{"id":4748,"date":"2021-05-06T12:30:00","date_gmt":"2021-05-06T16:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/employerdefensereport.com\/?p=4748"},"modified":"2026-03-20T11:49:28","modified_gmt":"2026-03-20T15:49:28","slug":"new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/","title":{"rendered":"Court Concludes That A Business’s Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"New,Technologies,,A,Side,View,Of,An,Open,Laptop,,Millennials\"We have been blogging for more than five years about the rising litigation threat over website accessibility, and the surrounding confusion about what type of compliance, if any, is required.  In our initial blog post <\/a>on this topic in January 2016, we stated that the question as to whether a business\u2019s website and mobile app needed to be accessible with the Americans with Disabilities Act (\u201cADA\u201d) had no definitive answer at that time because (i) although Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of disability with regard to their participation and equal enjoyment in places of public accommodation, the statute did not explicitly define whether a place of public accommodation must be a physical place or facility; (ii) there were no regulations from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (the federal agency that enforces Title III of the ADA) regarding website accessibility and without applicable regulations, it was unclear how a court would address a lawsuit over website accessibility; and (iii) adding to this uncertainty, the DOJ had emphasized that, despite the lack of regulations, businesses should make websites accessible to the disabled, and relied on a set of guidelines called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (\u201cWCAG\u201d).<\/p>\n

Five years later, this question still has no definitive answer.  And, the DOJ still has yet to promulgate regulations regarding businesses\u2019 obligations to make websites accessible to individuals with visual and hearing impairments.  In April, however, an extremely positive development occurred for businesses when, in the matter of Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc.<\/em><\/a>, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) held that websites are NOT places of public accommodation and thus are NOT covered by Title III of the ADA.<\/p>\n

Gil v. Winn-Dixie<\/em> began more than 5 years ago when the plaintiff, an individual with a visual impairment, alleged that the supermarket chain violated the ADA because the store\u2019s website did not comport with screen-reader technology that reads the texts of websites out loud and as a result, he could not access store coupons or fill prescriptions on the store\u2019s website.  In 2017, U.S. District Judge Robert Scola agreed with Gil and found that Winn-Dixie violated the ADA because its website denied him \u201cthe full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations that Winn-Dixie offers to its sighted customers.\u201d  Judge Scola concluded that the website is regulated by Title III of the ADA because it is closely integrated with the physical locations and is a gateway to the stores.  Since that 2017 ruling, plaintiffs (and courts) have relied on this \u201cgateway\u201d language in support of their claims that businesses are required to make their websites accessible for individuals with visual and hearing impairments.<\/p>\n

Winn-Dixie appealed the District Court\u2019s ruling, based in part on its belief that the current website standards and\/or regulations are unclear.  After more than two years of deliberation, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decided to reverse the District Court\u2019s ruling.  The Eleventh Circuit found that Winn-Dixie did NOT violate the ADA because, among other things, websites are NOT places of public accommodation and the supermarket\u2019s website did not pose an \u201cintangible barrier\u201d for the plaintiff to his access to the goods, services, privileges, or advantages of its physical stores. <\/p>\n

In support of its position, the Court cited to the statutory definition of the term \u201cpublic accommodation\u201d which, it noted, was an \u201cexpansive list of physical locations\u201d that does not include websites.  The Court further reasoned the plain language of the statute is unambiguous \u2014 \u201cpublic accommodations are limited to actual, physical places\u201d and that the grocery chain\u2019s website was not the \u201csole access point\u201d to the store.  <\/p>\n

(Note that the question as to whether websites are places of public accommodation is only relevant to whether websites must be compatible with certain screen reader software for individuals with visual and hearing impairments.  The issues decided in <\/span>Winn-Dixie<\/em> are <\/span>not<\/span> related to the ADA\u2019s requirement that a hotel provide information on its website regarding various accessibility features of its public areas and guestrooms so that a mobility impaired individual can determine whether he can visit the property.  That is a separate issue that, while dealing with information on a hotel’s website, is not technically a “website accessibility” issue.)<\/span><\/p>\n

There is no debating that the Winn-Dixie <\/em>decision is a significant victory for business owners.  That being said, it is important to note that this ruling from the Eleventh Circuit differs substantially from the Ninth Circuit\u2019s 2019 decision in Robles v. Domino\u2019s Pizza<\/a>, <\/em>which was the first decision by any U.S. Court of Appeals holding that a website should be considered a place of public accommodation under Title III of the ADA.  Indeed, in Robles<\/em>, the Ninth Circuit (covering the majority of Western states) found that the ADA protects not just physical \u201cbrick and mortar\u201d locations, but also the \u201cservices of a public accommodation,\u201d including websites and apps and, as a result, Domino\u2019s had violated Title III of the ADA because its website\u2019s incompatibility with screen reader software impeded access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises.<\/p>\n

In distinguishing Robles<\/em>, the Eleventh Circuit emphasized that purchases could be made on the Domino\u2019s website, whereas purchases could not be made on the Winn-Dixie website.  The Eleventh Circuit further stated that it did not fined Robles <\/em>persuasive, either factually or legally, and did not agree with its conclusion that a website with a \u201cnexus\u201d to a physical place of public accommodation is covered by the ADA (even though, ironically, the 2017 Winn-Dixie District Court\u2019s decision contained such \u201cnexus\u201d language).<\/p>\n

At the end of the day, by taking a narrow view of the applicability of the ADA to websites, the Eleventh Circuit\u2019s Winn-Dixie decision creates obstacles that plaintiffs will now have to overcome in order to bring website accessibility lawsuits, at least in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama.  The decision also further highlights a split between the Ninth and Eleventh Circuits, as well as among other Circuits, regarding the applicability of Title III to websites.  Thus, with this Eleventh Circuit decision, it is now more likely than ever that the United States Supreme Court will weigh in on this issue in the relatively near future and (hopefully) provide businesses with more definitive guidance as to whether business\u2019s websites and mobile apps must be ADA accessible.<\/p>\n

As always, we will continue to keep you updated on this constantly developing area of the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We have been blogging for more than five years about the rising litigation threat over website accessibility, and the surrounding confusion about what type of compliance, if any, is required.  In our initial blog post on this…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[815],"tags":[831,857],"class_list":["post-4748","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-discrimination-harassment-retaliation","tag-accessibility-ada-accommodations","tag-hospitality-retail"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nCourt Concludes That A Business's Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA - Employer Defense Report<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Court Concludes That A Business's Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA - Employer Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"We have been blogging for more than five years about the rising litigation threat over website accessibility, and the surrounding confusion about what type of compliance, if any, is required.  In our initial blog post on this…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Employer Defense Report\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-05-06T16:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-03-20T15:49:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/05\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2401\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1700\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jordan B. Schwartz\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jordan B. Schwartz\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jordan B. Schwartz\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/25b54c798e4af655b6c0bb7da390514b\"},\"headline\":\"Court Concludes That A Business’s Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-05-06T16:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-20T15:49:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1118,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Accessibility & ADA Accommodations\",\"Hospitality & Retail\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/\",\"name\":\"Court Concludes That A Business's Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA - Employer Defense Report\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-05-06T16:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-03-20T15:49:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/25b54c798e4af655b6c0bb7da390514b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\\\/\\\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\\\/\\\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/2\\\/2021\\\/05\\\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Court Concludes That A Business’s Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/\",\"name\":\"Employer Defense Report\",\"description\":\"Conn Maciel Carey LLP\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/25b54c798e4af655b6c0bb7da390514b\",\"name\":\"Jordan B. Schwartz\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b2878d028f5b989e075778f6efb6a58ecbac5daa8f4c22c693680c822d0dff4a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b2878d028f5b989e075778f6efb6a58ecbac5daa8f4c22c693680c822d0dff4a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b2878d028f5b989e075778f6efb6a58ecbac5daa8f4c22c693680c822d0dff4a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jordan B. Schwartz\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.connmaciel.com\\\/employer-defense-report\\\/author\\\/jschwartz99\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Court Concludes That A Business's Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA - Employer Defense Report","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Court Concludes That A Business's Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA - Employer Defense Report","og_description":"We have been blogging for more than five years about the rising litigation threat over website accessibility, and the surrounding confusion about what type of compliance, if any, is required.  In our initial blog post on this…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/","og_site_name":"Employer Defense Report","article_published_time":"2021-05-06T16:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-03-20T15:49:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2401,"height":1700,"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/05\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jordan B. Schwartz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jordan B. Schwartz","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/"},"author":{"name":"Jordan B. Schwartz","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/25b54c798e4af655b6c0bb7da390514b"},"headline":"Court Concludes That A Business’s Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA","datePublished":"2021-05-06T16:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-20T15:49:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/"},"wordCount":1118,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/05\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg","keywords":["Accessibility & ADA Accommodations","Hospitality & Retail"],"articleSection":["Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/","name":"Court Concludes That A Business's Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA - Employer Defense Report","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/05\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg","datePublished":"2021-05-06T16:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-03-20T15:49:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/25b54c798e4af655b6c0bb7da390514b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/05\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/employerdefensereport.connmaciel.stagingarea.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2021\/05\/shutterstock_1740870290-002.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/new-case-finds-that-a-stores-website-does-not-need-to-comply-with-the-ada\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Court Concludes That A Business’s Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/","name":"Employer Defense Report","description":"Conn Maciel Carey LLP","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/#\/schema\/person\/25b54c798e4af655b6c0bb7da390514b","name":"Jordan B. Schwartz","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b2878d028f5b989e075778f6efb6a58ecbac5daa8f4c22c693680c822d0dff4a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b2878d028f5b989e075778f6efb6a58ecbac5daa8f4c22c693680c822d0dff4a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b2878d028f5b989e075778f6efb6a58ecbac5daa8f4c22c693680c822d0dff4a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jordan B. Schwartz"},"url":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/author\/jschwartz99\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4748","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4748"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4748\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9880,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4748\/revisions\/9880"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4748"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4748"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.connmaciel.com\/employer-defense-report\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4748"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}