April 2026
Volume 19 Issue 6
Connecting Corners: Curb Ramps, Blended Transitions, Accessibility and PROWAG Basics (Recorded)
Supporting Pregnant People with Disabilities: The APAP Intervention
Does My Business Need an Elevator?
The Great Lakes ADA Center’s new blog explores how Title III accessibility requirements apply when businesses include basements, multiple stories, or mezzanines, addressing vertical access obligations. Read our new blog to learn how Title III of the ADA applies to businesses and vertical access.
Accessible Instructional Materials in K-12 Education
The National Center on Accessible Educational Materials partners with schools on accessible materials and technologies. Under IDEA, the National Instructional Materials Access Center (NIMAC) provides an online repository of source files for K-12 materials convertible into braille, large print, and digital text formats.
Home Modification Resource: Accessible and Universal Home Remodeling Guidebook
AARP Illinois and partners created a guide on accessible and universal home remodeling, supporting residents seeking modifications enabling greater independence and aging in place. Learn more about Accessible and Universal Home Remodeling.
Answer: ADA Titles II and III prohibit surcharges on people with disabilities to cover accessibility costs. State, local governments, businesses, and nonprofits covered by the ADA bear responsibility for these expenses, unless an undue financial or administrative burden exists.
For example, a deaf person must pay standard case fees, but sign language interpreter costs cannot be assessed as court costs. The lawyer or court system procuring the interpreter must cover this expense and cannot charge the requestor directly or indirectly through settlements.
In certain cases, entities may obtain outside funding or tax credits. However, lack of reimbursement alone cannot justify denying requests. When modifications would cause undue burden, entities must explore reasonable alternatives enabling equal access.
Resource(s):
Learn more by visiting our ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
EEOC v. Schneider National, Inc.
This federal lawsuit charges a Wisconsin-headquartered national transportation and logistics company with denying a service dog as a job accommodation and withdrawing a job offer for a candidate with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
EEOC v. Diamond Jim’s and Mrs. Donna’s Ole Farm Beef LLC
According to the lawsuit, an employee disclosed her condition to the restaurant and told the employer that she had not had a seizure in years. The suit stated that she had a seizure months after she began work and the restaurant fired her shortly after learning of her seizure, telling her that she should focus on her health.
EEOC v. ALM Freight, LLC and LMDmax Corp.
ALM Freight and their employment agency, LMDmax, have agreed to settle a federal lawsuit alleging they refused to provide a sign language interpreter and revoked a job offer. According to the suit, a deaf applicant accepted a driver position with ALM and worked with LMDmax to complete the onboarding process. When she requested an American Sign Language interpreter for her first day of orientation, LMDmax responded with a text message stating that ALM does not provide interpreters and would not proceed with her hiring. ALM knew of the request and approved their response.
EEOC v. Roundy’s Supermarkets, Inc.
According to the suit, when a nursing mother continued her requests for an accommodation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the company insisted she sign a release authorizing the company to access her private medical records. EEOC asserted that demanding access to the employee’s medical records without job-related justification is a violation under the ADA. Even though normal pregnancy is not considered a disability, the ADA limits unlawful medical questions and exams which could elicit disability-related information.
According to the suit, when the Indianapolis-based residential services provider learned of an applicant’s deafness during an interview for a housekeeping position, the company told him it could not accommodate his disability and rejected him. Additionally, Damar’s interview questions included prohibited medical inquires, and its qualification standards required applicants to hear and see within normal ranges and communicate verbally without considering reasonable accommodations.
This federal lawsuit charges that the grocery store terminated an employee with neuropathy after denying access to a previously settled accommodation. According to the suit, new management failed to interact with the employee to determine if the previously granted accommodation was reasonable or if another was potentially available. Instead, management told her to seek leave – which she did not want or need – until she could return to work without an accommodation. The employee was terminated by Kroger when she could not support a need for leave with medical documentation.
EEOC v. St. Vincent Hospital d/b/a Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center
According to the lawsuit, a long-term employee of CSV fractured her foot and tore tendons in her ankle. After returning from medical leave and working light duty in a patient care position for months, the employee requested reassignment as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. Although a vacant receptionist position existed which would have allowed the employer to perform with her restrictions, CSV did not reassign her. Instead, CSV fired the employee and stated in its termination letter that she would not be eligible for rehire until she was “fully recovered” or had “a release for full duty.”
EEOC v. Unnamed Technology Company
This conciliation agreement resolves class action claims against an unnamed technology company alleging discriminatory denial of COVID-19 vaccine exemptions. In its investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that the company discriminated against a class of employees on the basis of religion and disability by denying their COVID-19 vaccine exemption requests and terminating employees who declined to receive vaccines.
DOJ v. New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York announced a settlement agreement with NYCHA to resolve allegations from tenants and housing applicants that they failed to provide qualified interpreters upon request. The suit alleged that NYCHA required deaf and hard of hearing individuals to provide their own interpreters, some of which were minors, and also alleged that they did not provide deaf or hard of hearing individuals with appropriate auxiliary aids and services, such as visual doorbells and fire alarms.
DOJ v. SeaWorld and other subsidiaries under United Parks & Resorts Inc. (UPR)
DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida filed a lawsuit under the ADA against UPR citing a policy which bans guests with disabilities from using wheeled walkers with seats, including rollators. The suit alleges that this policy violates the ADA and also alleges that UPR imposes surcharges on guests with disabilities.
DOJ v. Counter Productions Inc.
DOJ reached a settlement agreement with Counter Productions to resolve allegations that their staff refused to make reasonable modifications for a member of the Sioux Falls Children’s Choir. An individual required the use of a wheelchair to be able to sing along with her friends as part of a special concert. However, the company claimed that the concert staging area was too hazardous to permit her participation, despite various options proposed by venue staff, members of the choir, and the parents.
