May 2026
Volume 19 Issue 7
Walk Sign Is On to Cross: Requirements for Accessible Pedestrian Signals in PROWAG
How Artificial Intelligence Impacts Workplace Accommodations
This Job Accommodation Network (JAN) publication outlines how employers can use AI to accommodate workers, take advantage of the latest technology, integrate accommodations into AI-driven hiring tools, and prepare for the future of work. Learn more about AI's impact on job accommodations.
Opioid Use and Mental Health in the Construction Industry: The Importance of Workplace Supports
Mental health is a growing concern in the construction industry. The Employer Assistance and Resource Network on Disability (EARN) has released helpful tools create a safe and healthy workplace for members of this industry. Learn more about mental health and substance use disorder supports for the construction industry.
WCAG in Plain English
AAArdvark is making the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) easier to understand, one success criterion at a time. Check out this plain language, beginner-friendly guide for understanding WCAG.
Answer: ADA Titles II and III require that wheelchairs and manually-powered mobility aids be allowed in any covered areas open to pedestrian use, absent a fundamental alteration or direct threat.
Wheelchairs are defined as manually-operated or power-driven devices designed primarily for use by an individual with a mobility disability for the main purpose of indoor, or of both indoor and outdoor locomotion.
Manually-powered mobility aids include walkers, crutches, canes, braces, or other similar devices designed for use by people with mobility disabilities
In some instances, there may be policies put in place by the entity that address specific safety concerns related to these devices:
The ADA requires an individualized analysis to determine direct threat. Therefore, blanket policies should be avoided:
Resource(s):
Learn more by visiting our ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
According to the lawsuit, a long-term employee informed the company of her cancer diagnosis and need for intermittent leave to receive and recover from chemotherapy treatments. The company referred the employee to its third-party benefits administrator, but the leave was never granted. The employee accrued attendance points for cancer-related absences and was fired for violating the company's attendance policy.
When a new supervisor assigned the employee to work only in the cooler, she requested reasonable accommodation for her sickle cell disorder which can be triggered by extreme cold. Even though she worked on non-cooler assignments for most of her employment, the company denied her request and said it does not accommodate medical restrictions. Shortly after, Exel discharged her and later hired all other temporary employees for full-time positions except for the former employee, the suit said.
EEOC v. Carlstar Group, LLC (Carlstar)
According to the suit, since January 2020, Carlstar denied opportunities to employees when the company learned they were lawfully taking certain prescription medications, including narcotics and opioids, for the treatment of disabilities, even after employees were medically cleared to perform their job duties. The suit also alleged that Carlstar failed to consider or provide the workers with reasonable accommodations to the company's drug testing and substance abuse policy which would enable employees to work while lawfully using their prescribed medications. Carlstar will pay $300,000 and furnish other relief to settle the lawsuit.
EEOC v. PepsiCo Beverage Sales, LLC (PepsiCo)
According to the suit, a blind customer care advocate for PepsiCo's call center requested reasonable accommodation to allow him to access information in company computers needed to perform his job. PepsiCo said it could not provide accommodation and fired him. The suit alleged that PepsiCo rejected an offer by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Resources to assist PepsiCo with identifying accessibility solutions for the employee. Under the consent decree, PepsiCo agreed to pay $270,000 and must work with an expert to ensure that certain software applications at the Winston-Salem facility will be accessible to individuals with visual disabilities.
EEOC v. Smiths Detection, Inc.
According to the suit, a manufacturing employee who suffered from complete hearing loss in her left ear asked for personal protective equipment to protect her residual hearing which was affected by manufacturing equipment noise in an area where she worked as a team lead. The employer responded by demoting her from team lead and assigning her to a quieter area. The demotion resulted in a reduction in pay, according to the lawsuit. Smiths Detection will pay $100,000 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle to lawsuit.
EEOC v. Federal Express Corporation (FedEx Express)
EEOC charged that FedEx failed to accommodate several dispatchers' requests to continue working from home and demanded the dispatchers' return to its downtown Manhattan office, effectively forcing at least one into retirement. The employee, and other disabled dispatchers, previously performed dispatcher duties remotely and successfully for nearly three years. According to the suit, FedEx denied continued telework based on an alleged operational need to have all its dispatchers work in the office and failed to engage with its disabled dispatchers to find alternative accommodations. FedEx Express will pay $280,000 and furnish other relief to settle the lawsuit.
According to the suit, Lori's Gifts engaged in companywide unlawful employment practices since at least 2018, including using unlawful screening criteria and preemployment inquiries, and refused to hire qualified individuals with disabilities based on the perceived need to make accommodations for them. Lori's Gift's will pay $600,000 and provide other relief to settle the lawsuit.
EEOC v. Florence CK, LLC (Comfort Keepers franchisee)
During orientation, the employee notified employer of her pregnancy, and the company instructed her to obtain medical clearance. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that when the employee then notified the company of a pregnancy-related limitation, the company failed to accommodate and eventually fired her although the employee could perform the essential functions of the position with or without a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC found that the company discriminated against the employee violating four different federal anti-discrimination laws including the ADA by requiring an unlawful medical exam, failing to accommodate and firing the employee. The company agreed to pay $324,200 and take steps to resolve filed charge.
U.S. Department of Education v. District of Columbia Public Schools (the District)
Office for Civil Rights (OCR) concluded that the District violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA by denying students with disabilities a free and appropriate public education. After initiating an investigation last year, OCR concluded that the District allows untrained staff members to make decisions about the educational needs of students with disabilities and permits education services to be removed from a students' plan if the school social worker runs out of time or if a student seems unmotivated to participate. OCR issued a proposed Resolution Agreement.
Harold Thomas Rogers et al. v. West Virginia University (WVU) Board of Governors et al.
Graduate students with vision disabilities allege that WVU repeatedly provided inaccessible textbooks, electronic documents, and online course materials incompatible with their assistive technologies. They also claim discriminatory treatment during required field placements, including denial of assistive technology, unfounded accusations of academic misconduct, and inadequate planning to ensure accessibility.
Cusker v. Oregon Health Authority (OHA)
The plaintiffs in this case are licensed or trained psilocybin service facilitators who seek to provide home-based services to disabled and terminally ill clients who are unable to travel to service centers. Psilocybin is a naturally occurring, psychoactive compound. The plaintiffs have filed on behalf of themselves and their clients, alleging that OHA violated Title II of the ADA "by refusing to permit the reasonable accommodation of home-based service necessary to allow individuals with disabilities to access services under the PSA." At issue is Oregon's requirement that psilocybin services be delivered only at licensed service centers. Under Title II of the ADA, states must make reasonable modifications when program design discriminates against qualified people with disabilities.
DOJ v. Church's Chicken Franchisee
A veteran with a disability who uses a service animal alleged that an employee refused to serve the veteran unless his service animal was removed from the restaurant dining room. Under the Letter of Resolution, QSR has agreed to pay a $2,000 civil penalty to the United States and take other steps to ensure equal treatment to persons with disabilities who use service animals.
Charles George v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
A federal jury found that a Hobby Lobby discriminated against a man with intellectual disabilities when he was thrown out of the store and then pepper-sprayed three years ago. The man was awarded $10,000 in damages after his attorneys argued that the actions of the store manager violated the ADA by treating him less favorably than others because of his disability.
