October 2024
Volume 18 Issue 1
ARCHIVED - Alterations: A Review of Requirements in the ADA and ABA Standards
Ask an ADA Professional Questions RE: Other Power-Driven Mobility Devices (OPDMD)
Bringing People to Golf - Creating Accessible and Inclusive Environments
Parent Training and Education Approaches for Families in Underserved Populations
Join the Great Lakes ADA Center at the 2024 Fall ADAC Conference
There is still time to register for this year’s Fall ADA Coordinator Conference in Madison, Wisconsin! Our Center will be providing training on Accessible Transportation, Service Animals, Reasonable Accommodations and more!
Attendees must register for the conference by October 10th!
PEAT: AI & Disability Inclusion
As technology expands, the Partnership on Employment & Accessible Technology (PEAT) continues to develop practical resources for employers to better understand and prevent artificial intelligence (AI) from discriminating against qualified applicants and employees with disabilities. Check out PEAT’s brand new resource called the AI & Inclusive Hiring Framework.
Advancing State Policy Integration for Recovery and Employment (ASPIRE)
The Office of Disability and Employment Policy (ODEP) is working towards competitive integrated employment (CIE) for people with mental health conditions through their initiative on Advancing State Policy Integration for Recovery and Employment (ASPIRE). Check out the ASPIRE resource on Funding Crosswalks: Coordinating and Leveraging Resources to Increase Competitive Integrated Employment.
Building Inclusive Higher Education (IHE) Programs Where None Exist
IHE programs are post-high school educational opportunities where people with an intellectual disability (ID) can continue their education. This collection of briefs from the Disability Employment TA Center highlights lessons learned and the stories of parent leaders who helped create IHE programs in communities where they previously didn’t exist.
New Situations and Solutions Finder
The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) recently launched their Situations and Solutions Finder, a tool that draws on information collected from JAN customers to help other people with disabilities learn about specific job accommodation scenarios that might work for them.
Answer: Generally, yes. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to any person with a disability who falls within the jurisdiction of the United States. This can include undocumented immigrants, tourists from other countries, international students, and other non-U.S. citizens.
Resource(s):
Learn more by visiting our ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
EEOC vs. Employment & Training Centers, Inc.
According to the lawsuit, following a conditional job offer, Employment and Training Centers, Inc. (ETC) refused to reasonably accommodate an applicant who said he was unable to produce a urine specimen for drug testing because of end-stage kidney disease. The company failed to provide an alternative method of drug testing and rescinded the job offer.
Check out, EEOC vs. Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, Inc. (CHOA), another applicant accommodation request case.
EEOC vs. PACE Southeast Michigan
According to the lawsuit, PACE maintained a policy that treated any employee unable to return to work following the expiration of FMLA leave as a “voluntary resignation” resulting in termination. PACE refused to consider two employees’ requests for ADA leave, instead terminating both employees pursuant to its policy.
Check out EEOC vs. Castle Hills Master Association Inc. and EEOC vs. Berry Global, Inc. and EEOC vs. Hospital Housing Systems, LLC (HHS) other ADA leave-related cases.
EEOC vs. Navitas Systems, LLC.
According to the suit, Navitas maintained a policy which required an employee returning from any type of medical leave to have a “100% release for work.” When a former employee suffered a severe rotator cuff injury and fractured wrist in April 2020, his doctor restricted him from using his left arm but cleared him to return to work. The employee requested permission to return to work, despite the employer’s policy, as he could perform all the essential functions of his position using his right arm. Navitas refused to allow him to return to work, and then fired him.
Check out, EEOC vs Federal Express Corporation (FedEx), another ADA work-related injury case.
EEOC vs. Osmose Utilities Services, Inc.
According to the lawsuit, a one-call locator who had suffered a head injury and stroke requested to work from home as an accommodation. In-person attendance was not an essential function of the position and Osmose Utilities had previously allowed the employee to work remotely while its office was relocated in 2019. However, Osmose Utilities denied the employee’s request to work remotely as an accommodation for her medical condition. As an alternative, the employee requested to work remotely for two to three days per week. However, this request was denied as well. Although the employer granted the employee leave to attend medical appointments, management complained about the employee leaving work and pressured her to end her appointments prematurely. Six weeks after her first accommodation request, the employee was fired without warning.
Check out, EEOC vs. Sanmina Corporation, another remote work case.
EEOC vs. All Day Medical Care Clinic, LLC
All Day Medical Care Clinic will pay $75,000 and provide other relief to settle the lawsuit that alleged the company fired a scheduling assistant, who on her first day of work, requested software to be installed on her assigned computer to accommodate her vision impairments. The company refused to accommodate the employee and instead terminated her for not disclosing her disability during her interview.
Check out, EEOC vs. The Results Companies, LLC., another visual disability case.
According to the lawsuit, Timken interviewed an applicant and offered him a position. However, the company subjected him to a pre-employment hearing test that required listening to someone standing five feet behind them while they whispered letters and numbers. After the applicant did not pass this hearing test, Timken refused to hire him and did not discuss any reasonable accommodations which could have resolved the their concerns.
Check out, EEOC vs. Heart of Texas Goodwill Industries, Inc., another hearing disability case.
According to the lawsuit, DR Horton assigned a sales associate to a new housing development 66 miles from her home. The sales associate’s diabetic neuropathy made prolonged sitting and gripping objects, such as a steering wheel, painful. Therefore, she requested to be moved to a property closer to her home. Over several months, three closer properties became available, but DR Horton did not reassign her. The sales associate resigned to avoid further daily physical pain.
Check out, EEOC vs. Alternate Solutions Health Network, LLC, and Beaumont ASHN, LLC, (collectively ASHN), another driving accommodation request case.
EEOC vs. Sarafina Network, LLC
According to the lawsuit, employees and store managers used disability-focused nicknames and regularly mocked a cashier based on his disabilities. After the employee complained about the harassment on several occasions, store managers removed him from the work schedule, required the employee to provide medical clearance before returning to work, and then refused to accept the documentation when provided. Management ultimately fired the employee due to his disabilities and complaints of unlawful harassment.
EEOC vs. Virginia International Terminals, LLC
According to the lawsuit, an employee was hospitalized because of a cardiac event and received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. Although he was released by his cardiologist to return to work without restriction, the company would not allow him to drive a hustler truck because of his disability. The hustler truck position did not require a commercial driver’s license and hustler trucks do not operate on public roads. EEOC alleges that the employer unlawfully excluded the driver from his job, and instead, offered him work that paid less and/or provided fewer hours.
Check out EEOC vs. Len Stoler, Inc. and EEOC vs. Mail Hauler Trucking, LLC. other disability discrimination cases.
DOJ sued the State of Maine for unnecessarily segregating children with behavioral health disabilities in hospitals, residential facilities, and a state-operated juvenile detention facility in violation of the ADA and the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. The lawsuit alleges that Maine’s system limits behavioral health services in the community. As a result, Maine children must use in- and out-of-state facilities or even the state-operated juvenile detention facility to receive behavioral health services.
DOJ and the Mason County Jail reached a settlement of allegations the jail violated the ADA by refusing to provide inmates with medications for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD). Under the terms of the settlement, medical providers at the jail will prescribe and provide all three medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat OUD, including methadone, naltrexone, and buprenorphine.
DOJ reached a settlement agreement with Hays County to ensure that they provide accessible polling places to voters with disabilities. Under the settlement agreement, the county will engage the technical assistance of an accessibility expert and use an evaluation form for current and prospective polling places based on the ADA architectural standards. In addition, Hays County will train its poll workers and other elections staff on the requirements of the ADA and how to use temporary measures to ensure each polling place is accessible during elections.
DOJ vs. Cobb County Board of Elections, GA
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia has entered into a settlement agreement with the Cobb County Board of Elections to resolve a multi-year compliance review that identified physical barriers at polling sites. Cobb County has agreed to make corrections in time for the November 2024 general election as well as conduct a systemic review and ensure accessibility for all future polling locations.
DOJ reached a settlement agreement with Hays County to ensure that they provide accessible polling places to voters with disabilities. Under the settlement agreement, the county will engage the technical assistance of an accessibility expert and use an evaluation form for current and prospective polling places based on the ADA architectural standards. In addition, Hays County will train its poll workers and other elections staff on the requirements of the ADA and how to use temporary measures to ensure each polling place is accessible during elections.
Check out, DOJ vs. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Washington State Parks), another Title II inaccessible facilities settlement agreement.
DOJ vs. Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation (Johns Hopkins)
DOJ filed a complaint and proposed a consent decree resolving allegations that Johns Hopkins failed on numerous occasions to follow its own policies relating to visitors and support persons. The case states that they did not permit patients with disabilities to be accompanied by their support persons, and as a result, these patients were unable to receive equal care.
DOJ vs. McLaren Health Care Corporation
McLaren has agreed to enter into a settlement agreement with the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan that requires McLaren to provide auxiliary aids and services free of charge to ensure effective communication with their patients and their companions. They will provide a combined amount of $220,000 to fourteen affected individuals. McLaren will also review and revise its policies to be consistent with the ADA’s effective communication requirements.
Check out, DOJ vs. Allergy and Asthma Center, another Title III effective communication settlement agreement.
