March 2026
Volume 19 Issue 5
Artificial Intelligence: Problems and Possibilities for People with Disabilities
2026 National ADA Symposium Registration Stipend: Apply Now!
This year, the Great Lakes ADA Center will continue our tradition of supporting attendance from our six-state region at the virtual or on-site Symposium in Phoenix, Arizona. Applications are due March 13, 2026. Learn how to apply for a 2026 National ADA Symposium Registration Stipend.
Research Support Services for Employment of Young Adults on the Autism Spectrum (REYAAS)
REYAAS is a partnership with the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) seeking to identify policies and practices that support the employment of young adults on the autism spectrum. Check out the research and resources developed by REYAAS.
ADA Mini-Unit for High Schoolers
We are excited to announce that the ADA National Network (ADANN) has released a tool called the “ADA Mini-Unit for High School Educators: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Reasons They Matter.” This resource gives high school educators tools, including a PowerPoint presentation, to teach students about the basics of the ADA. Visit the ADA National Network webpage to learn more and download the mini-unit.
Answer: It depends, but whether a polling place is located at a local library, school, fire station, church or other designated location, qualified people with disabilities must have equal access to vote even if the location is not fully accessible.
The 2010 ADA Standards contain requirements for temporary and permanent structures in the built-environment. At a polling place, this could apply to parking facilities, curb ramps, entrances/doorways, restrooms, waiting areas, ballot boxes, and other physical elements of the space. Some older facilities and elements that existed prior to the ADA may not meet the 2010 ADA Standards if they have not been altered since the law went into effect.
Even if a polling place is not accessible, Title II of the ADA still protects people with disabilities from program discrimination. Under this requirement, state and local government programs—when viewed in their entirety—must be accessible to people with disabilities even if their facilities are not accessible
Providing program access at a polling place could require physical changes to the facility or temporary modifications such as adding a ramp or providing accessible portable restrooms. Non-structural methods could also be used, like providing accessible mail-in voting or offering early voting at alternative accessible locations (e.g. a clerk’s office).
When choosing among available options, a public entity must prioritize methods that offer programs in the most integrated setting appropriate. This means that voters with disabilities should be given equal access to vote at the same time, through the same methods and at the same places as non-disabled voters, where possible.
Resource(s):
Learn more by visiting our ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
Geisinger Health will pay $450,000 and provide other equitable relief to settle a lawsuit that they engaged in policies and practices that denied reasonable accommodations to workers with disabilities, including job-protected leave and reassignment without competition.
EEOC v William Beaumont Hospital
William Beaumont Hospital, now known as Corewell Health East, will pay compensatory damages and provide other relief to settle allegations the hospital refused to place a qualified nurse into certain part-time vacancies as a reasonable accommodation.
EEOC v. Urologic Specialists of Oklahoma, Inc.
Urologic Specialists will pay $90,000 and furnish other relief to settle a pregnancy and disability discrimination lawsuit. According to the suit, Urologic Specialists denied reasonable accommodations to a medical assistant during the final trimester of her high-risk pregnancy. Rather than allow the medical assistant to sit, take short breaks, or work part-time, as recommended by her doctor, the medical practice forced her to take unpaid leave and refused to guarantee her job when she returned to work.
Wilson Logistics will pay $50,000 to a deaf applicant and furnish other relief to settle allegations that they refused to hire the applicant as a truck driver based on their disability. The applicant possessed a commercial driver’s license, relevant experience and an exemption from regulatory hearing requirements by the U.S. Department of Transportation. When the applicant spoke to Wilson through a video relay service, the company’s representative told him the company does not hire individuals who communicate through sign language.
Zarn v Minnesota Department of Human Services
In this case, a Minnesota Department of Human Services employee challenged weekly COVID testing under the ADA. The 8th Circuit found the testing requirements consistent with business necessity and relied on EEOC guidance related to COVID testing as a medical exam.
The settlement agreement requires that students with disabilities in foster care who are placed in psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs) attend school in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and that students educated on site at PRTFs are provided with equal educational opportunities.
DOJ v New York City Department of Parks & Recreation (“PARKS”) and Historic House Trust (“HHT”)
Under this settlement, the New York City Parks Department agreed to a capital project that will make the Van Cortlandt House Museum more accessible to visitors with disabilities. This decision aims to resolve violations under the ADA.
DOJ v Special School District of St. Louis County
The DOJ has issued a settlement agreement after a 21-month-long investigation concluded that this St. Louis school district routinely subjected students with disabilities to ineffective seclusion practices that violate the ADA. During the two-year period covered by the investigation, the District secluded over 300 students almost 4,000 times and restrained almost 150 students 777 times.
DOJ Statement of Interest - Alcazar v. Fashion Nova Inc.
The DOJ has filed a Statement of Interest arguing that a proposed class action settlement involving the accessibility of an apparel company’s website. The Department argued the proposed injunctive relief for class members is not meaningful because it merely recites the ADA obligation to make visually delivered materials available to individuals who are blind or low vision with no confirmation or enforcement mechanism.
