Dixie website. Winn Dixie testified they were currently building an ADA policy but did not have one yet. The current website was created in 2015. They spent $7 M updating the website in 2017, but did not get to accessibility. An expert testified the issues could be fixed with simple modification of or two source codes, all set forth in the WCAG guidelines. Thousands of businesses in E-commerce use these guidelines. The fix would cost $37,000 or less. The court granted the plaintiff injunctive relief and attorney's fees. 

In Andrews v. Blick Art Material, LLC, U.S. Dist. Court, E.D. NY, 268 F. Supp 3d 381,(August 1, 2017)  the Court held as follows on the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim: 

  • retailer's website was a place of public accommodation under the ADA, and thus retailer was prohibited from discriminating against visually impaired consumers on website;
  •  as a matter of first impression, under New York law, as predicted by federal court, retailer's website was a place of public accommodation under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL);
  •  under New York City law, as predicted by federal court, retailer's website was a provider of public accommodation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL);
  •  district court would decline to apply primary jurisdiction doctrine; and
  •  retailer's due process affirmative defense was not ripe for review.

The case was settled on Dec. 21, 2017.