July 2024
Volume 17 Issue 9
Ask an ADA Professional Questions RE: Early Childcare and the ADA
Assistive Listening Systems: Where We Are Today and What’s On The Horizon (Part 2)
Great Lakes ADA 34th Anniversary Regional Events and Resources
During the month of July, check out our Great Lakes ADA Center website for upcoming ADA34 anniversary events and resources like free posters (while supplies last), interviews with disability rights leaders, regional disability data, and more!
The United Spinal Association has released an updated version of their comprehensive Disability Etiquette Guide. This resource contains information on interacting with people who have disabilities in order to increase understanding and improve accessibility. Disability:IN also offers a starting guide infographic with basic disability etiquette tips.
Voting Rights: Polling Place Accessibility Audit Toolkit
The National Polling Access Audit Coalition (NPAAC) has created a comprehensive toolkit as well as resources and workshops to support polling place accessibility audits.
How State DD Councils Can Open the Glass Door to Employment
This resource was designed to help Councils on Developmental Disabilities (DD) and grantees close the employment gap between people with and without disabilities. Lean about what matters to employers and practical tips to help them become business leaders in Employment First practices.
Answer: It depends. If a store offers personal shopping assistance to customers without disabilities, than this service must be accessible to customers with disabilities. However, if the store does not offer personal shopping services, they are generally not required to provide them to a person with a disability. Title III of the ADA requires businesses to provide equal access to goods and services. It does not require a store to provide personal devices (hearing aids, wheelchairs, etc.) or personal services (assistance in eating, toileting, shopping, etc.).
This does not mean a store would not need to comply with other relevant ADA requirements, such as making reasonable modifications or providing auxiliary aids and services. For example, a store employee could be asked to read a label to someone who is blind or retrieve items from a high shelf for a person with dwarfism. If these requests would not result in an undue burden or fundamental alteration of the business, they would generally be expected to provide them.
Resource(s):
Learn more by visiting our ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
Nationwide job assistance companies Res-Care and Equus Workforce Solutions will pay $125,000 and furnish other relief to settle a disability and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC charged Res-Care/Equus with violating federal law by discriminating against an employee with a high-risk pregnancy due to her underlying disabilities, and then retaliating against her by firing her for requesting leave as a reasonable accommodation.
EEOC v. Factor One Source Pharmacy, LLC
According to this EEOC lawsuit, Factor One violated the ADA and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) when it inquired about employee disabilities and genetic information and pressured employees to use its pharmacy services. Employees who refused were allegedly fired or laid off. In addition to $515,000 in monetary relief, the agreed-upon settlement requires the company to train employees on the ADA and GINA, and to survey employees on their treatment in the workplace.
Weis Markets agreed to a consent decree to address charges that a male supervisor for the grocery store chain subjected a female employee to sexual harassment and fired her when she refused to undergo mental health counseling through the employee assistance program (EAP). In addition to paying $75,000 to the female employee, Weis Markets agreed to provide mandatory training about Title VII, the ADA, and its new EAP policies.
EEOC v. Opportunities and Resources, Inc. and ORI Anuenue Hale, Inc.
These federal janitorial contractors will pay $325,000 to resolve a disability lawsuit alleging they failed to provide ASL interpreters as reasonable accommodations to Deaf employees. ORI has agreed to provide sign language interpreters, hire an external EEO monitor, designate an internal ADA coordinator, and implement effective ADA policies and procedures to ensure reasonable accommodation requests are properly handled.
EEOC v. Pearl Interactive Network, Inc.
Pearl Interactive Network, a Columbus-based company, will pay an employee $3,212 in back pay and interest, as well as $20,000 in compensatory damages to resolve a charge of disability discrimination. EEOC found that Pearl Interactive Network denied the employee a reasonable accommodation, unlawfully placed her on unpaid leave due to her disability, and improperly disclosed her medical information. The company will also implement enhanced ADA training and policies.
DOJ v. Colorado, Runnels, Smith and Upton County, Texas
The DOJ and the U.S. Attorney’s Office reached a settlement agreement with four Texas counties to resolve findings that they violated the ADA by maintaining election websites that discriminate against individuals with vision or manual disabilities. Under the settlement agreements, the counties agreed to make all future and existing online election content accessible.
The Justice Department announced that Utah is violating the ADA by unnecessarily segregating youth and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) during the day, instead of helping them find work and spend their days in their communities. The ADA and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. require state and local governments to make their services for people with disabilities available in the most integrated setting appropriate to each person’s needs.
The DOJ announced that Alaska violated the ADA by failing to provide an accessible ballot for in-person voting; selecting inaccessible polling places for federal, state, and local elections; and maintaining an inaccessible elections website. In a public letter of findings, the department detailed its findings and asked the state to resolve the identified civil rights violations.
DOJ v. Fulton County Schools, Georgia
The DOJ reached a settlement agreement with Fulton County Schools in Georgia to resolve the department’s investigation of the district’s response to an escalating series of student-on-student sexual assaults on a school bus serving students with special needs. The department conducted its investigation under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974.
The U.S. Attorney's Office secured an agreement with the owners of the Carolina Café that requires the restaurant to make reasonable modifications to its parking lot to create accessible parking spaces for customers with disabilities. Upon learning of the complaint, the owners of Carolina Café cooperated with the investigation and agreed to remedy the violation and immediately began to work on creating the accessible parking spaces.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado reached an agreement with Marriott to address reservation barriers for accessible rooms at Marriott-branded hotels across the United States. Under the terms of the agreement, Marriott will make improvements to its reservation processes that will make it easier for hotel guests to reserve and stay in accessible rooms. Marriott will also pay a $50,000 civil penalty.
DOJ v. Creative Interventions, LLC
The U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut has entered into a settlement agreement with Creative Interventions, an Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy provider, to resolve allegations that the company discriminated against a child with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Type 1 Diabetes. The complaint alleged that they refused to monitor the child’s Continuous Glucose Monitor and instead required a parent to provide this care. Creative Interventions will implement new policies and procedures for handling requests for reasonable modifications consistent with the ADA and will provide training to its staff on the ADA. Creative Interventions has also agreed to pay $15,000 to the complainant in this matter.
Justice Department Files Statements of Interest in Two Voting Access Lawsuits
The Justice Department has filed statements of interest in Ohio (League of Women Voters of Ohio v. LaRose) and Alabama (Alabama State Conference of the NAACP v. Marshall) to promote the correct and uniform interpretation of voting laws protecting the rights of voters with disabilities. The statements affirm that the ADA requires public entities to provide equal opportunities to vote absentee and allow voters with disabilities to use an assistant of their choice as a reasonable modification.
