April 2025
Volume 18 Issue 6
Outdoor Dining, Retail, and Community Spaces (Recording Available)
New Ideas in the International Building Code (IBC) and the ICC A117.1
The NPS.gov Media Player: An Accessible Option for All Government
New Certification Courses from the Rocky Mountain and New England ADA Centers
Two of our sister Centers recently released new resources! Rocky Mountain ADA Center has released a certification course on ADA Accessibility in the Arts. New England ADA Center has also released a certification course about How the ADA Applies to Addiction and Recovery.
How Adaptive Cinema Can Lead to Higher Ticket Sales
This recently published survey of disabled movie-goers showcases how increased accessibility can lead to higher ticket sales for exhibitors. Learn about the key findings and how entities can address barriers.
The Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) has provided a toolkit about hearing loss signs, symptoms and communication tips. These practical strategies can assist people with hearing loss in advocating for their right to effective communication.
Answer: Yes, an assistive listening system (ALS) is required in each assembly area where audible communication is integral to the use of the space (Section 219 of the 2010 ADA Standards).
Section 106.5 Defined Terms:
Each ALS has different advantages and disadvantages that can help determine which system is best for a given application. For example, an FM system may be better than an infrared system in some open-air assemblies since infrared signals are less effective in sunlight. On the other hand, an infrared system is typically a better choice than an FM system where confidential transmission is important because it will be contained within a given space.
The technical standards for assistive listening systems describe minimum performance levels for volume, interference, and distortion. Selecting or specifying an effective assistive listening system for a large or complex venue requires assistance from a professional sound engineer.
Resource(s):
Learn more by visiting our ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
EEOC v. Results Companies, LLC
Results Companies agreed to pay $250,000. According to the suit, the employer hired an employee who is blind as a telephonic customer service representative to work from its call center. The employee requested to use screen reader software as a reasonable accommodation so that she could review written material on her computer screen. The company did not take reasonable steps to facilitate the employee’s use of screen reader software, refused the employee’s suggestion that the company contact her vocational counselor and the publisher of her screen reader software to request technical assistance, and then fired her because she required the reasonable accommodation.
EEOC v. Alliance Ground International, Inc. (AGI)
AGI will pay $70,000 and provide additional relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, AGI refused to hire a qualified deaf applicant because of his disability and failed to consider any reasonable workplace accommodations. The applicant, who sought a mail agent position at AGI’s O’Hare-area warehouse, had extensive relevant work experience and an excellent work safety record.
EEOC v. Mail Hauler Trucking, LLC. (Mail Hauler)
Mail Hauler, which delivers mail for the United States Postal Service, will pay $45,000 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit. The suit charged that Mail Hauler fired an employee because of his disability and/or because the company regarded him as disabled. The employee has a physical impairment that causes weakness, muscle spasms, and stiffness in his legs, and he walks on his toes. He worked as a driver delivering mail between various post offices. The employee was never disciplined for performance during his employment. However, the company fired him despite his ability to perform the essential functions of the job.
EEOC v. Bennett Enterprises Inc. (Ralphie’s Sports Eatery)
Ralphie’s Sports Eatery will pay $125,000 and provide other relief to settle a lawsuit. According to the lawsuit, a woman with a diagnosis of depression and anxiety worked as a server at one of the Ralphie’s Sports Eatery locations. After the restaurant learned of the server’s disability, she was denied a promotion, suspended, and then fired. The server filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC. Thereafter, the employer refused to hire her at a different Ralphie’s location, telling her that it could not offer her the position because she has an active EEOC claim.
Nawara v. Cook County and Thomas J. Dart
A former correctional officer was required to undergo a fitness-for-duty examination. As part of that process, he was required to sign medical release forms. The employee sued, alleging that the examination requirement and inquiries into his mental health violated the ADA. A jury agreed, and a court awarded him restored seniority. On appeal, the court awarded him back pay, stating the ADA’s limits on medical exams and inquiries apply to all individuals, not just those with a disability, with a record of a disability, or regarded as having a disability.
A partial consent decree requires Baltimore to spend at least $44 million over four years to make thousands of curb ramps and tens of thousands of square feet of sidewalks accessible to people who use wheelchairs and mobility devices. The March 31 agreement also requires Baltimore to implement new programs to make its public rights of way comply with the ADA, including a plan to alleviate sidewalk obstructions and improvements to the city’s 311 system allowing reports about inaccessible intersections and sidewalks.
Equip for Equality v. Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC)
Equip for Equality accuses IDOC of violating federal disability rights laws by leaving 21 individuals with disabilities stranded in substandard conditions at Stateville Correctional Center after its closure. The lawsuit details how IDOC closed Stateville due to unsafe living conditions, but left behind a group of prisoners with disabilities in the prison's infirmary. This facility lacks basic amenities such as recreation areas, dining halls, and law libraries. As a result, these individuals are confined to their cells for up to 24 hours a day without access to necessary programs and services. Equip for Equality argues that this treatment violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Omar v. Wayne State University Board of Governors
Omar v. Wayne State University Board of Governors, decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on April 4, 2025, is a case with a lot to unpack, which attorney William Goren does in his blog. Among the issues discussed in this blog is whether attending law school remotely is a reasonable accommodation and what kind of deference is owed to educational institutions by the courts.
Albert v. Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists, LLC
A published decision from the 11th Circuit regarding this case was decided on March 14, 2025, regarding the issue of whether fundamental alteration applies to §309. §309 of the ADA states that “any person that offers examinations or courses related to applications, licensing, certification, or credentialing for secondary or postsecondary education, professional, or trade purposes shall offer such examinations or courses in a place and manner accessible to persons with disabilities or offer alternative accessible arrangements for such individuals.” This blog post by attorney William Goren reviews relevant law and key facts, the court’s reasoning that §309 contains a fundamental alteration element, and thoughts/takeaways.
