Disability Rights Cases
City of Dayton v. Dayton Police Department
On June 12, 2023, the United States executed a settlement agreement with the City of Dayton and the Dayton Police Department under Title II of the ADA. The settlement resolves allegations that the Dayton Police Department discriminated against a driver, who uses a wheelchair, during a traffic stop. Under the agreement, Dayton will make policy changes, and conduct training to ensure that its police officers are aware of their obligation to make reasonable modifications to police services to avoid discrimination against people disabilities.
Dear Colleague Letter on Online Accessibility at Postsecondary Institutions
On May 19, 2023, the Justice Department and the Department of Education jointly issued a Dear Colleague Letter reminding colleges, universities, and other postsecondary institutions to ensure that their online services, programs, and activities are accessible to people with disabilities. Many colleges, universities, and other postsecondary institutions increasingly rely on their websites and third-party online platforms to provide services, programs, and activities to members of the public. This includes courses on learning platforms as well as podcasts and videos on social media and third-party platforms like YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcasts. This joint letter reiterates that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require colleges, universities, and other postsecondary institutions to provide equal opportunities to people with disabilities in all their operations. The letter also highlights recent web accessibility enforcement activities and technical assistance from the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.
Lou v. Lopinto
On May 12, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Lou v. Lopinto, a private lawsuit against the Sheriff of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, and several Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office deputies (defendants). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana by the parents of a sixteen-year-old with autism who died while the defendants were responding to the child’s disability-related acute sensory episode, or “outburst.” One of the lawsuit’s claims is that the defendants discriminated against the child based on disability, in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), when they did not reasonably accommodate the child’s known disability while interacting with and restraining the child. The department filed the Statement of Interest to clarify how Title II of the ADA applies to law enforcement encounters with people experiencing disability-related crises. The department’s brief explains that law enforcement agencies can violate the ADA by failing to provide people with disabilities with an equal opportunity to benefit from their services when officers respond to emergency calls. Law enforcement officers can also violate the ADA by failing to reasonably modify their procedures when interacting with people with disabilities. Finally, the department explains that the Fifth Circuit’s exigent circumstances exception should not bar this ADA claim.
Timothy B. et al. v. Kody Kinsley
On April 21, 2023, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Timothy B. v. Kinsley, a putative class action brought on behalf of children with disabilities in foster care. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that North Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is violating the integration mandate of Title II of the ADA by unnecessarily segregating foster children in psychiatric residential treatment facilities when these children could live in the community with appropriate services, including mental and behavioral health services. DHHS moved to dismiss the complaint. The Statement of Interest responds to DHHS's motion to dismiss by explaining the legal standard for stating a claim under the integration mandate and addressing DHHS's arguments relating to collateral estoppal and standing.
American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, et al. v. Chicago
On April 8, 2021, the Justice Department moved to intervene in a lawsuit under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the City of Chicago, and on April 14, 2021, the Department filed its complaint. The case concerns Chicago’s lack of accessible pedestrian signals (APS) at over 99% of its street intersections with pedestrian signals. APS provide safe-crossing information in a non-visual manner to allow people who are blind, deaf-blind, or have low vision to cross the street.
On March 31, 2023, the court granted summary judgment on liability to the United States and the American Council of the Blind under Title II of the ADA and Section 504. The court found that the city had provided APS at only a “miniscule portion of the whole,” and thus had failed to provide meaningful access to its network of pedestrian signals and to ensure that newly constructed signals are accessible. On November 6, 2023, the Department filed a joint proposed remedial plan.
Minnesota Department of Corrections
On September 30, 2022, the Justice Department issued a Letter of Findings against the Minnesota Department of Corrections (MNDOC) under Title II of the ADA after investigating complaints alleging that the state prison system discriminates against incarcerated individuals with disabilities in its General Educational Development (GED) program. The Department found that the MNDOC fails to provide incarcerated individuals with disabilities with necessary reasonable modifications during GED courses and practice tests and denies them opportunities to obtain accommodations during GED exams. This includes individuals with learning disabilities, traumatic brain injuries, vision impairments, and mental health disabilities. On February 14, 2023, the Justice Department filed its complaint and proposed consent decree to resolve its findings. The MNDOC agreed to revise its policies, train personnel and educate incarcerated individuals on these revised policies and the ADA, hire an agency-wide ADA Compliance Officer and designate facility-level ADA and education coordinators, conduct a corrective action review, and provide regular reports to the Department. The MNDOC will also pay over $70,000 in compensatory damages to aggrieved individuals with disabilities. The court approved the consent decree on March 7, 2023
United States v. Florida
On February 16, 2023, the United States filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the manner in which Florida administers its service systems for children with complex medical needs, children with disabilities are unnecessarily segregated in nursing facilities when they could be served in their family homes or other community-based settings. The lawsuit further alleges that the State’s policies and practices place children with complex medical needs in the community at serious risk of institutionalization in nursing facilities, in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Amended Complaint asks the court to declare that Florida is discriminating against children with complex medical needs in violation of Title II, and to order the State to provide services to such children in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The United States initiated this lawsuit on July 22, 2013, following the issue of a letter of findings in September 2012. On May 30, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Florida’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Attorney General has authority to sue to enforce Title II of the ADA. The court later dismissed the United States’ claims, concluding that the United States does not have authority to sue to enforce Title II of the ADA. The United States appealed, and on September 17, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision and judgment in favor of the United States. Florida petitioned for rehearing en banc on October 29, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc on December 22, 2021, and remanded the case to the district court on January 11, 2022. On June 15, 2022, the United States filed an Amended Complaint in this ongoing lawsuit against the State of Florida. On August 12, 2022, the United States filed a brief in opposition to the State of Florida's motion to dismiss, which the Court denied.
Tufts Medical Center
On February 28, 2020, the United States executed a Settlement Agreement under Title III of the ADA with Tufts Medical Center to ensure physical access for individuals with disabilities by removing barriers at public and common use areas, providing additional accessible patient rooms, and improving effective communication for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing by adding new policies and procedures. On February 2, 2023, the United States entered into a two-year extension and addendum to the Settlement. The extension was necessary because of the COVID-19 pandemic, to allow Tufts to complete barrier removal to accessible patient rooms and for the United States to verify compliance.
City and County of Honolulu
On January 24, 2023, the Justice Department, the United States settled with the City and County of Honolulu under Title II of the ADA to improve paratransit service for individuals with disabilities. The agreement resolves complaints that customers of Honolulu’s paratransit service, "TheHandi-Van" who called to make or change reservations for rides, had very long telephone hold times or did not have their calls answered.
United States v. Cumberland County, Tennessee
On January 18, 2023, the United States filed its Complaint and proposed Consent Decree to resolve allegations that Cumberland County, Tennessee violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying a corrections officer a reasonable accommodation and constructively discharging/terminating him based on his disability of opioid use disorder. In addition, the County implemented a policy that prevents people who are taking legally prescribed controlled substances or certain medications from having those substances or medications present in their system while at work for the County, thus prohibiting working for the County while taking such medications. Under the Consent Decree, Cumberland County will implement non-discrimination policies and procedures, train its staff on the ADA, and pay a total of $160,000 to the complainant.
U.S. v. Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center, PC
On December 20, 2021, the United States sued Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center, PC (BDP), an optometry and ophthalmology provider with 24 facilities, for violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to transfer certain patients with disabilities from wheelchairs onto surgical and exam tables and instead requiring these patients to hire third-party medical support personnel to transport them to and from BDP facilities and to provide transfer assistance at the facilities.
On April 18, 2022, the United States filed an Amended Complaint to add Medical Management Resources Group, L.L.C., d/b/a American Vision Partners Holdings, L.L.C. (AVP) (collectively, Defendants) as a co-defendant. AVP partners with nearly 80 eye care facilities in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Texas including: Southwestern Eye Center, M & M Eye Institute, Retinol Consultants of Arizona, Abrams Eye Institute, Southwest Eye Institute, Aiello Eye Institute, Havasu Eye Center, Visage Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery and Moretsky Cassidy Vision Correction. The Amended Complaint also added allegations that AVP and BDP have also denied eye surgery outright to patients who need transfer assistance.
On January 17, 2023, the United States filed its proposed Consent Decree to resolve allegations that Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center PC and Medical Management Resources Group, L.L.C., d/b/a American Vision Partners Holdings, L.L.C. (collectively, Defendants) violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants' eye care practices discriminate against patients who, because of their disabilities, need assistance transferring from their wheelchairs for eye surgery. The U.S alleges that Defendants required patients with disabilities who needed transfer assistance to use and pay for third party medical transport and transfer assistance as a condition of surgery, in violation of the ADA. Additionally, the U.S. also alleges that Defendants denied eye surgery outright to some patients who needed transfer assistance. This discriminatory practice delayed needed medical care and resulted in significant harms to individuals who need eye surgery. Under the consent decree, Defendants will change their anti-discrimination and transfer assistance policies to provide for transfer assistance at their facilities. They will also train staff on the new policy requirements and on safe transfer techniques and pay $950,000 to patients and prospective patients who were harmed by its policies and a civil penalty of $50,000.
The Town of Greenwich Connecticut
On January 4, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut reached a resolution under Title II of the ADA with the Town of Greenwich, Connecticut, to address physical inaccessibility at the Byram Marina facility. The agreements includes improving the accessibility of designated boat slips, and the routes to those slips, as well as other accommodations designed to increase accessibility.