There have been some notable cases regarding the ADA. For example, a major hotel room marketer (
Hotels.com) with their business presence on the Internet was sued because their customers with disabilities could not reserve hotel rooms through their website without substantial extra efforts that persons without disabilities were not required to perform. Such lawsuits represent a major potential expansion of the ADA in that they (known as "bricks vs. clicks"), seek to expand the ADA's authority to
cyberspace, where entities may not have actual physical facilities that are required to comply.
Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Ellerbe Becket Architects and Engineers One of the first major ADA lawsuits,
Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Ellerbe Becket Architects and Engineers (PVA 1996) was focused on the wheelchair accessibility of a stadium project that was still in the design phase, MCI Center (now known as
Capital One Arena) in Washington, D.C. Previous to this case, which was filed only five years after the ADA was passed, the DOJ was unable or unwilling to provide clarification on the distribution requirements for accessible wheelchair locations in large assembly spaces. While Section 4.33.3 of ADAAG makes reference to lines of sight, no specific reference is made to seeing over standing patrons. The MCI Center, designed by
Ellerbe Becket Architects & Engineers, was designed with too few wheelchair and companion seats, and the ones that were included did not provide sight lines that would enable the wheelchair user to view the playing area while the spectators in front of them were standing. This case and another related case established precedent on seat distribution and sight lines issues for ADA enforcement that continues to present day.
Green v. State of California Green v. State of California, No. S137770 (Cal. August 23, 2007) was a case in which the California Supreme Court was faced with deciding whether an employee suing the state is required to prove they are able to perform "essential" job duties, regardless of whether or not there was "reasonable accommodation", or if the employer must prove the person suing was unable to do so. The court ruled the burden was on the employee, not the employer, and reversed a disputed decision by the lower courts. Plaintiff attorney David Greenberg brought forth considerations of the concept that, even in the state of California, employers do not have to employ a worker who is unable to perform "essential job functions" with "reasonable accommodation". Forcing employers to do so "would defy logic and establish a poor public policy in employment matters."
National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp. was a case where a major retailer,
Target Corp., was sued because their web designers failed to design its website to enable persons with low or no vision to use it.
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett was a
United States Supreme Court case about
Congress's enforcement powers under the
Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution. It decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional insofar as it allowed private citizens to sue states for
money damages.
Barden v. The City of Sacramento Barden v. The City of Sacramento, filed in March 1999, claimed that the City of Sacramento failed to comply with the ADA when, while making public street improvements, it did not bring its sidewalks into compliance with the ADA. Certain issues were resolved in federal court. One issue, whether sidewalks were covered by the ADA, was appealed to the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that sidewalks were a "program" under the ADA and must be made accessible to persons with disabilities. The ruling was later appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case, letting stand the ruling of the 9th Circuit.
Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc Bates v. United Parcel Service, Inc (UPS; begun in 1999) was the first
equal opportunity employment class action brought on behalf of Deaf and Hard of Hearing workers throughout the country concerning workplace discrimination. It established legal precedent for these employees to be fully covered under the ADA. Key findings included: • UPS failed to address communication barriers and to ensure equal conditions and opportunities for deaf employees; • Deaf employees were routinely excluded from workplace information, denied opportunities for promotion, and exposed to unsafe conditions due to lack of accommodations by UPS; • UPS also lacked a system to alert these employees as to emergencies, such as fires or chemical spills, to ensure that they would safely evacuate their facility; and • UPS had no policy to ensure that deaf applicants and employees actually received effective communication in the workplace. The outcome was that UPS agreed to pay a $5.8 million settlement and agreed to a comprehensive accommodations program that was implemented in their facilities throughout the country.
Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. was decided by the
United States Supreme Court in 2005. The defendant argued that as a vessel flying the flag of a foreign nation it was exempt from the requirements of the ADA. This argument was accepted by a federal court in Florida and, subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower courts on the basis that
Norwegian Cruise Lines was a business headquartered in the United States whose clients were predominantly Americans and, more importantly, operated out of port facilities throughout the United States.
Olmstead v. L.C. Olmstead v. L.C. was a case before the
United States Supreme Court in 1999. The two plaintiffs,
Lois Curtis and E.W., were institutionalized in Georgia for diagnosed "mental retardation" and schizophrenia. Clinical assessments by the state determined that the plaintiffs could be appropriately treated in a community setting rather than the state institution. The plaintiffs sued the state of Georgia and the institution for being inappropriately treated and housed in the institutional setting rather than being treated in one of the state's community-based treatment facilities. The Supreme Court decided under Title II of the ADA that mental illness is a form of disability and therefore covered under the ADA, and that unjustified institutional isolation of a person with a disability is a form of discrimination because it "...perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life." The court added, "Confinement in an institution severely diminishes the everyday life activities of individuals, including family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, educational advancement, and cultural enrichment." Therefore, under Title II no person with a disability can be unjustly excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs or activities of any public entity. The settlement required the stadium to add 329 wheelchair seats throughout the stadium by 2010, and an additional 135 accessible seats in clubhouses to go along with the existing 88 wheelchair seats. This case was significant because it set a precedent for the uniform distribution of accessible seating and gave the DOJ the opportunity to clarify previously unclear rules. The agreement now is a blueprint for all stadiums and other public facilities regarding accessibility.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, was a case in which the US Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the phrase "substantially impairs" as used in the Americans with Disabilities Act. It reversed a Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision to grant partial
summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Ella Williams, that classified her inability to perform manual job-related tasks as a disability. The Court held that the "major life activity" definition for evaluating the performance of manual tasks focuses the inquiry on whether Williams was unable to perform a range of tasks central to most people in carrying out the activities of daily living, not whether Williams was unable to perform her specific job tasks. Therefore, the determination of whether an impairment rises to the level of a disability is not limited to activities in the workplace solely, but rather to manual tasks in life in general. When the Supreme Court applied this standard, it found that the Court of Appeals had incorrectly determined the presence of a disability because it relied solely on her inability to perform specific manual work tasks, which was insufficient in proving the presence of a disability. The Court of Appeals should have taken into account the evidence presented that Williams retained the ability to do personal tasks and household chores, such activities being the nature of tasks most people do in their daily lives, and placed too much emphasis on her job disability. Since the evidence showed that Williams was performing normal daily tasks, it ruled that the Court of Appeals erred when it found that Williams was disabled. This ruling has since been legislatively overturned by the
ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). In fact, Congress explicitly cited
Toyota v. Williams in the text of the ADAAA itself as one of its driving influences for passing the ADAAA.
US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett was decided by the US Supreme Court in 2002. This case held that even requests for accommodation that might seem reasonable on their face, e.g., a transfer to a different position, can be rendered unreasonable because it would require a violation of the company's seniority system. While the court held that, in general, a violation of a seniority system renders an otherwise reasonable accommodation unreasonable, a plaintiff can present evidence that, despite the seniority system, the accommodation is reasonable in the specific case at hand, e.g., the plaintiff could offer evidence that the seniority system is so often disregarded that another exception would not make a difference. Importantly, the court held that the defendant need not provide proof that this particular application of the seniority system should prevail, and that, once the defendant showed that the accommodation violated the seniority system, it fell to Barnett to show it was nevertheless reasonable. In this case, Barnett was a US Airways employee who injured his back, rendering him physically unable to perform his cargo-handling job. Invoking seniority, he transferred to a less-demanding mailroom job, but this position later became open to seniority-based bidding and was bid on by more senior employees. Barnett requested the accommodation of being allowed to stay on in the less-demanding mailroom job. US Airways denied his request, and he lost his job. The Supreme Court decision invalidated both the approach of the district court, which found that the mere presence and importance of the seniority system was enough to warrant a summary judgment in favor of US Airways, as well as the circuit court's approach that interpreted 'reasonable accommodation' as 'effective accommodation.'
Access Now v. Southwest Airlines Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co. was a 2002 case where the
District Court decided that the website of
Southwest Airlines was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, because the ADA is concerned with things with a physical existence and thus cannot be applied to cyberspace. Judge
Patricia A. Seitz found that the "virtual ticket counter" of the website was a virtual construct, and hence not a "public place of accommodation". As such, "To expand the ADA to cover 'virtual' spaces would be to create new rights without well-defined standards."
Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. Ouellette v. Viacom International Inc. (2011) held that a mere online presence does not subject a website to the ADA guidelines. Thus
Myspace and
YouTube were not liable for a dyslexic man's inability to navigate the site regardless of how impressive the "online theater" is.
Authors Guild v. HathiTrust Authors Guild v. HathiTrust (2014) was a case in which the District Court decided that the
HathiTrust digital library was a transformative, fair use of copyrighted works, making a large number of written text available to those with
print disability.
Zamora-Quezada v. HealthTexas Medical Group Zamora-Quezada v. HealthTexas Medical Group (begun in 1998) was the first time this act was used against
HMOs when a novel lawsuit was filed by Texas attorney
Robert Provan against five HMOs for their practice of revoking the contracts of doctors treating disabled patients. In 1999, these HMOs sought to dismiss Provan's lawsuit, but a federal court ruled against them, and the case was settled out of court. Many decisions relating to Provan's unique lawsuit against these HMOs have been cited in other court cases since.
Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp. Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp. (2005) concerned the enforceability of a mandatory arbitration agreement contained in a dispute resolution policy linked to an e-mailed company-wide announcement, insofar as it applies to employment discrimination claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Tennessee v. Lane Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the
Supreme Court of the United States involving
Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the
Fourteenth Amendment. George Lane was unable to walk after a 1997 car accident in which he was accused of driving on the wrong side of the road. A woman was killed in the crash, and Lane faced misdemeanor charges of reckless driving. The suit was brought about because he was denied access to appear in criminal court because the courthouse had no elevator, even though the court was willing to carry him up the stairs and then willing to move the hearing to the first floor. He refused, citing he wanted to be treated as any other citizen, and was subsequently charged with failure to appear, after appearing at a previous hearing where he dragged himself up the stairs. The court ruled that Congress did have enough evidence that disabled people were being denied those fundamental rights that are protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and had the enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It further ruled that "reasonable accommodations" mandated by the ADA were not unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the harm.
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer was a 2023 Supreme Court case regarding whether "tester" plaintiffs—individuals who never sought to patronize the defendant business, but sued for noticed violations anyways—have standing to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case was ultimately dismissed as moot, since the defendant updated their website to be ADA-compliant and the plaintiff requested that her case be dismissed. As such, the question of the standing of "tester" plaintiffs was not addressed.
Gender dysphoria In 2022, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated that the ADA covers individuals with
gender dysphoria, which may aid transgender people in accessing legal protections they otherwise may be unable to. ==See also==