July 2026
Volume 19 Issue 9
US Digital Accessibility: Laws, Resources, and Real-World Insights
Infrastructure Is People: How Libraries Are Redefining Digital Accessibility from the Inside Out
Celebrating 36 Years of the ADA and 35 Years of the ADA National Network
Celebrating the ADA and ADA National Network Anniversary!
July 26, 2026 marks the 36th Anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This year, we are also celebrating the 35th Anniversary of the Great Lakes ADA Center as a member of the ADA National Network. Check out our ADA Anniversary page for materials to enhance your own ADA36 celebrations and information on upcoming events.
Rocky Mountain ADA Center: Driving for Uber or Lift? What you should know about the ADA
Did you know that the ADA employment protections do not apply to independent contractors? The Rocky Mountain ADA Center explains this and other important information for rideshare drivers in their new resource. Check out the Rocky Mountain ADA Center’s resource on driving for a rideshare company.
Know Before You Go: Accessibility Tips for Travelers
Wherever you are planning to travel, taking a few practical steps ahead of time can make it easier to navigate airports, hotels, and ground transportation. This summer, check out the helpful guide from Disability Belongs on travel accessiblity.
Answer: While the ADA does not protect against discrimination based on current illegal drug use, it does protect against discrimination based on a history or record of illegal drug use. It also protects against the denial of health services, including prescribed medication connected to drug rehabilitation, like Suboxone or Methadone, on the basis of current illegal drug use.
The ADA is clear that covered entities may not use current illegal drug use as justification to deny health services, or services provided in connection with drug rehabilitation, if the individual is otherwise entitled to such services. For example, a person in custody at a jail should generally not be denied access to prescribed medication, based on current illegal drug use, that they would otherwise be entitled to receive.
There is an exception for drug rehabilitation or treatment programs which the ADA states may deny participation to people who engage in illegal use of drugs while they are in the program.
Resource(s):
Learn more by visiting our ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
According to the lawsuit, Alight Solutions refused an employee additional breaks during his shift to monitor blood sugar and to recover from diabetic episodes, even though he was willing to make up the time by working a longer shift. Among other things, Alight used electronic attendance monitoring systems to track employee activity that did not appropriately account for the employee’s additional breaks. Instead of accommodating the breaks, Alight terminated him.
According to the suit, the franchisees had a policy which refused to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who had actual or perceived medical restrictions. Instead, the franchisees placed employees on unpaid, indefinite leave, even if the restrictions did not prevent them from performing the essential functions of their jobs. This practice, sometimes known as a “100% healed” policy, often resulted in forced resignation or discharge of employees who could not provide a doctor’s note stating they had no restrictions. Additionally, two of the franchisees unlawfully commingled employees’ medical records with personnel files. In addition to paying $250,000 monetary damages, the four-year consent decree requires the franchisees to eliminate the requirement for employees to have no medical restrictions, individually assess and provide reasonable accommodations, and annually train employees on the ADA.
EEOC v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprise, LLC
According to the lawsuit, O’Reilly hired an employee as a commercial truck driver in 2015. In the summer of 2022, he had a stroke and multiple seizures and was hospitalized in an intensive care unit. The employee was on an approved leave of absence until February 2023. Towards the end of his leave, after he was advised that he could not drive a commercial vehicle for five years, he requested a reasonable accommodation in the form of reassignment to a non-driving position at an O’Reilly’s distribution center. Although he qualified for multiple open and available positions, O’Reilly refused to offer him one of the positions pursuant to a policy which prohibited drivers from being reassigned to distribution centers. Instead, O’Reilly terminated him.
EEOC v. Golding Barge Line, Inc.
According to the lawsuit, the company rescinded a job offer for an individual who applied for work as a deckhand because of the results of the applicant’s pre-employment color vision test. The agency alleged that the company rescinded the offer despite the fact that color vision was not an essential function of the position.
EEOC v. Red Royal Electric, Inc.
According to the suit, Red Royal refused to hire an applicant with a neurodevelopmental disorder and failed to accommodate his request to provide documentation of prescription medication to pass the employer’s drug screen for hiring. Under the three-year consent decree, Red Royal will pay $34,500 in back pay and compensatory damages to the job applicant and implement significant policy and training reforms.
EEOC v. Penney OpCo, LLC (JC Penney)
According to the suit, a warehouse associate at a JC Penney logistics center was diagnosed with breast cancer and requested time off for medical appointments. She submitted the required written accommodation request, medical documentation of her treatment and need for leave from work to the company’s third-party benefits administrator; however, JC Penney denied her request. Because her request was denied, the time she took off from work for her cancer treatment counted against JC Penney’s attendance points policy, and when she exceeded the number of points allowed, she was fired. The approved consent decree settling the suit requires JC Penney to pay $99,000 monetary relief and undertake remedial measures to include instituting and training its managers on a new process for monitoring how its third-party leave administrator handles requests for accommodation under the ADA and a review procedure before discharging employees who may have disability accommodation requests pending.
EEOC v. Federal Express Corporation
The suit charged that Federal Express Corporation discriminated against four individual employees who worked as package handlers, and a class of employee package handlers, who are disabled because of blindness, by failing to provide them with reasonable accommodations which would allow them to perform the essential functions of their jobs and enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment. The suit also said Federal Express Corporation failed to maintain records, in violation of federal law.
According to the suit, in October 2024, a case worker with Hodgkin’s lymphoma provided The Salvation Army with a medical note stating her chemotherapy treatments would continue through February 2025 and asking for intermittent leave for the treatments and related recovery. Instead, The Salvation Army told the employee it needed to let her go. She was presented with two options: resign and be eligible for reemployment when she was healthy or be fired and no longer eligible for reemployment with The Salvation Army. The employee, who wanted to continue her employment with The Salvation Army, was forced to resign.
Cline v. West Los Angeles College
Under the settlement, the Los Angeles Community College District and West Los Angeles College, will provide an on-campus shuttle service at Wes Los Angeles College. The shuttle is for people who have disabilities that make it difficult to navigate long distances, inclines, or uneven terrain, and who attend or would like to attend on-campus classes or events. The Court has scheduled a hearing for July 20, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. to determine if the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable and should receive final approval. Learn more: Cline v. West Los Angeles College - Disability Rights Advocates
Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago Inc. v. City of Chicago
The City of Chicago agreed to settle a 2018 lawsuit that alleged the city failed to comply with the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing Act and build affordable housing accessible to Chicagoans with disabilities by paying $2.25 million. The agreement also calls for the city to build or rehabilitate 2,000 new affordable units accessible to those with limited mobility as well as an additional 840 new affordable units accessible for Chicagoans with limited hearing and sight during the next 12 years. The city will also have to create a system to inspect, monitor and maintain a list of affordable and accessible units as part of the resolution of the lawsuit. Learn more: Access Living of Metropolitan Chicago v. City of Chicago: Relman Colfax PLLC.
M.F. v. New York City Department of Education (DOE)
This 2018 lawsuit alleged that DOE and other New York city agencies systemically failed to ensure that students with diabetes could attend school safely and have access to the same educational opportunities as their peers under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The monitor for this case issued their first Compliance Report evaluating DOE’s compliance with the settlement agreement for the period from September 1, 2025, to January 1,2026. The Monitor found that although DOE is making targeted, systemic improvements that will benefit students with diabetes, the pace is not keeping up with many of the Agreement’s requirements. At the Monitor’s request, Defendants will submit targeted corrective action plans within 30 days to address noncompliance in three categories: timeliness with finalizing Section 504 plans before the end of the prior school year for returning students with diabetes, the new student pre-meeting requirement, and unmet training benchmarks.
DOJ v. Kamran Azad MD P.A., d/b/a Azad Plastic Surgery (APS)
The U.S. Attorney’s Office opened an investigation into APS after receiving a complaint from an individual alleging APS refused to provide him with plastic surgery services because he has Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). During the investigation, a second complaint was received from an individual alleging APS refused to provide her with plastic surgery services because she has Crohn’s disease. The U.S. determined that APS relied on incorrect assumptions and stereotypes about HIV and Crohn’s disease, not on current medical knowledge, when deciding to deny the complainants access to its services which violates the ADA. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, APS must pay $20,000 in compensatory damages to each complainant and undertake remedial measures including providing training to all personnel on the non-discrimination requirements under the ADA and providing plastic surgery services for patients with HIV.
The settlement will resolve a lawsuit brought by three Bay Area residents against the companies that own and operate SuperShuttle—a transportation service that provides ground transportation serving over 70 airports nationwide, including in San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Atlanta, and Chicago – for failing to provide services to wheelchair users. Learn more: Settlement with Leading Airport Transportation Shuttle Company to Improve Access for Wheelchair Users - Disability Rights Advocates
