Skip to main content

Case-based roadmap for a mature corporate accessibility program

Gil v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.

The Winn-Dixie lawsuit was the first trial in the history of the ADA over the accessibility of a public accommodation’s website.

Blind plaintiff shopped at his local Winn-Dixie grocery store and pharmacy in person — but was unable to access the website for information such as the store locator, online coupons, store events, and specials.

Beyond financial costs, the United States District Court required Winn-Dixie:

  • Winn-Dixie's website must be made accessible to “individuals with disabilities who use computers, laptops, tablets, and smartphones.”
  • Adopt and post an explicit Accessibility Policy “to ensure the persons with disabilities have full and equal enjoyment of its website and shall accompany the public policy statement with an accessible means of submitting accessibility questions and problems.”
  • Conduct annual accessibility training for IT and web staff to learn to create and maintain content that meets WCAG success criteria.
  • Ensure any third-party applications also meets WCAG success criteria requirements.
When there is no corporate accessibility program, courts may mandate one:

National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp

Target, Domino’s, Expedia, GNC, FedEx and dozens of other major cases had previously reached settlement agreement or other structured resolution.


Target Corp. $10M+ settlement:

  • Class damages: $6 million
    Plaintiff legal fees: $3.7 million
    Undisclosed defense legal fees
  • Software remediation (approximately ~100x cost of building accessible code)
  • Target presently has one of the largest accessibility teams with over +100 full time employees
  • Loss of product control — Court oversight of website for several years

13 factors that substantiate the claim Winn-Dixie discriminated against people with disabilities

Given the lawsuit’s success, the lack of adherence to these 13 points becomes case-based guidance for a mature corporate accessibility program. The primary reasons for the claim, in the terms used by plaintiff's civil rights attorney:


  1. Functional performance issues impacting users with assistive technologies

    No mistake that the first item is functional performance: ICT providers must remediate known issues. Communicate and fix priority accessibility issues. Celebrate wins publicly.

  2. Features users interact with lack contextual help

    No system is perfect and it is unreasonable to expect perfection. Two items aimed at facilitation:

    • Provide contextual help.
    • Offer a specialized/trained customer assistance line for customers having problems with the ICT.

  3. The company site or application is missing an Accessibility Notice

    Publish an Accessibility Notice on the corporate site, describing the state of accessibility support (VPATs) with workarounds, and how to contact the organization with accessibility concerns.

  4. The company has no Accessibility Policy

    A web accessibility policy guides the internal decisions and processes of your organization. It may not be appropriate to promote and circulate it to your customers and clients — rather, it should be distributed among the relevant departments of your organization, along with training where necessary.

  5. The company has no Web Accessibility Committee

    Web Accessibility Committee will develop mission and access policy, appointment of board liaison and documentation of grievance procedure. Accessibility Committees are responsible for providing guidance and direction regarding barriers that exist within the corporation, programs, and customers.

  6. The company has no Web Accessibility Coordinator

    Executive Director that oversees and insures that mission, goals and budget for Accessibility are implemented within the organization.

  7. The company has no Web Accessibility User Testing Group

    Web accessibility evaluation often focuses on conformance to accessibility standards such as WCAG. While conformance is important, providing the structure and resources for evaluating with real users with disabilities and older users identifies usability issues that are not discovered by conformance evaluation alone.

  8. The company has no Bug Fix Priority Policy

    • Unit testing, onboarding, code check-in gates
    • Training for Developers & Testers
    • Dev Team understanding that Critical/Block defects that do not allow AT users to complete the task and have no workaround are showstoppers and treated as highest priority
  9. The company has no Automated Web Accessibility Testing Program

    Automated accessibility testing tools enable organizations to passivley audit thousands of documents, web pages, or even multiple websites simultaneously for certain accessibility defects that can be detected by software. Though often these tools are limited in scope, they are a good start.

    Assisted automated testing (tenon.io, LevelAccess) and developer in-browser F12 devtools (aXe, Accessibility Insights) can be more impactful.

    In practice, the best approach for many organizations will be a hybrid approach of automated and manual accessibility testing. Automated accessibility testing should be your first line of defense, helping you identify and resolve the majority of quick-fix issues before progressing to areas that require more analysis and human input with in-depth manual testing.

  10. The company has no Specialized Customer Assistance line for people with disabilities

    All customer service personnel should receive training on helping customers with disabilities, including considering a text relay (TRS/TTY)-capable special customer assistance line.

  11. The company has no Accessibility Point of Contact

    Provide a form for external customers to be able to report and receive help regarding accessibility issues.

  12. Non-Conformance to Technical Standards (WCAG)

    Nearly the last item was technical conformance to WCAG standards. WCAG 2.0 AA compliance is a legal requirement for federal ICT vendors under the Revised Section 508, and meeting WCAG success criteria will lead to a more usable system for users with disabilities. WCAG technical compliance remains not the goal itself:

    The real measure of accessibility is whether any user can actually & equivalently accomplish their tasks.

  13. The company makes no public disclosures of existing/past efforts in accessibility

    A web accessibility statement is a public proclamation of your commitment to online accessibility. Make public disclosures of existing/past efforts in accessibility in press releases, blog posts and marketing.

    • Publish an "Accessibility" subsection on the corporate site, prominently linked in the site footer or similar standard page area, describing the state of accessibility support (VPATs) with workarounds, and how to contact the organization with accessibility concerns.
    • Celebrate accessibility improvements publicly in PR and marketing.

“Winn-Dixie has presented no evidence to establish that it would be unduly burdensome to make its website accessible to visually impaired individuals. Remediation measures in conformity with the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines will provide Gil and other visually impaired consumers the ability to access Winn-Dixie’s website and permit full and equal enjoyment of the services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations provided through Winn-Dixie’s website. Gil has proven that he is entitled to injunctive relief.

— Robert N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge