August 2026
Volume 19 Issue 10
The Ultimate Back-To-School Guide for Families of Children with Disabilities
Back-to-school checklists are often tailored towards the needs and experiences of non-disabled children, leaving families of children with disabilities to figure out the rest on their own. Check out this collection of resources and information from the Arc to prepare parents and their children with disabilities for a new school year.
New Report: Area Agencies on Aging
National Senior Citizens Day falls on August 21. New data from the 2025 National Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) Survey shows the vital role these organizations play and the way they have adapted their services to meet the complex needs of a growing older adult population. Check out the report to learn about the trends and priorities of Area Agencies on Aging.
Preparing for Severe Weather
Recently, the Great Lakes region has been experiencing severe thunderstorms and other weather events. Learn how to prepare for severe weather with this helpful resource from Disability Belongs. Also check out our recent Q&A webinar, Ask an ADA Professional RE: Emergency Management and Preparedness.
Answer: Under Title I of the ADA, essential functions are core parts of a job that every person in that role must be able to do, regardless of their disability. A reasonable accommodation may be needed for an employee to perform the function, but employers are generally not required to eliminate or reassign an essential function as an accommodation. However, employers can be required to eliminate or reassign non-essential marginal functions as an accommodation, when reasonable. The employer can also swap marginal functions amongst employees as a form of reasonable accommodation if an employee with a disability is able to perform some marginal functions but not others.
In order to determine if eliminating or reassigning a certain job function would be reasonable, the employer must determine if the function is essential or marginal. This will be a case-by-case analysis, but some factors to consider might include:
It is important for employers and employees to understand that just because a duty is listed in a job description or is called "essential" by an employer does not necessarily mean it is an essential function according to the ADA. Job descriptions can be used to support an essential function claim, however, it is not the only thing to consider. Employers who call a duty "essential" to avoid making reasonable accommodations can be found in violation of the ADA if they lack supporting evidence to back up their claim.
Resource(s):
Learn more by visiting our ADA Frequently Asked Questions.
EEOC v. Paycom Payroll, LLC (Paycom)
The suit said that an employee with a severe allergy repeatedly suffered anaphylactic reactions from exposure to food brought in by coworkers. Although she promptly informed supervisors and human resources of her condition and submitted medical documentation recommending she work in a secluded space or from home, Paycom provided only limited temporary workspace adjustments which failed to provide an effective accommodation. They also declined to allow her to work remotely despite having established policies permitting the practice. The employee continued to experience multiple allergic reactions and the day after her most severe reaction, the company terminated her, stating it could not accommodate her disability.
EEOC v. Step2 Company, LLC (Step2)
According to the suit, Step2 disciplined an assembly worker under its attendance policy when she was absent because of pregnancy-related medical conditions and took approved leave for chronic mental health conditions. The suit alleges Step2 failed to accommodate the employee when it did not excuse her pregnancy and disability-related absences. Instead, Step2 retaliated against the worker for requesting accommodations, interfered with her ability to seek reasonable accommodations, and then fired her.
EEOC V. Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC (BEA)
The EEOC’s investigation, after receiving multiple complaints, found reasonable cause to believe that BEA discriminated against a class of more than 100 employees by denying accommodations for their sincerely held religious beliefs and/or disabilities under the company’s mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy. Following the investigation, a three-year agreement was agreed upon requiring BEA to provide back pay and compensatory damages to the aggrieved individuals. The agreement also requires BEA to train human resources personnel on religious and disability-related accommodation request policies.
EEOC v. Sutter Roseville Medical Center (Sutter Roseville)
According to the suit, a staff nurse alleged that she had been discharged after her managers refused to provide her with a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The EEOC investigation found evidence confirming that rather than provide her with the reasonable accommodation of a lateral reassignment to an open position, Sutter Roseville refused to consider any accommodation and instead terminated her because of her disability. Sutter Roseville agreed to provide $200,000 in back pay and compensatory damages along with other injunctive relief.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v. 26 Meta Employees
A group of 26 current and former Meta employees sued the company, claiming they used artificial intelligence (AI) systems to select people for layoffs, disproportionately targeting people with disabilities on protected leave and those who had requested an accommodation. The lawsuit claims the company used internal AI systems to score and rate employees to determine who would be laid off. Many of these scores and ratings are negatively impacted when an employee has a disability or is on protected leave. According to the lawsuit, Meta did not account for this, and as a result, people with disabilities were disproportionately selected for layoffs. Each of the 26 anonymous employees in the lawsuit either took protected leave or requested a reasonable accommodation for disability.
A coalition of disability rights advocates announced a settlement of a class action lawsuit against the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority regarding elevator outages in the New York subway system. The settlement follows litigation in both the federal district court and court of appeals regarding what steps the MTA needs to take when elevators are out of service. Among other things, the settlement requires mandatory customer service training for all subway station agents on disability-related topics, including how to assist customers with disabilities in the event of an elevator outage, adding information to the website regarding all current elevator outages, and acknowledge customer complaints regarding accessibility elevator outages within one business day. Learn more: Settlement in Disability Advocates’ Class Action Over MTA Elevators Includes Major Efforts to Improve Usability of Subway System for People with Disabilities.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office received several complaints that families with children with Type 1 Diabetes were refused entry into Roll R Way skating center. On separate occasions, each family wanted to enter with their child’s diabetes treatment supplies, which included a small amount of food and drink to regulate the child’s low blood sugar. Management of the skating center refused the families entry because of its “no outside food or drink” policy. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Roll R Way must revise its “no outside food or drink policy” to include a reasonable modification for patrons with diabetes and dietary restrictions. Roll R Way will train their employees on the new accommodation policy and provide notice to the public to request an accommodation, if needed.
The U.S. determined that APC violated the ADA when it refused to allow the complainant to attend a post-hospitalization medical appointment with his service animal. APC claimed to have a “no pets policy” and that their office is a “sterile environment.” APC’s denial caused the complainant to experience a PTSD episode, followed by repeated seizures during the car ride home and over the next several days, and to abruptly discontinue the medicine an APC physician had prescribed him while he was hospitalized. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, APC must pay $100,000 to compensate the complainant and his wife for the discrimination they faced. APC must adopt, maintain, and enforce a service animal policy and a non-discrimination policy regarding discrimination on the basis of disability.
