equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of including the goods and services provided on a website of a any place of public accommodation, place of public accommodation. heavy reliance on the in Access Now v. Southwest Defendant’s district court’s opinion 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2002), is misplaced. In the court Airlines, Southwest Airlines, addressed only whether the Southwest Airlines website itself, southwest.com, was a of “place public under Title III., i.e., whether a place of public accommodation could accommodation” exist solely in cyberspace. On that narrow question, the court concluded that III of the “Title ADA governs solely access to physical, concrete places of public and thus the accommodation” website itself was not a place of public accommodation. at 1318. Because the plaintiffs in Id. did not present the broader claim—whether Southwest Airlines operates a Southwest Airlines place of public accommodation more broadly, e.g., a travel service, which provides some of its services via a website—the district court never reached that question. Indeed, when the case was appealed, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged the distinction between these two theories of coverage but concluded that the to raise the broader theory below precluded the plaintiffs’ failure court from addressing it on appeal. 385 F.3d 1324, 1328 See Access Now v. Southwest Airlines, (11th Cir. of the counts in the complaint thus focused entirely on the inaccessibility 2004) (“All of the web site itself as a place of public accommodation, making no connection between Southwest.com and any other supposed place of public accommodation.”). Here, Mr. complaint includes the broader theory—that Winn-Dixie Stores owns and Gil’s operates grocery/pharmacy stores, which are unquestionably physical, concrete structures that fall within the enumerated sales and service establishment categories of public accommodation
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation, including the goods and services provided on a website of a place of public accommodation. Defendant’s heavy reliance on the district court’s opinion in Access Now v. Southwest Airlines, 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (S.D. Fla. 2002), is misplaced. In Southwest Airlines, the court addressed only whether the Southwest Airlines website itself, southwest.com, was a “place of public accommodation” under Title III., i.e., whether a place of public accommodation could exist solely in cyberspace. On that narrow question, the court concluded that “Title III of the ADA governs solely access to physical, concrete places of public accommodation” and thus the website itself was not a place of public accommodation. Id. at 1318. Because the plaintiffs in Southwest Airlines did not present the broader claim—whether Southwest Airlines operates a place of public accommodation more broadly, e.g., a travel service, which provides some of its services via a website—the district court never reached that question. Indeed, when the case was appealed, the Eleventh Circuit acknowledged the distinction between these two theories of coverage but concluded that the plaintiffs’ failure to raise the broader theory below precluded the court from addressing it on appeal. See Access Now v. Southwest Airlines, 385 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2004) (“All of the counts in the complaint thus focused entirely on the inaccessibility of the web site itself as a place of public accommodation, making no connection between Southwest.com and any other supposed place of public accommodation.”). Here, Mr. Gil’s complaint includes the broader theory—that Winn-Dixie Stores owns and operates grocery/pharmacy stores, which are unquestionably physical, concrete structures that fall within the enumerated sales and service establishment categories of public accommodation
winn_dixie_soi.docx