Disability Rights Cases
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.
US v ODRC
On December 22, 2022, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit and the parties entered a consent decree in this suit against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) challenging its failure to reasonably accommodate a correctional officer with diabetes under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleges that ODRC unlawfully failed to provide the correction officer with a day shift to accommodate his diabetes where it was medically necessary to do so. Under the decree, ODRC will revise its policies and procedures as needed to ensure ADA compliance; provide ADA employment training to employees who make personnel decisions; and report to the United States on its compliance. ODRC will also pay $50,000 in damages to the complainant and provide him with a day shift as a reasonable accommodation for his diabetes unless if become an undue hardship to do so.
New Jersey Transit Corporation
On December 22, 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey reached a settlement agreement with New Jersey Transit resolving allegations that NJ Transit's paratransit service, Access Link, has capacity constraints that limit service. The agreement requires, among other things, that NJ Transit meet specific performance standards within six months, 12 months, and 24 months for paratransit telephone hold times, timeliness of paratransit trip pickups and drop-offs, paratransit trip length, paratransit trip denials, and paratransit missed trips.
Julie B. Griffiths Law Office
On December 21, 2022, the U.S Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan executed a settlement agreement with Julie B. Griffiths Law Office, a small law family practice in Flint, Michigan, under Title III of the ADA regarding failing to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication for an individual who is deaf and uses American Sign Language. The settlement agreement includes adopting and post a policy regarding auxiliary aids and services, implementation of a grievance resolution mechanism for the investigation of complaints regarding effective communication, training staff, written notification to the
Educational Testing Services
On December 19, 2022, the U.S Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey reached a settlement agreement under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with Educational Testing Service (ETS) regarding multiple allegations by individuals with disabilities (including learning disabilities, ADHD, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, a vision disabilities) that ETS violated the ADA with respect to its testing accommodations process and procedures. The agreement commits ETS to revised policies, practices, and procedures; train staff and online proctors; and pay compensatory damages to the complainants.