January 2025
Volume 18 Issue 3
Accessible Technology for People Who are Blind or Low Vision at Work, at Home, or at Play
Planning for Success: New ADA Title II Web Content and Mobile App Requirements
Highlights from the Fiscal Year 2024 Government-wide Section 508 Assessment
New DOJ Resource on ADA Title II Web Content and Mobile Apps
Last year, the Department of Justice (DOJ) adopted a new rule under Title II of the ADA that requires state and local governments to ensure their web content and mobile apps comply with the new digital standard, WCAG 2.1 Level AA. This 10-step guide was designed by the DOJ to help state and local governments plan for compliance with the new regulations.
Advancing Disability Inclusion in Very Small Businesses
From March 25 to May 13, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) hosted a national online dialogue to gather insights, experiences, and suggestions from a wide range of small business experts and the public. Check out the final dialogue report.
Wearable Devices in the Workplace
Wearable technologies, or “wearables,” are digital devices embedded with sensors and worn on the body that may keep track of bodily movements, collect biometric information, and/or track location. Check out this resource from EEOC that explains how federal employment discrimination laws can apply to wearable devices.
Civil Rights Protections Against Retaliation in Schools
The U.S. Department of Education enforces federal civil rights laws, including the ADA, in programs and activities that receive financial assistance from their department. All of these laws prohibit retaliation. Learn more about these civil rights protections against retaliation in schools.
Answer: TA public entity that employs 50 or more people must designate a “responsible employee” to coordinate compliance with Title II of the ADA. This position is usually called the “ADA Coordinator” but not always. This role may be covered by an individual or shared additional duties such as acting as the Section 504 coordinator or performing HR functions.
However the entity chooses to designate responsibility, this role is charged with investigating complaints of ADA violations and coordinating the entity’s compliance with this law. In order to ensure the public can reach this person, the public entity has a responsibility to share the employee’s name, office address and telephone number with all interested individuals. Many entities choose to do this by posting the information on their public websites.
Resource(s):
Learn more by visiting our ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
EEOC v. Bell Road Tire and Auto LLC
This investigation found reason to believe that Bell Road Tire and Auto violated the ADA by enforcing a 100% return-to-work policy, failing to engage in the interactive process, and retaliating against the person who filed the complaint. The investigation also revealed that the company failed to maintain the complainant’s medical records separately from their personnel file, violating ADA recordkeeping obligations. Bell Road Tire and Auto will pay $64,500 and implement corrective measures to settle the case.
EEOC v. MedMark Treatment Center
A counselor at MedMark’s Treatment Center requested disability accommodations to return to work after an extended medical leave. Investigation found the company denied his accommodation request and terminated him due to his disability. MedMark Treatment Centers agreed to provide $55,000 to the former employee, revise its non-discrimination policies and procedures, conduct training for all managers and HR personnel, and post a notice about employees’ EEO rights.
EEOC v. Total Systems Services, LLC (Total Systems)
The lawsuit charged that from May through August 2020, a customer service representative with a disability who worked in a Total Systems call center repeatedly requested remote work as a reasonable accommodation because of her high-risk status related to COVID-19. At the time, the employee’s coworkers were regularly testing positive for the virus. Total Systems denied the employee’s reasonable accommodation request based on criteria that applied equally to all customer service representatives seeking to work remotely instead of engaging in an individualized assessment of the employee’s disability-related needs. Under the decree, Total Systems will pay $65,000 to the former employee; implement an ADA compliance policy and distribute it to all employees. They will also provide annual training to managers and HR personnel on the ADA.
EEOC v. C.W., Inc. via CPG Staffing and Executive Personnel Group, LLC
According to the lawsuit, CPG Staffing and Executive Personnel rescinded a welding applicant’s job offer after learning that he had injured his knee two years prior. Before disclosing the prior injury, from which he had completely recovered, the applicant successfully passed a welding test. Shortly after, the applicant disclosed in a post-offer medical questionnaire that he had previously been treated for a knee injury he suffered while working a prior job. He also indicated he could perform the essential duties of the welder job and did not require a reasonable accommodation. The applicant then provided a letter from his physician clearing him to work. Yet, Executive Personnel’s risk manager instructed CPG Staffing not to hire the applicant because of his prior injury. CPG Staffing, in turn, rescinded the applicant’s job offer.
EEOC v. Verizon Maryland, LLC (Verizon)
According to the lawsuit, a management employee who suffered from hypertension asked his manager for a change to a field position or to an alternate management position to accommodate his disability. There was an opening for a field position that the employee previously held, but Verizon did not allow him to compete for that position, telling him he would have to resign and reapply for the position in six months. The company offered no other accommodation or opportunities to compete for other vacant management positions, and the employee was forced to quit due to medical necessity. Per the consent decree, Version will pay $115,000 to the former manager and provide training on the ADA.
Check out EEOC v. Shelby Baptist Medical Center, another lawsuit where an employer denied job reassignment.
EEOC v. Alto Experience, Inc. (Alto)
According to the lawsuit, Alto refused to hire qualified deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals for its personal driver position, despite readily available technological accommodations, and, in some cases, despite the applicant’s previous experience with other ride-hailing companies. The suit also alleged that some qualified deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals were steered into less-desirable car washing positions.
According to the suit, these property management companies terminated a pregnant resident coordinator who was diagnosed with placenta previa, a pregnancy-related disability. After the employee was hospitalized and prescribed bedrest, she requested a leave of absence for the remaining month of her pregnancy as a reasonable accommodation, but the property management companies then terminated her employment. At the time of the termination, the defendants told the employee that, because she was not eligible for leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or short-term disability benefits, they would not accommodate her. Per the decree, the companies will pay $55,000 in damages to the employee, create new protocols for requesting reasonable accommodations, and train all employees on these protocols and the ADA.
EEOC v. Value Unlimited, Inc. (via ChowCall)
According to the suit, Value Unlimited participated in an EEOC conciliation in September 2022, which is a process to resolve discrimination charges informally before litigation. At conciliation, EEOC and Value Unlimited entered into an agreement to resolve a disability discrimination charge requiring the company to pay $11,000 to a former employee in three installments, train employees, and to post a notice about the agreement. The suit alleges that the company failed to make the last installment payment of $7,000 to the employee and failed to report posting the agreement notice.
EEOC v. Elon Property Management LLC (Elon)
According to the lawsuit, Elon retaliated against a district manager for taking a medical leave of absence by placing her on a performance improvement plan (PIP) the day she returned from leave and punishing her for the decline in occupancy rates of her properties that occurred while she was on leave. EEOC also alleges that Elon screens out and discriminates against workers with disabilities by prohibiting employees from returning from a medical leave of absence without a full-duty release note from their physician and a physician-signed copy of their job description. Together, these practices prohibit employees from returning to work if they need an accommodation.
EEOC v. Lubin Logistics Company (Lubin Logistics)
The lawsuit charged Lubin Logistics with firing a delivery driver because of his lupus, an autoimmune disease that can cause pain and inflammation throughout the body. Approximately two weeks after being hired, the employee experienced a flare-up after being assigned to a delivery truck without a working door, working heating system, or functional passenger seat. The employee requested and received permission to return to the delivery terminal prior to the end of his shift because of his disability. Several days later, a company supervisor told the employee that he could no longer work for Lubin Logistics because of his medical condition and fired him. The consent decree requires the company to provide monetary relief to the victim and train all employees with supervisory responsibilities about the ADA.
EEOC v. Equinox Holdings, Inc. (Equinox)
According to the suit, Equinox illegally discriminated against a woman with endometriosis on the basis of disability and sex when it failed to hire her as a front desk associate at its sports club despite her previous work experience. This was allegedly due to her “monthly cycle” and potential need for a reasonable accommodation. Also, Equinox did not accommodate her disability during the job application process and subsequently hired a male applicant with no prior experience working in gyms for the front desk associate position.
HHS OCR v. State of Illinois Department of Human Services (DHS)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR), reached an agreement with the State of Illinois DHS to address complaints of disability discrimination. The complaint alleged that an individual with disabilities, A.C., was unjustifiably institutionalized potentially violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, and Title II of the ADA. Each of these laws requires that services are provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of a person with a disability—including within their own home and community. Because of this agreement, A.C. has left an institution and is now living in the community.
Also, check out, DOJ v. Colorado, DOJ v. South Carolina, DOJ v. Maine, and DOJ v. Rhode Island, other institutionalization and segregation lawsuits and settlement agreements.
The Justice Department announced its findings concluding that Fulton County and the Fulton County Sheriff’s Office routinely violate the rights of persons incarcerated at the Fulton County Jail, specifically the 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Additionally, the county fails to adequately protect incarcerated persons from substantial risk of serious harm.
DOJ v. State of Arizona Department of Child Safety (DCS)
Following a comprehensive investigation, DOJ found DCS failed to communicate effectively with parents and children with hearing disabilities, including by not providing interpreters. DCS also failed to reasonably accommodate the needs of parents with disabilities by, for example, not providing information in a simplified form. Finally, DCS denies parents with disabilities an equal chance to participate in and benefit from DCS programs and services.
DOJ v. Hudson and Morris County Boards of Election
The investigation identified architectural barriers at multiple polling places in both counties that rendered some of the polling places not fully accessible to voters with disabilities. Under the settlement agreement, the Election Boards will each employ temporary measures, such as portable ramps and signage, where appropriate, to make their existing polling places accessible. They will also train poll workers on the ADA’s accessibility requirements, how to use temporary measures to make polling places accessible, and how to survey polling locations for accessibility on Election Day.
Also, check out, DOJ v. Washoe County Board of Commissioners and DOJ v. Clark County Election Department, other agreements to resolve compliance reviews that identified numerous physical barriers at polling sites.
DOJ reached an agreement to settle allegations that the Garner Hotel violated Title III of the ADA by failing to honor a reservation made for an accessible room by an individual with a disability. As part of the settlement, the Garner will implement ADA training, pay the complainant $5,000, and pay a $2,000 civil penalty to the United States.
DOJ v. Boys & Girls Club of East Providence, Inc (“EPBGC”)
The investigation determined that during the registration process for Kinder Camp, EPBHC’s Education Director asked parents to submit a copy of their child’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Six parents of registered children submitted their child’s IEP to EPBGC, and EPBGC denied admission to five of those six children. While there was no formal complaint process, parents of three of the children complained about the denial, and the EPBGC Associate Director reversed those denials. However, the complainant and one other guardian of a child who was denied admission were not aware of an appeal or complaint process, and as a result, their children were unable to attend Kinder Camp and had to seek alternate childcare arrangements for the summer. Under the ADA, summer camps, whether private or run by municipalities, must afford reasonable modifications to ensure that children with disabilities can participate fully in camp programs and activities.
Also, check out DOJ v. Smarter Kids Child Care another denial of access to childcare and camp based on disability case.
DOJ v. Frankfort Regional Center (FRMC)
At multiple hospital visits during and after her pregnancy, FRMC failed to provide a patient with an American Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreter or other effective means of communication. Additionally, FRMC failed to provide an interpreter or other appropriate auxiliary aids or services to the patient’s mother, who is also deaf and was attending the patient’s labor and delivery as a support person. Under the agreement, FRMC will modify its policies and practices consistent with the ADA, including those that address providing effective communication. FRMC will also train its staff and inform affiliated medical providers about the policies and will pay a $62,500 civil penalty to the United States, $100,000 to the patient, and $10,000 to her mother.
Also, check out, DOJ and HHS v. MultiCare Health Systems of Washington and DOJ v. Advanced ENT & Allergy, other cases of a healthcare system denying effective communication to patients.
An agreement with the Wilbur Theatre was reached resolving a complaint that the theatre violated the ADA by failing to provide a group of individuals with hearing impairments an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter, or other effective communication aid or service, for a concert at the Wilbur Theatre.
DOJ v. Sound Community Services, Inc. (Sound Community)
The settlement agreement resolves an ADA complaint filed by an individual with a disability alleging that Sound Community made the person feel unwelcome because of their service animal, including by requesting a license and vaccination record for their service animal and refusing to arrange transportation on one occasion because of their service animal. Sound Community has agreed to post signage indicating “Service Animals Welcome,” implement a Service Animal Policy that is consistent with the ADA and provide training for staff. Sound Community must also make compensation payment to the complainant if the complainant signs a release.
DOJ v. Katz’s Delicatessen of Houston St. Inc. (“Katz’s Deli”)
The consent decree requires Katz’s Deli to improve the accessibility of its entrances, dining areas, and restrooms. Notably, the consent decree provides for staff to assist individuals with disabilities in using the main public entrance, ensures that the required number of accessible dining surfaces are provided, and requires renovations to the men’s and women’s restrooms. Katz’s Deli will also pay a $20,000 civil penalty to the U.S.
Statement of Interest in Cox v. City of Boston
The United States filed a Statement of Interest in Cox v. City of Boston addressing the correct interpretation of the health services exception regarding the ADA’s exclusion of disability coverage for individuals who currently illegally use drugs. The health services exception states that an individual shall not be denied health services, or services provided in connection with drug rehabilitation, on the basis of the current illegal use of drugs if the individual is otherwise entitled to such services. The case was brought by the estate of an individual with opioid use disorder who died of an opioid overdose while in overnight detention after being arrested by the Boston Police Department.
