U.S. Department of Justice 

Civil Rights Division 
U.S. Department of Justice

Access for All:

Five Years of Progress

A Report from the Department of Justice

on Enforcement of the

Americans with Disabilities Act
A Message from the Attorney General

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act i

On a beautiful summer day in 1990, President George H. W. Bush welcomed people with disabilities to the White House lawn and signed the

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) into law. Since that time, the

Department of Justice has been at the forefront of implementing this revolutionary law. The ADA is now in its seventeenth year; in this Report, we take

the opportunity to celebrate our achievements and to plan for future progress.

Early in his first term, President George W. Bush did both. He noted how

much our country had accomplished since it resolved to eliminate barriers preventing people with disabilities from fully participating in all aspects of

American life. The ADA has made employment, public accommodations, commercial facilities, information technology, telecommunication services, housing, schools, transportation, and polling places all dramatically more accessible. The President also

observed, however, that significant challenges remain. He announced the New Freedom Initiative, a

comprehensive set of goals and a plan of action to ensure that people with disabilities face no further

obstacles to full participation in our free market economy and society.

The Department of Justice, responding to the New Freedom Initiative, has increased and improved

its implementation of the ADA. This Report demonstrates that our robust enforcement program sets the

standard for ADA compliance nationwide. Our highly respected technical assistance program annually

helps millions of people understand and comply voluntarily with the ADA. With Project Civic Access,

we assist local governments around the country as they make their programs and services more accessible to people with disabilities. Our unique mediation program helps resolve ADA disputes. Our ADA

Business Connection brings together local business and disability leaders, helping them facilitate access

of people with disabilities to products and services, which in turn expands business markets. With these

tools, we have helped provide people with disabilities greater access to health care, emergency services, town halls, courts, transportation, education, employment, stores, hotels, restaurants, movie theaters,

sports arenas, childcare centers, and other settings in communities across America. This Report provides

dozens of examples of such achievements over the past five years.

We at the Department of Justice are proud of these accomplishments, but we are not done. We will

continue to pursue the commands of the ADA and the goals of the President’s New Freedom Initiative

as we strive to open doors to the American way of life that remain closed to people with disabilities.

Alberto R. Gonzales
Table of Contents

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act iii

A Message from the Attorney General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .i

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

II. Enforcing the ADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

A. Enhancing Civic Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

1. Project Civic Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

2. Equal Access to Public Safety and Emergency Response Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

3. Access To and Fair Treatment in the Legal System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

4. Ensuring Nondiscriminatory Zoning and Commercial Leasing Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

5. Equal Access to Parks and Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

B. Ensuring Equal Health Care Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

1. Effective Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

2. Accessible Medical Equipment and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

3. Refusal of Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

C. Gateways to Job Opportunities for People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34 

1. Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

2. Higher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

3. Childcare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

D. Enjoying the American Way of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

1. Entertainment and Leisure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

2. Lodging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

3. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

4. Gas Stations and Convenience Stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

5. Dining and Shopping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

III. Protecting the Constitutionality of the ADA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59

IV. Resolving ADA Complaints through Mediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

V. Providing Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 

A. ADA Information Line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

B. ADA Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

C. The ADA Business Connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67

VI. Certifying State Accessibility Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

VII. Appendix: Other Sources of ADA Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

I. Introduction

“Wherever a door is closed to anyone because of a disability, we must work to open it. Wherever any job 

or home, or means of transportation is unfairly denied because of a disability, we must work to change 

it. Wherever any barrier stands between you and the full rights and dignity of citizenship, we must work 

to remove it, in the name of simple decency and simple justice.” 

* * * 

“I am committed to tearing down the remaining barriers to equality that face Americans with disabilities today.” 

— President George W. Bush, announcing the New Freedom Initiative 

at the White House, February 1, 2001 

I. Introduction 

With these words uttered just a few days into 

his new administration, President George W. 

Bush announced his New Freedom Initiative, 

which laid out a comprehensive set of goals and 

plan of action to eliminate the remaining barriers 

to full participation by people with disabilities in 

American life. 

The Department of Justice has enthusiastically embraced the clarion call of the New Freedom 

Initiative, continuing its commitment to the full 

integration of people with disabilities into the 

mainstream of American life and to equal opportunity for people with disabilities to contribute to 

and benefit from our free market economy. 

The New Freedom Initiative is grounded on 

the recognition that Americans with disabilities 

face very real hurdles to enjoying the same educational, economic, and social opportunities as 

other Americans with no disabilities. Consider 

the following Census Bureau statistics drawn 

from the 2002 Survey of Income and Program 

Participation, some of the most recent government figures available:1 

Americans with disabilities, on average, continue to attain a lower level of education than 

those without disabilities. For example, almost 

27 percent of adults ages 25 to 64 with a severe 

disability did not graduate from high school. By 

comparison, 14.6 percent of individuals with a 

non-severe disability and 10.4 percent of individuals with no disability failed to graduate from 

high school. Out of people ages 25-64, 43.1 percent of those without a disability graduated from 

college, compared with 32.5 percent of individuals with a non-severe disability and just 21.9 percent of those with a severe disability. 

In addition, American adults with disabilities, 

on average, are poorer and are far more likely to 

be unemployed than those adults without disabilities. For example, median earnings for people with no reported disability were $25,000, 

compared with $22,000 for people with a nonsevere disability and $12,800 for those with a 

severe disability. In addition, more than onefourth (25.7 percent) of individuals with no disability had household incomes of $80,000 or 

more, in comparison with 18.1 percent of people 

with a non-severe disability and 9.2 percent of 

individuals with a severe disability. 

Approximately 56 percent of adults ages 21-64 

who had a disability were employed at some 

point in the one-year period prior to participating 

in the survey. People with severe disability status 

reported the lowest employment rate (42 percent), compared with the employment rates of 

people with non-severe disabilities (82 percent) 

and those with no disability (88 percent). Almost 

27 percent of adults ages 25-64 with a severe dis1 See http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disable02.html. 

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 1 
United States Department of Justice 

ability live in poverty. By contrast, 11.2 percent of pendence without it, illustrating its fundamental 

individuals with a non-severe disability and 7.7 importance in promoting independent living. 

percent of individuals with no disability live in These problems were entrenched due to a 

poverty. Out of adults 65 years of age and older, long history of shameful hostility to and fear of 

15 percent with a severe disability live in poverty, people with disabilities. Such hostility and fear 

while 8.2 percent of individuals with a non- produced outright discrimination and exclusion, 

severe disability and 5.9 percent of individuals and in some cases, forced sterilization and unnecwith no disability live in poverty. essary institutionalization. Moreover, even some 

well-intentioned social policies had the effect of 

Finally, many Americans with disabilities promoting dependency and isolation rather than 

live outside the economic and social mainstream independence and involvement in the communiof American life. Adults with disabilities have a ty. 

lower likelihood of living with family than adults 

without disabilities. People with disabilities Clearly there was much work to do. 

were more likely than people without disabilities President Bush, through the New Freedom 

to live alone or with non-relatives: among people Initiative, has committed his Administration to 

25 to 64 years old, 18.9 percent without disabili- getting the job done. 

ties lived alone or with non-relatives, compared 

with 23 percent with a non-severe disability and 

27.8 percent with a severe disability. People 25 to 

64 years old with a severe or non-severe disability were more likely to be the householder in a 

male- or female-headed household (12.7 percent) 

than people without a disability (8.8 percent). Of 

those ages 15 to 64, 36 percent with a severe disability used a computer, and 29 percent used the 

Internet at home. By contrast, individuals with a 

non-severe disability or with no disability had 

substantially better computer access with 60.7 

percent using a computer and 50.9 percent using 

the Internet at home. 

“My New Freedom Initiative will help 

Americans with disabilities by increasing 

access to assistive technologies, expanding 

educational opportunities, increasing the ability of Americans with disabilities to integrate 

into the workforce, and promoting increased 

access into daily community life.” 

— President George W. Bush, 

February 1, 2001 

In addition to these figures, the data from At the core of the New Freedom Initiative is a 

a 2004 Survey conducted by the National call for strong enforcement of the Americans with 

Organization on Disability in conjunction with Disabilities Act (ADA), a comprehensive civil 

the Harris polling organization provides further rights law that provides a national mandate for 

insight into hurdles faced by persons with dis- the elimination of discrimination on the basis of 

abilities in enjoying community opportunities. disability in employment, state and local governAccording to the survey, persons with disabilities ment programs and services, public accommodaare twice as likely as those without to have inad- tions, commercial facilities, transportation, and 

equate transportation (31 percent compared to 13 telecommunications. The New Freedom 

percent), have a higher likelihood of going with- Initiative also calls for outreach to business to 

out medical care (18 percent compared to 7 per- promote voluntary ADA compliance and vigorcent), and are less likely to socialize, eat out, or ous steps to promote full access to community 

attend religious services. In addition, a full one- life. The Civil Rights Division of the Department 

third of individuals with disabilities using assis- of Justice is deeply engaged in this battle on all of 

tive technology say they would lose their inde- these fronts. 

2 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

I. Introduction

The goal of the ADA is simple — to open up 

all aspects of American life to people with disabilities. For too long, people with disabilities 

were held back by old modes of thinking and old 

methods of building. Prevailing attitudes made it 

hard for people with disabilities to get an education or to get a job. Barriers in society prevented 

people with disabilities from getting where they 

needed to go to build a better life. 

The ADA prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of disability in employment, state and local 

government activities, public accommodations, 

commercial facilities, transportation, and 

telecommunications. The Department of Justice 

enforces the provisions that apply to more than 

seven million places of public accommodation, 

including all hotels, restaurants, retail stores, theaters, health care facilities, convention centers, 

parks, and places of recreation (Title III), in all 

activities of state and local governments (Title II), 

and in all employment practices of state and local 

government employers with 15 or more employees (Title I). 

The ADA also establishes architectural accessibility requirements for new construction and alterations of buildings and facilities covered under Title 

II and Title III, which generally include all nonresidential buildings and facilities. 

ADA enforcement and technical assistance 

activities cover more than seven million businesses and nonprofit agencies, more than 80,000 

units of state and local government, and more 

than 100 federal agencies and commissions in the 

Executive Branch, touching over 50 million people with disabilities as well as their families and 

friends. 

The Civil Rights Division has pioneered a 

multitrack approach to protecting the rights of 

individuals with disabilities — promoting 

expanded opportunities through cooperative 

compliance assistance, providing technical assistance, and backing these efforts with a robust 

enforcement program. Since the beginning of the 

New Freedom Initiative, the Department of 

Justice has secured positive results for people 

with disabilities in over 2000 actions including 

lawsuits, settlement agreements, and successful 

mediations. 

The success of this multitrack approach is evident. Attitudes are changing and barriers are 

coming down all across America. The message of 

the ADA is being heard far and wide because the 

message of the ADA is freedom – freedom to contribute to society and freedom to enjoy the 

incredible opportunities our country provides. 

The ADA is bringing about significant 

changes in our hometowns and communities. 

Thanks to the ADA, people with disabilities are 

participating in unprecedented numbers in civic 

life and are gaining equal access to the benefits 

and services that local government provides. All 

across America, towns and communities are taking steps to make their programs and services 

accessible. Town halls and courthouses across 

America are installing ramps and providing 

accessible parking and restrooms. The use of sign 

language interpreters and assistive listening 

devices is increasing at public meetings and in 

court proceedings, allowing full participation by 

people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Our 

police are improving communication with deaf 

citizens in the arrest process, and public safety 

officials are saving lives by making 9-1-1 systems 

directly accessible to those who use TTY’s (teletypewriters) to communicate over the phone system. Communities are reshaping recreation and 

social service programs to allow full access by 

people with disabilities. 

The ADA facilitates access by people with 

disabilities to all aspects of the free market system. The ADA’s reach extends to recreational 

activities, shopping, business and leisure travel, 

and health care. Travel opportunities have 

expanded. Rental car companies increasingly 

provide cars with hand controls, and hotels 

across the country provide a widening array of 

accessible hotel rooms. Other barriers to transportation across the country have fallen as well. 

Most public buses now have lifts, and private 

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 3 
United States Department of Justice


transit – from airport shuttle vans to over-theroad buses – are becoming accessible in increasing numbers. Medical care is more accessible due 

to the proliferation of sign-language interpreter 

services, accessible rooms, and accessible examination tables. 

The following pages tell the remarkable story 

of how the Department of Justice over the past 

five years has worked to bring about these vital 

changes that not only enable people with disabilities to benefit from all of the richness of 

American life, but also allow America to benefit 

from all of the skills and talents that people with 

disabilities have to offer. 

4 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 5

II. Enforcing the ADA

A. Enhancing Civic Participation

1. Project Civic Access

“I want to say that the Americans with

Disabilities Act allowed me to get places,

gave me more to do. I will be able to go places

and get around the neighborhood a lot easier

and safer. Thanks.” 

— Ross Soliel Palmer, nine-year-old resident

of Santa Fe, New Mexico, at August 5,

2004, Department of Justice roundtable,

Washington, D.C.

Most Americans take for granted their ability

to attend a civic meeting, use public sidewalks,

call 9-1-1 in an emergency, or show up at the polls

to vote for candidates of their choice. For too

many people with disabilities, however, these

seemingly routine aspects of American life have

posed daunting challenges and, in some cases,

been altogether unavailable.

When a municipal courthouse is not accessible, people who use wheelchairs cannot serve on

juries, attend hearings, or appear in court as witnesses. When a town hall is not accessible, persons with disabilities cannot participate in town

meetings or other civic programs. When sidewalks do not have curb ramps, people with

mobility disabilities are unable to move around

freely to get to city hall, the department of motor

vehicles, or the local public elementary school.

When a city does not provide sign language

interpreters at a zoning hearing or other program, persons with hearing impairments may

not be able to participate. And if government

websites are not designed to work with assistive

technologies – like screen readers and voice

recognition software – blind individuals and persons who cannot use a mouse may not be able to

renew their drivers’ licenses, file their tax returns,

or apply for government jobs and programs

online.

Access to civic life is a fundamental goal of

the ADA. To ensure that this goal is met, Title II

of the ADA requires state and local governments

to make their programs and services accessible to

persons with disabilities. Federal regulations

require state and local governments to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and

procedures whenever necessary to avoid discrimination, unless such modifications would fundamentally alter the government program or service. Under federal regulations, state and local

governments also must take appropriate steps to

ensure that they can communicate effectively

with people with disabilities, using auxiliary aids

and services where necessary.

Initially, the Department of Justice focused its

enforcement efforts for cities, counties, and other

forms of local government on resolving discrete

problems brought to its attention through citizen

complaints. The Department created Project Civic

Access in order to marshal its investigative and

technical assistance capabilities in a more comprehensive approach to solving accessibility

issues on a community-wide basis.

A key step in Project Civic Access is the

Department’s bottom-up review of a city’s or

county’s public spaces and services. Some Project

Civic Access reviews follow complaints received

by the Department, but many are initiated by the

Department. The Department endeavors to conduct reviews in every state, across locations with

a range of population sizes, and in communities

that are demographically diverse.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he

made Project Civic Access one of his top ADA

priorities through the New Freedom Initiative.

In August 2004, the Department commemorated

the 100th Agreement signed under Project Civic

Access. As of the printing of this Report, the

Department has reached 150 agreements with 141

state and local governments to bring them into

compliance with the ADA. Several of these agreements are available at www.ada.gov/civicac.htm.
United States Department of Justice

6 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

On a Project Civic Access review, Department

attorneys, investigators, and architects survey a

range of programs and activities, including those

conducted in the city and town halls; courthouses; police, fire, and sheriff’s departments; centers

for health care, childcare, teen, and senior activities; libraries; convention centers; stadiums;

emergency shelters; polling places; and parks

and recreational facilities. Typical issues addressed during a Project Civic Access compliance

review include:

whether physical modification of facilities or

relocation of services is required to provide

accessibility;

whether and how inaccessible activities, such

as town meetings and county court proceedings, may be relocated to accessible locations

upon request;

whether there are viable alternate means of

making particular services accessible, such as

the availability of absentee balloting;

whether and how to meet accessibility

standards with respect to facilities and

sidewalks;

whether assistive listening systems are

provided in assembly areas (e.g., legislative chambers, courtrooms, and municipal auditoriums);

whether 9-1-1 emergency response services are accessible to citizens with hearing or speech disabilities;

whether telephone communications in

other governmental functions are accessible;

whether government websites are

usable by citizens with vision impairments;

whether the community provides adequate procedures and time frames for

citizens requesting and securing auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, when needed for effective communication;

whether there is permanent and conspicuous notice to the members of the

community of their ADA rights and the

local government’s ADA obligations;

and

whether government offices employing

more than 50 persons provide an ADA

grievance procedure.

The Department has published two guides

specifically designed to assist local officials,

which are available on its www.ada.gov website.

These booklets, entitled “The ADA Guide for

Small Towns”2 and “The ADA and City

Governments: Common Problems,”3 review the

ADA’s requirements and offer practical ways of

meeting those requirements in cities and small

towns.























2 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, The ADA Guide for Small Towns, available at http://www.ada.gov/smtown.htm.

3 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems, available at http://www.ada.gov/comprob.htm.

WA

OR

CA

NV

AZ

UT

ID

MT

WY

CO

NM

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

MI

IA

MO

IL

AR

LA

ID OH

TN

AL

FL

GA

SC

NC

WV VA

PA

NY

VT

NH

MA

CT RI

NJ

DE

MD

MS

KY

ME

Project Civic Access

2001-2006

Locations of

settlement

agreements

Anchorage Anchorage

HI

AK

PR
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 7

Project Civic Access is much more than an

inspection program. In fact, the inspection is just

the beginning of a truly cooperative venture

among the Department, the local jurisdiction,

and its citizens. Local government officials have

responded favorably and cooperated fully in the

Department’s reviews. They have provided

requested records and documents in a timely

fashion, have made themselves available to

answer questions during on-site visits, and have

escorted investigators throughout their communities in order to assist in the quick and efficient

completion of facilities surveys. Sometimes these

site reviews result in on-the-spot changes to

improve access. Most important, these officials

have indicated a willingness to undertake

changes in order to make their programs and

services accessible to persons with disabilities.

Local officials like Sara Boesser, a building

inspector in Juneau, Alaska, usually accompany

the Department’s staff on their reviews. “It was a

wonderful experience to go around watching

someone else do all those measurements, but also

just to be able to learn from the experts from the

Department of Justice and learn some of the

things we didn’t know,” said Ms. Boesser. “The

most unexpected pleasure from all of it is the help

that DOJ has given us with plan review questions

ever since. The more of that service you can offer

building departments around the world, the

more they’re going to give you good service from

their end.”4

After conducting a location review, investigators discuss their findings with local officials and

draft settlement agreements to resolve any outstanding issues. Through Project Civic Access,

the Department has learned that the vast majority of communities are aware of their ADA obligations and are making progress toward meeting

those obligations. Local officials in Allen County,

Indiana, were pleasantly surprised by their experience with Project Civic Access. When the county commission learned that the Department

intended to review the local government’s ADA

compliance, “I think we were very apprehensive,” said Marla Irving, a county commissioner

who worked with Department officials on their

inspection. “We knew that we had some issues . .

. . [B]eing ADA compliant is not always the easiest endeavor to do.” But DOJ officials worked

closely with local officials to reach an agreement.

“It was just a great learning experience for everyone involved. It was not adversarial,” said Brian

Dumford, the county’s human resources director

and ADA coordinator. In fact, county maintenance crews began making changes before the

Department finished its investigation.5

The results of Project Civic Access are encouraging. In Davenport, Iowa, for example, Project

Civic Access will make a real difference for people like John Sparks, who became disabled in a

motorcycle accident. Mr. Sparks has a daughter

who loves to dance and sing. Her mother took

her to classes at Davenport’s Junior Theater

because Mr. Sparks could not access the theater in

his wheelchair. In a 2004 Project Civic Access set4 Disability Rights Online News, August/September 2004, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/newsltr0804.htm.

5 County to Boost Disabled Access, Ft. Wayne News Sentinel, June 29, 2005, Page A1. 

Former Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander

Acosta signing PCA Agreement between DOJ

and Juneau, Alaska, at August 2004 DOJ ceremony with Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Loretta King, and Building Inspector Sara Boesser

and Assemblyman Marc Wheeler of Juneau,

Alaska, looking on.
United States Department of Justice

8 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

tlement agreement,6 the city agreed to remedy

several elements at the Junior Theater, including

widening the main entrance to make it accessible,

fixing the exterior ramp, and adding wheelchair

seating in the auditorium. After the agreement is

fully implemented, Mr. Sparks will be able to take

his daughter to classes and enjoy her performances as well.

“I just want to take this time to thank the city

of Davenport, the ADA, Project Civic Access,

and the Department of Justice as a whole...

With all the changes the city ... has made or

plans to make, I will be able to do more activities with my family.”

– John Sparks, resident of Davenport, Iowa,

at August 5, 2004, Department of Justice

roundtable, Washington, D.C.

On August 5, 2004, citizens from across the

nation came to the Justice Department to celebrate the signing of the 100th Project Civic Access

settlement agreement. Events included a roundtable discussion where local government officials, community advocates, and individuals

with disabilities from seven communities shared

their experiences with Project Civic Access and

the positive impact it has had.7

The Department has recently launched the

second phase of Project Civic Access, which

involves reviewing additional communities in all

50 states and focuses on an expanded range of

issues, including accessible curb cuts, voting

technology, disaster response planning, domestic

violence shelters, and government websites. By

increasing the scope of our reviews, the

Department will improve access in new communities and ensure that people with disabilities can

fully participate in the fundamental aspects of

contemporary American life. Their increased participation benefits their entire community and all

Americans.

6 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of Davenport, Iowa (Aug. 5, 2004), available at http://www.ada.

gov/DavenportSA.htm.

7 More highlights from the roundtable discussion are available on the Department’s website at http://www.usdoj.gov/ 

crt/ada/newsltr0804.htm.

Former Assistant Attorney General R.

Alexander Acosta signing PCA Agreement

between DOJ and Taos County, New

Mexico, at August 2004 DOJ ceremony with

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Loretta

King and James Dennis, Human Resources

Director and ADA Coordinator for Taos

County, New Mexico, looking on.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 9

2. Equal Access to Public Safety and

Emergency Response Services

In light of September 11, 2001 and Hurricane

Katrina, the Civil Rights Division has made it a

priority to work with localities to ensure that they

meet the needs of persons with disabilities during emergencies because they can be among the

most vulnerable members of our communities

during times of crisis.

Many traditional emergency notification

methods are not accessible to or usable by people

with disabilities. People who are deaf or hard of

hearing cannot hear radio, television, sirens, or

other audible alerts. Those who are blind or who

have low vision may not be aware of visual cues,

such as flashing lights.

In addition, individuals with disabilities

often must overcome an array of obstacles in

order to evacuate from dangerous areas. A person

with a mobility disability may need assistance

leaving a building without a working elevator.

Individuals who are blind or who have limited

vision may no longer be able to independently

use traditional orientation and navigation methods. An individual who is deaf may be trapped

somewhere unable to communicate with anyone

because the only communication device relies on

voice. The movement of people during an evacuation is critical, but many people with disabilities

cannot use traditional forms of transportation if

they are inaccessible to people with disabilities.

After evacuating dangerous areas, people are

often provided safe refuge in temporary shelters.

Some may be located in schools, office buildings,

tents, or other areas. Historically, great attention

has been paid to ensuring that those shelters are

well stocked with basic necessities such as food,

water, and blankets, but many of these shelters

have not been accessible to people with disabilities. Even when individuals using a wheelchair

or scooter are able to get to a shelter, they often

find the facility lacks an accessible entrance,

accessible toilet, or accessible shelter area.

Shelter staff and volunteers are often trained in

first aid or other areas critical to the delivery of

emergency services, but many have little, if any,

familiarity with the needs of people with disabilities. In some instances, people with disabilities

have been turned away from shelters because of

volunteers’ lack of confidence regarding the shelters’ ability to meet their needs.

Additionally, many shelters have a “no pets”

policy, which some mistakenly apply to exclude

service animals such as guide dogs for people

who are blind, hearing dogs for people who are

deaf, or dogs that pull wheelchairs or retrieve

dropped objects for persons with mobility

impairments. When people with disabilities who

use service animals are told that their animals

cannot enter the shelter, they are forced to choose

between foregoing the safety of the shelter and

foregoing the necessary assistance their animals

provide in order to enable them to live independently.

On September 12, 2006, the Attorney

General recognized a team of dedicated attorneys in the Disability Rights

Section (DRS) of the Justice

Department’s Civil Rights Division for

their accomplishments under Project

Civic Access by bestowing upon

them the John Marshall Award for

Alternative Dispute Resolution. These

attorneys – who include both current

DRS lawyers and alumni – are:

Elizabeth Bacon

Josh Mendelsohn

Naomi Milton

Mellie Nelson

Beth Esposito

Dov Lutzker

Mary Lou Mobley

Sharon Pietrafesa

Hilary Martinson

Jeanine Worden
United States Department of Justice

10 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

Individuals whose disabilities require medications, such as certain types of insulin that

require constant refrigeration, may find that

many shelters do not provide refrigerators or icepacked coolers. Individuals who use life support

systems and other devices rely on electricity to

function and stay alive, but in many cases may

not have access to a generator or other source of

electricity within a shelter.

People who are deaf or hard of hearing may

not have access to audible information routinely

made available to people in temporary shelters.

Individuals who are blind or who have low

vision will not be able to use printed notices,

advisories, or other written information disseminated at a shelter.

To address these issues, the Department routinely reviews city and county emergency operations plans as part of our Project Civic Access initiative. To date, the Department has entered into

formal agreements with 28 communities to

ensure that local governments include the interests of persons with disabilities in their emergency planning activities. Communities including Newark, New Jersey;8 Memphis, Tennessee;9

Arlington10 and Loudoun Counties,11 Virginia;

and Maui, Hawaii12 have begun efforts to include

the needs of persons with disabilities in their

emergency preparations. Communities typically

agree to take specific steps, such as:

removing architectural barriers to access in

emergency shelter parking, pathways,

entrances, and toilet and bathing facilities;

soliciting input for its emergency operations

plan from people with disabilities;

ensuring that the community’s evacuation

plans adequately provide for the evacuation

of persons who are deaf or hard of hearing;

identifying shelters with back-up generators

and refrigeration to provide adequate shelter

for persons who use mobility aids and medical devices that require electricity and for

those who use prescription medication that

requires refrigeration;

adopting and implementing policies that

prohibit emergency shelter personnel from

separating persons with disabilities from

their service animals, even if pets are normally prohibited in shelters; and

ensuring that there are adequate opportunities for accessible temporary housing for persons with disabilities if such housing is provided to others.

In addition to addressing disaster preparedness for people with disabilities through Project

Civic Access, the Department of Justice has

worked jointly with the Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) to provide technical assistance to the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) on its transitional

housing program. FEMA uses three types of

emergency transportable housing to provide

transitional homes to people displaced by disasters: travel trailers, one- and two-bedroom recreational vehicles, and three-bedroom manufactured homes. After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and

Wilma in 2005, the Department dispatched an

architect with expertise in disability and accessibility issues to review FEMA’s group trailer sites

situated near Baton Rouge, to meet with FEMA

staff responsible for providing transitional hous-





8 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of Newark, N.J. (May 31, 2006). 

9 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of Memphis, Tenn. (July 25, 2005), available at http://www.ada.

gov/memphistnsa.htm.

10 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Arlington County, Va. (Mar. 30, 2006), available at http://www.ada.

gov/arlingsa.htm.

11 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Loudon County, Va. (July 25, 2003), available at http://www.ada.

gov/loudon.htm.

12 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the County of Maui, Haw. (Sept. 26, 2005), available at http://www.ada.

gov/mauisa.htm.






II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 11

ing to disaster victims in that region, and to

inspect the emergency transportable housing

being used to house people with mobility disabilities.

The Department’s architect met with FEMA

officials and contractors to discuss strategies for

improving accessible housing options for people

with mobility disabilities. Department employees advised the FEMA contractor responsible for

constructing group trailer sites about how to

build ramps for the units that would house individuals with mobility disabilities. Working jointly with HUD, the Department then prepared

guidelines and a model floor plan for an accessible three-bedroom manufactured home, which

enabled FEMA to quickly procure accessible

units for the disaster area. To ensure that people

with mobility disabilities housed at FEMA’s

group trailer sites would have access to common

areas, such as food distribution areas, mail facilities, recreation areas, and laundry facilities, the

Department also prepared guidelines FEMA

could use to ensure that its group trailer and

mobile home sites were designed to be fully

accessible. After this initial work was completed,

the Department continued to provide technical

assistance to officials in Louisiana and

Mississippi.

In the spring of 2006, to increase the transitional housing options available for people with

mobility disabilities displaced by future disasters, the Department, in conjunction with HUD

and the Access Board, developed specifications

and sample floor plans for fully accessible travel

trailers and accessible one- and two-bedroom

recreational vehicles. The Department also provided a one-day training program on disability

issues to all of FEMA’s equal rights officers who

will be deployed to address access issues for people with disabilities following future disasters.

To help ensure that newly constructed and

altered facilities in the Gulf area will comply with

the accessibility requirements of the Americans

with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act, the Department of Justice partnered with HUD to provide accessibility training for architects, engineers, contractors, and members of the disability

communities in Gulfport, Mississippi; Baton

Rouge, Louisiana; and Tampa, Florida. The training in Tampa, which also focused on the ADA

requirements applicable to emergency shelters

and emergency management, was presented in a

live webcast available throughout the nation.

Providing accessible temporary housing ensures

that people with disabilities will have safe housing

following disasters.
United States Department of Justice

12 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

The Civil Rights Division recently issued a

revised and expanded publication intended to

assist local governments in meeting the emergency accessibility needs of individuals with disabilities before emergencies occur. “An ADA

Guide for Local Governments: Making Community Emergency Preparedness and Response

Programs Accessible to People with Disabilities”13 is intended to help local government planners, first responders, and emergency staff prepare for and meet the unique needs of people

with disabilities during natural and civil emergencies. The guide identifies potential problems

in notifying, evacuating, transporting, sheltering,

and providing information to people with disabilities during emergencies and offers commonsense solutions for preventing or minimizing

those problems.

In this publication, the Department recommends a series of proactive steps that local governments should take in order to meet the needs

of people with disabilities in emergencies:

Solicit and incorporate input from people

with different types of disabilities (e.g.

mobility, vision, hearing, cognitive, and

other disabilities) regarding all phases of the

locality’s emergency management plan,

including preparation, notification, response,

and clean up.

Ensure that, where sirens or other audible

alerts are used as emergency warning systems, there is an alternative method of alerting people who are deaf or hard of hearing of

an impending disaster.

Adopt policies to ensure that community

evacuation plans allow people with disabilities to safely self-evacuate or to be evacuated

by others. Some communities are instituting

voluntary, confidential registries of persons

with disabilities who may need individualized evacuation assistance or notification.

Where a locality adopts or maintains such a

registry, ensure that procedures are in place

to guarantee that it is voluntary and confidential. Also, consider how best to publicize

the registry’s availability and develop a

process to update it on a regular basis.

Prepare several alternate forms of emergency

communication for use when the electric

power supply is affected. These might

include the use of telephone calls, autodialed TTY messages, text messaging, emails, and even direct door-to-door contact

with pre-registered individuals.

Consider using open-captioning on local TV

stations as well as using lower-tech options

such as dispatching qualified sign language

interpreters to assist in broadcasting emergency information provided to the media.











13 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, An ADA Guide for Local Governments: Making Community Emergency Preparedness and Response

Programs Accessible to People with Disabilities, available at http://www.ada.gov/emergencyprepguide.htm.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 13

Identify accessible modes of transportation

that may be available to help evacuate people with disabilities during an emergency,

whether or not a registry is used. For

instance, during floods some communities

have used lift-equipped school or transit

buses to evacuate people who use wheelchairs.

Survey the community’s shelters for barriers

to access for persons with disabilities. For

instance, if a locality is considering incorporating a particular high school gymnasium

into its sheltering plan, early in the process it

should examine its parking, the path to the

gymnasium, and the toilets serving the gymnasium to make sure they are accessible to

people with disabilities. If barriers to access

are found, work with the facility’s owner to

try to get the barriers removed. If that does

not work, consider using another nearby

facility for the community’s sheltering needs.

Invite representatives of group homes and

other people with disabilities to meet with

the locality as part of its routine shelter planning. Discuss with them which shelters they

would be more likely to use in the event of an

emergency and what, if any, disability-related concerns they may have while being sheltered. Develop site-specific instructions for

volunteers and staff to address these concerns.

Until all emergency shelters have accessible

parking, exterior routes, entrances, interior

routes to the shelter area, and toilet rooms

serving the shelter area, identify and widely

publicize to the public, including persons

with disabilities and the organizations that

serve them, the locations of the most accessible emergency shelters.

Adopt procedures to ensure that people with

disabilities who use service animals are not

separated from their service animals when

being sheltered during an emergency, even if

pets are normally prohibited in shelters.

While localities cannot unnecessarily segregate persons who use service animals from

others, they may consider the potential presence of persons who, for safety or health reasons, should not be with certain types of animals.

Ensure that a reasonable number of emergency shelters have back-up generators and

a way to keep medications refrigerated (such

as a refrigerator or a cooler with ice). These

shelters should be made available on a priority basis to people whose disabilities require

access to electricity and refrigeration: for

example, for using life-sustaining medical

devices, providing power to motorized

wheelchairs, and preserving certain medications, such as insulin, that require refrigeration. The public should be routinely notified

about the location of these shelters. In addition, if a locality chooses to maintain a confidential registry of individuals needing transportation assistance, this registry could also

record those who need particular medications. This will facilitate planning priorities.

Adopt procedures to provide accessible communication for people who are deaf or hard

of hearing and for people with severe speech

disabilities. Train staff on the basic procedures for providing accessible communication, including exchanging notes or posting

written announcements. Train staff to read

printed information, upon request, to persons who are blind or who have low vision.

Identify temporary accessible housing (such

as accessible hotel rooms within the community or in nearby communities) that may be

used if people with disabilities cannot immediately return home after a disaster. Many

times, necessary accessible features such as

ramps or electrical systems have been damaged and are not yet repaired by the time

evacuees are able to return home.

Make sure that contracts for emergency services require providers to follow the steps outlined above. Review the terms of these contracts on a regular basis to ensure that they


















United States Department of Justice

14 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

continue to meet the accessibility needs of

people with disabilities. Provide training to

contractors so that they understand how best

to coordinate their activities with the locality’s overall accessibility plan for emergency

services.

In addition to natural and civil emergencies,

the Department has focused on providing access

to emergency care in more localized emergencies.

For example, the Department routinely examines

9-1-1 systems to ensure that they are accessible to

people who use TTY’s. Improvements to 9-1-1

systems are regularly mandated as part of the

Department’s Project Civic Access agreements.

3. Access To And Fair Treatment In The

Legal System

Interacting with law enforcement officials,

participating in court proceedings, and being

incarcerated are some of the most stressful

encounters that citizens can have with government. Imagine how much greater the stress is for

people who, simply because of their disabilities,

cannot hear what a police officer is saying to

them, cannot climb the steps to the courthouse

door, or cannot participate in the counseling and

rehabilitative services available to other inmates.

Judges, attorneys, court staff, and potential jurors

with disabilities also face daunting challenges

when attempting to fulfill their roles in the legal

process.

The Department is working with state and

local governments around the country to eliminate these inequities. Through Project Civic

Access, the Department has worked closely with

numerous counties and towns to ensure that

courthouses and courtrooms are accessible.

Settlement agreements have required modifications to jury seating and deliberation areas,

judges’ benches, spectator seating, and routes of

travel so that they are accessible to people with

mobility disabilities.

The Department also uses litigation when

necessary to ensure access by the disabled to the

judicial system. For example, in 2004 the

Department brought and settled a lawsuit against

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Bristol

County, Massachusetts, alleging that they failed

to make the services, programs, and activities of

the county’s trial courts and registries of deeds

accessible to people with mobility disabilities.

The lack of physical accessibility — courtrooms

and registry offices were located up flights of

stairs in buildings without ramps or elevators —

allegedly prevented two lawyers with disabilities

who were named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit and

other lawyers, parties, witnesses, jurors, spectators, and citizens with disabilities from gaining

Example of accessible jury box. 

Example of accessible route and ramp to witness

stand.
agencies and officers is that they do not provide

effective communication with people who are

deaf or hard of hearing. For example, a complainant who is deaf alleged that the Phoenix

Police Department discriminated against him on

the basis of his hearing disability by failing to

provide him with a qualified sign language interpreter at the time of his arrest. In an April 2003

agreement, Phoenix agreed to integrate a policy

on effective communication into the police

department’s operations manual. Employees

were trained in the requirements of the policy, a

notice was published in the local newspaper

regarding the new policy, and mandatory ADA

training sessions were held for all sworn personnel in order to instruct them to comply with the

provisions of the agreement.16

Similarly, the Michigan Department of

Human Services entered into an April 2006 agreement resolving two complaints filed by deaf parents who alleged that the state had refused to

provide them with interpreters when they were

interviewed by case workers during child abuse

and neglect investigations involving their children. Michigan agreed to (1) adopt a new effective communication policy; (2) require case workers to indicate on a revised intake form if a parent

has a disability and requires an interpreter for

effective communication; (3) issue a public notice

regarding the ADA’s applicability to the agency;

(4) update its hotline numbers, its website, and

other pertinent literature to include a TTY number and the Michigan relay number;17 and (5)

train its 150 managers and 9000 employees annually on the ADA and its requirement to provide

interpreters when necessary for effective communication.18

II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 15

access to the services of five courthouses and

three registries of deeds offices. Massachusetts

agreed to make structural changes at each courthouse by constructing an elevator or ramp, along

with accessible restrooms. The agreement also

called for modifications of procedures to ensure

that any services or programs located in inaccessible areas in a courthouse would be provided to

lawyers, parties, witnesses, jurors, and spectators

in an accessible area. In addition, Bristol County

agreed to construct a ramp or elevator and accessible restrooms at its registries of deeds offices to

ensure physical access to the registries and their

services. Until these structural changes are completed, each registry will serve people with

mobility disabilities via mail, internet, facsimile,

and curbside service.14

In addition to physical accessibility issues,

Project Civic Access agreements have required

counties and towns to ensure that people who are

deaf or hard of hearing receive appropriate auxiliary aids and services during court proceedings.

For example, in November 2003, the State of

Connecticut Judicial Branch, Superior Court

Operations Division in Hartford, Connecticut,

entered into an agreement with the Department

resolving a complaint alleging that the state had

failed to provide a sign language interpreter for a

man who is deaf at three judicial proceedings.

Under the agreement, the state will furnish

appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including

qualified sign language and oral interpreters,

where necessary in the future to ensure effective

communication with individuals with disabilities.15

The most frequent ADA complaint the

Department receives against law enforcement

14 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Bristol County,

Massachusetts (Jan. 9, 2004), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/bristolco.htm.

15 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Connecticut Judicial Branch of Hartford, Conn. (Nov. 3, 2003).

16 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of Phoenix Police Dep’t, Ariz. (Apr. 7, 2003).

17 The Michigan relay number is part of the telecommunications relay service, a free nationwide service that allows people

who use text telephones to communicate with those using telephones. An operator with a TTY terminal receives text from

the TTY user and relays that message to the other party, and vice versa.

18 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Dept. of Human Services, Mich. (Apr. 12, 2006).
United States Department of Justice

16 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

“This disability rights initiative demonstrates

the Department’s continuing commitment to

help state and local governments – including

law enforcement – understand and comply

with the ADA,” 

— Civil Rights Division Assistant Attorney

General Wan J. Kim, announcing the Law

Enforcement Outreach initiative on 

May 2, 2006.

To help state and local law enforcement agencies understand their responsibilities under the

ADA, on April 28, 2006, the Department finished

sending a mailing to 25,000 police departments,

sheriff’s offices, highway patrols, and other state

and local law enforcement agencies throughout

the country, offering a variety of free ADA publications and videotapes developed specifically for

law enforcement audiences. The mailing included two new compliance assistance publications –

a brochure for officers19 and a model policy20 –

on how to communicate effectively with people

who are deaf or hard of hearing. The agencies

also received information on how to order the

videotape “Police Response to People with

Disabilities.” Intended for roll-call training, the

video is divided into eight different five- to tenminute segments that address law enforcement

situations involving people who have mobility,

speech, hearing, or vision disabilities, mental illness, mental retardation, or epilepsy or other

seizure disorders. A fully accessible streaming

version of the video is also available for viewing

on the ADA website (www.ada.gov),21 enabling

officers whose vehicles are equipped with internet access to quickly review the relevant segment

for guidance when interacting with a person with

a disability as a witness, suspect, victim, or person in need of assistance.22

19 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Communicating with People who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, available at http://www.ada.gov/lawenfcomm.htm.

20 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Model Policy for Law Enforcement on Communicating with People Who are Deaf or Hard of

Hearing, available at http://www.ada.gov/lawenfmodpolicy.htm.

21 Videotape: Police Response to People with Disabilities (U.S. Dep’t of Justice), available at http://www.usdoj.

gov/crt/ada/videogallery.htm.

22 The brochure, model policy, and additional copies of the video can be ordered through the ADA website (www.ada.gov)

or the ADA Information Line (800-514-0301 (voice), 800-514-0383 (TTY)), both of which are operated by the Department’s

Disability Rights Section.

Law Enforcement Materials.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 17

At the end of 2004, nearly seven million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on

parole — 3.2 percent of all U.S. adult residents or

1 in every 31 adults. States held 1,244,311 prisoners in custody and local jails held 713,990. An

additional 70,548 persons under jail supervision

were serving their sentences in the community.23

This population includes an increasing number

of people with a wide variety of disabilities. For

example, the Department’s Bureau of Justice

Statistics reported that at midyear 2000, 16 percent of state prisoners were identified as mentally ill. Of the mentally ill, almost 79 percent

received therapy or counseling; about 60 percent

received psychotropic medications, including

anti-depressants, stimulants, sedatives, tranquilizers or other anti-psychotic drugs.24 There are

prisoners with mobility disabilities, including

paraplegia and quadriplegia. Others are deaf,

hard of hearing, or blind. Still others have medical conditions such as cardiac disease, diabetes,

HIV infection, hypertension, and seizure disorders. And, with thousands of prisoners serving

long sentences without eligibility for parole, prisoners are aging and the population of the elderly

and infirm is growing.

In many ways, correctional facilities face the

same obligations and challenges to provide

access to people with disabilities as other public

facilities. But because prisoners are confined to

correctional facilities 24 hours a day, often for

years at a time, barriers to access, like an inaccessible toilet or shower, or the failure to provide

effective communication to prisoners with hearing or vision impairments, impose especially

severe burdens on inmates with disabilities.

In response to these trends and to the increasing number of complaints filed by prisoners, the

Civil Rights Division and the Office of Justice

Programs (OJP), which provides federal grants

and assistance to state and local law enforcement

agencies, are collaborating to improve the accessibility of the nation’s correctional facilities.

Together, they have developed outreach, technical assistance, and investigative strategies to educate correctional officials about their obligations

and to highlight effective measures for making

programs and facilities accessible to inmates,

employees, and visitors. This collaboration,

which is known as the Justice Project, has resulted in prompt and meaningful relief that has

improved the quality of life for numerous

inmates with disabilities by providing, for example:

proper shoes for a diabetic inmate,

a prosthetic leg for an inmate that allowed

him to live in the general population instead

of the prison infirmary and to participate

more fully in the programs and activities

available for prisoners,

a sign language interpreter for a deaf inmate

so he could participate in educational programs,

appropriate housing and treatment for a

mentally ill inmate,

an electric wheelchair for an inmate with

mobility impairments after the prison lost

the wheelchair he had when he arrived,

repair and return of an inmate’s prosthetic

hand,

appropriate aids and services for an inmate

with a hearing disability to participate in

programming required for release,

consideration of an inmate with a disability

for a trusty job on the same terms and conditions as other inmates are considered, and

a shower chair for an elderly, frail inmate.

23U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Corrections Statistics: Prisoners in 2004 and Probation and Parole in the United States, 2004, available

at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.htm.

24 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Mental Health Treatment in Prisons, 2000, NCJ 188215 (July 2001), available at http://www.ojp.

usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mhtsp00.pdf.


















United States Department of Justice

18 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

As part of this joint effort, the Department

recently issued its “ADA/Section 504 Design

Guide: Accessible Cells in Correctional Facilities,” a clear and comprehensive explanation of

the accessibility features required in designing

new prisons, jails, and holding cells.25 This publication targets the wide range of persons and

entities involved in the design of correctional

facilities, including law enforcement organizations, wardens and correctional officers, sheriffs,

parole and probation officers, architecture firms,

construction companies, and plumbing and fixture manufacturers that specialize in the design

of justice-related facilities.

In February 2006, representatives from the

Civil Rights Division and OJP joined a panel of

experts in a half-day discussion on the ADA and

corrections facilities sponsored by the National

Institute of Corrections of the Bureau of Prisons

in Spokane, Washington. The panel discussion

was broadcast by internet and satellite to 12,000

employees and officials at corrections facilities

nationwide.

The Department has also investigated and

resolved complaints from individual prisoners,

obtaining relief that significantly affects the quality of an inmate’s life while incarcerated. One of

the most widespread complaints is the failure to

provide effective communication to inmates with

disabilities. This failure often prevents inmates

who are deaf or hard of hearing from participating in an array of medical, social, and educational programs offered at a facility. They miss medical appointments, pill calls, and meals because

they cannot hear announcements. Blind prisoners

and prisoners with low vision complain that they

cannot get books on tape or in large print.

In 2004, the Department entered into a settlement agreement resolving a complaint by a

Maryland juvenile who was deaf and used

American Sign Language. The young man served

18 months in two juvenile detention facilities,

where he was required to participate in rehabilitative, educational, and recreational programs.

However, because the facilities allegedly failed to

provide him with adequate sign language interpreter services, he was usually unable to participate in or benefit from these programs. As a

result of the Department’s investigation, Youth

Services International, a private corporation that

operates juvenile justice facilities in eight states,

and the State of Maryland Department of

Juvenile Services entered into a settlement agreement with the Department. They agreed to provide qualified sign language interpreters or other

appropriate auxiliary aids for youths who are

deaf or hard of hearing in all of their juvenile

facilities and programs, including intake and ori25 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, ADA/Section 504 Design Guide: Accessible Cells in Correctional Facilities, available at

http://www.ada.gov/accessiblecells.htm.

Cameo Hoey, a secretary in the Civil

Rights Division’s Disability Rights Section,

received the Excellence in Administrative Support award from the Attorney

General on September 12, 2006, for her

outstanding administrative work in support of the Justice Project.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 19

entation, medical and psychological evaluations,

treatment meetings, educational classes, therapy

or group sessions, one-on-one meetings, school

or assemblies, group living time, and exit interviews. Maryland will also provide these services

for probation meetings and aftercare programs.

In addition, each facility will provide visual

alarms, hearing aid-compatible and volume-controlled telephones, TTYs, and closed captioning

equipment for youth who are deaf or hard of

hearing, and will train staff on the requirements

of the ADA.26

Inmates in Anne Arundel County, Maryland

and Hennepin County, Minnesota will benefit

from similar relief as a result of Department

investigations. In 2005, Anne Arundel’s

Department of Detention Facilities entered into a

settlement agreement to improve services provided to people who are deaf or hard of hearing

at its two detention centers.27 The County agreed

to appoint an ADA coordinator at each facility;

develop and implement a training program for

staff; conduct a hearing assessment of all persons

within 24 hours of their admittance; provide

qualified sign language interpreters or other auxiliary aids during orientation, disciplinary hearings, reclassification hearings, classification

appeals, status reviews, program meetings, meetings with program specialists, and rehabilitative

or educational programs; and provide TTYs,

closed captioning equipment, and visual alarms

at each facility. Hennepin County entered into a

similar agreement to resolve a complaint from an

adult inmate who is deaf alleging that the county

failed to provide an interpreter for chemical

dependency treatment and other programs.28

In another case, two inmates who are deaf in

the District of Columbia challenged the denial of

their request for auxiliary aids necessary for

effective communication during their stay in a

halfway house. In 2003, the D.C. Department of

Corrections agreed to establish policies for providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services,

including qualified interpreters, hearing aid batteries, telephones with amplified handsets,

closed captioning for televisions, and visual and

tactile alarms. The D.C. Department of

Corrections also agreed to provide notice to

inmates of the availability of these services, to

train staff in carrying out the auxiliary aids policy, and to terminate contracts with entities that

violate the policy in providing services to

inmates.29

Another common complaint is that correctional facilities are not accessible to inmates and

visitors with mobility impairments. In 2004, the

City of New Hope, Alabama signed an agreement resolving a complaint that neither its jail

nor its city hall were accessible.30 The city agreed

to book and house prisoners with mobility

impairments in accessible facilities in a neighboring county jail. The city also agreed to provide

accessible door hardware throughout its facility, a

TTY, van-accessible parking, and an accessible

drinking fountain.

Similar obstacles to persons with disabilities

were alleged to have occurred at the Cheatham

County Jail in Tennessee. In 2003, the County Jail

signed an agreement requiring it to provide

accessible parking, handrails for the entrance

ramp, accessible public toilet rooms, an accessible

drinking fountain, a designated accessible inmate

26 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Md. Dep’t of Juvenile Services and Youth Services Intl., Inc. (Mar.

29, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/mdjs.htm. In 2006, Youth Services International entered into a second settlement

agreement to resolve a suit filed by the Department under Title III of the ADA alleging failure to provide a sign language

interpreter to a Maryland juvenile as well as failure to comply with the 2004 agreement. Settlement agreement between the

United States and Youth Services Intl., Inc. (D. Md. July 11, 2006), available at http://www.ada.gov/ysi.html.

27 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Anne Arundel County, Md. (Nov. 28, 2005), available at www.ada.gov/

annearundel.html.

28 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Hennepin County, Minn. (Dec. 6, 2005).

29 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Department of Corrections, D.C. (Mar. 20, 2003).

30 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of New Hope, Ala. (Apr. 7, 2004).
United States Department of Justice

20 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

cell and shower, inmate telephones mounted at

an accessible height, and audible emergency

warning systems in holding cells or areas. The

settlement also requires Cheatham County to

provide a text telephone for inmates who are deaf

or hard of hearing or who have a speech impairment.31

As the inmate population continues to age, it

will be increasingly important that correctional

facilities understand and comply with the accessibility requirements of the ADA. Inmates with

disabilities will not be able to fully participate in

and benefit from the variety of educational, rehabilitational, and substance abuse treatments at

the heart of corrections programs unless these

institutions and those programs are accessible.

Ensuring this access and the potential rehabilitation of inmates with disabilities is vital both for

those inmates and for the communities to which

they will return when they complete their sentences.

4. Ensuring Nondiscriminatory Zoning and

Commercial Leasing Policies

Some of the damaging consequences of disability discrimination are the isolation and segregation of persons with disabilities. In passing the

ADA, Congress recognized that such forms of

discrimination result in social, vocational, economic, and educational disadvantages to individuals with disabilities, and that such practices run

counter to the Nation’s goals of assuring equality

of opportunity and full participation in society.32

Especially where a disability is based on a mental

disorder or mental illness, negative stereotypes

and unfounded fears can be formidable obstacles

to achieving the type of integration and participation envisioned by the ADA.

One of the ways in which the Department

furthers the goal of full participation is through

enforcement of the Act’s prohibitions against discriminatory zoning and commercial leasing practices.

“I was very happy when I heard that Easter

Seals-Michigan and the Department of Justice

were willing to stand up for people with psychiatric disabilities... It proved that we matter

just like every other citizen and that we have

the right to live and be within the community

wherever we choose. I knew in my heart from

the beginning that the discrimination I had

witnessed just wasn’t right.” 

— E-mail from Phyllis Patterson, Member of

Dreams Unlimited Clubhouse, July 31, 2006

The Department has resolved several Title II

and Title III complaints alleging discriminatory

zoning and commercial leasing practices. For

example, in 2005 the Department intervened in a

lawsuit brought by Easter Seals of Michigan

against the City of Royal Oak, Michigan, to challenge the city’s denial of a land-use permit for a

day program for adults with mental illness. For

over fifteen years Easter Seals had operated the

Dreams Unlimited Clubhouse in a neighboring

town, providing vocational training, skill building, volunteer service programs, and a social network for participants. When Easter Seals sought

to relocate to a larger facility in Royal Oak, the

organization took what it anticipated would be

routine steps to obtain the necessary permits to

operate the Clubhouse. However, in a series of

31 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Cheatham County Jail, Tenn. (Jan. 22, 2003), available at http://www.

ada.gov/cheatham.html.

32 See 42 U.S.C. § 12101.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 21

public hearings before the city’s zoning boards,

community members protested against the

Clubhouse location. Commenters expressed their

belief that the presence of the Clubhouse would

lower property values and fear that the neighborhood would no longer be safe for children. And

an official on the city’s planning commission

signed petitions opposing the Clubhouse before

chairing a hearing on the permit issue.

The land-use permit was denied, and Easter

Seals filed suit, seeking the right to operate the

Clubhouse in Royal Oak. After investigation, the

Department concluded that the city had discriminated against Easter Seals and its members by

impermissibly basing its decision to deny the

land-use permit on the fact that the users of the

facility would be persons with mental illness.

The Department intervened in the lawsuit and

worked with the parties to resolve the matter.

Under the November 2005 consent decree, Easter

Seals was granted the land-use permit to operate

the Clubhouse at the desired location and the city

paid money damages to the private plaintiffs.33

In addition, city officials participated in mandatory training on the ADA, which was conducted

by Civil Rights Division staff.

In another zoning matter, in July 2003 the

Department resolved a complaint that the City of

Jackson, Mississippi, allegedly refused a zoning

change that would have allowed the construction

of a mental health crisis intervention center. In

public hearings related to the zoning request,

members of the public as well as council members allegedly made comments reflecting negative stereotypes about people with mental illness

and voiced opposition to the center. Following

these meetings, the city council, acting in its

capacity as the zoning board, voted to deny the

developers’ petition. Pursuant to the settlement

agreement with the United States, the city held a

new vote based on appropriate and lawful criteria, and granted the petition.34 The city paid the

developers $40,000 in compensatory damages

and provided ADA training to all city council and

planning board members on the requirements of

the ADA. The city also agreed that in the future it

would use appropriate, nondiscriminatory criteria when evaluating zoning petitions involving

people with disabilities.

“This was a particularly difficult time for

Sinergia...After searching over 50 sites in

Manhattan we finally decided on a site only to

be leveled with discrimination against our

consumers with developmental disabilities. It

was a bleak time as winter approached and we

struggled to find an affordable

alternative...Please accept our profoundest

gratitude on behalf of individuals with disabilities and our entire organization. Be assured

that this was a unique and wonderful opportunity for our consumers to practice selfempowerment and to witness firsthand justice

at work.” 

— Letter from Myrta Cuadra-Lash,

Executive Director, Sinergia

(March 30, 2006)

Discrimination against people with disabilities also occurs in commercial leasing. Under

Title III, the Department resolved a complaint

filed by Sinergia, a small, nonprofit social service

organization that operates a day habilitation program for adults with mental retardation and

developmental disabilities. For over twenty

years, Sinergia has offered educational, vocational, and social services primarily to low-income,

minority communities traditionally underserved

by other service providers. When Sinergia sought

33 Easter Seals-Michigan and United States v. City of Royal Oak, Michigan, No. 05-60010 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 29, 2005), available at

http://www.ada.gov/michigan.htm.

34 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of Jackson, Mississippi (July 17, 2003), available at

http://www.ada.gov/jackson.htm.
United States Department of Justice

22 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

a new location for its day program in Manhattan,

Kaufman Realty Corporation refused to lease to

Sinergia because other tenants in the commercial

building objected to the fact that Sinergia’s clientele would be adults with mental retardation.

After investigation of the complaint, the Department notified Kaufman Realty that it was in violation of Title III and the parties agreed to resolve

the matter with a consent decree. Under the consent decree, Kaufman Realty agreed to conduct

all commercial leasing practices in a nondiscriminatory manner and to pay $175,000 to Sinergia as

compensation for monetary damages.35

“Prejudice, once let loose, is not easily 

cabined.”

— Justice Thurgood Marshall 36

Prohibiting discrimination in zoning and

commercial leasing is at the heart of the ADA.

The Department will continue to enforce the

ADA vigorously with respect to zoning and commercial leasing practices to ensure that persons

with disabilities and organizations providing

services to such individuals enjoy the full and

equal opportunities protected by the Act.

5. Equal Access to Parks and Recreation

A local government’s parks and recreation

facilities play an important part in the life of a

community and its members. Unfortunately,

many parks and recreation facilities were built

without accessibility in mind. Because of this,

individuals with disabilities and their families

often cannot participate in programs and activities offered at such places as public parks, baseball and football fields, town pools, and county

recreation centers.

Under federal regulations, when parks and

recreation facilities are built or altered, they must

comply with the ADA Standards for Accessible

Design (ADA Standards), which require inclusion of features such as accessible parking spaces,

routes, toilet facilities, public telephones, and

spectator seating areas.37 For parks and facilities

that were built or altered before the ADA

Standards took effect, local governments usually

must devise ways to make the programs and

activities in those parks and facilities accessible to

people with disabilities. If a local government

decides to modify facilities to provide access to a

recreation program or activity and has more than

one facility available (such as when several ball

fields are provided), only some of the facilities

may need to be accessible.

35 United States v. Kaufman Realty Corp., No. 06-2021 (S.D.N.Y. March 15, 2006).

36 City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 464 (1985) (Marshall, J., concurring).

37 28 C.F.R. pt. 36 app. A (2005).

Sinergia consumers prepare to make and deliver

breakfast orders.

Celebrating the grand reopening of Sinergia.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 23

As part of our Project Civic Access initiative,

the Department routinely surveys parks and

other recreation facilities to ensure that they are

accessible to people with disabilities. Investigations have included reviews of parks, community centers, recreation centers, nature centers,

skate parks, sports and fitness centers, public golf

courses, docks, and other recreation areas. The

Department has entered into approximately ninety settlement agreements to resolve issues found

at such facilities. These agreements include provisions to make toilet rooms accessible, to provide accessible golf carts, and to make paths of

travel to play equipment and sports fields accessible.38

The Department’s work with communities

across the country demonstrates that improving

access to parks and recreation areas is important

to the quality of life of people with disabilities

and to their families and friends. Access to parks

and other recreation areas and programs affects

an individual’s quality of life no matter where he

or she lives, from Florida to Alaska and every

community in between. For example, in 2002 the

Department worked with the City of San

Antonio, Texas, to identify ways in which the historic city’s programs and activities could be made

more accessible. Under the resulting settlement

agreement, San Antonio agreed to make physical

alterations to city-owned and operated facilities,

buildings, and streets to ensure that individuals

with disabilities, residents and visitors alike,

could fully participate in the city’s numerous

recreational offerings.

This positive collaboration between the

Department and the city has made a difference in

the quality of life for everyone in San Antonio.

Residents and visitors who use wheelchairs now

can enjoy the city’s famed Tea Pagoda in

Brackenridge Park because the city installed

appropriate ramps. Performances at the park’s

Sunken Gardens Theater can be enjoyed by all

because the city constructed wheelchair-accessible seating locations throughout the theater.

And families can plan gatherings at a community

park with the comfort of knowing that the park’s

parking, picnic grounds, restrooms, and swimming pools are accessible to individuals with disabilities.

In July 2002, at a ceremony commemorating

the twelfth anniversary of the ADA, the

38 See, e.g., Settlement Agreements entered into by the United States with the following communities: Omaha, Neb. (July 25,

2005), available at http://www.ada.gov/omahanesa.htm; Suffolk, Va. (Sept. 27, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/suffolkva.htm;

Pueblo, Colo. (June 2, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/pueblo.htm; Juneau, Alaska (Aug. 5, 2004), available at

http://www.ada.gov/JuneauSA.htm; Gallup, N.M. (Sept. 24, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/gallupnm.htm; and San Luis

Obispo, Cal. (Dec. 14, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/sanluis.htm.

Wheelchair accessible and companion seating

at the Brackenridge Park Sunken Gardens

Theater, San Antonio, Texas.

Accessible route to Elmendorf Park swimming

pool, San Antonio, Texas.
United States Department of Justice

24 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

Department publicly recognized San Antonio’s

positive, ongoing approach to increasing access

for all its citizens and visitors.39 Residents, too,

have expressed excitement about the city’s commitment to full participation for all. Donna

McBee, who is blind, remarked on the stark difference the city’s commitment has made in her

life as a resident of San Antonio: “I first moved to

the city in 1981 and would navigate the city

streets with a cane. . . . I wasn’t always certain of

my safety when crossing the street. Since the passage of the ADA, access has improved greatly

and mobility is much easier. So much has

changed!”40

The City of Springfield, Missouri, was recognized as well at the 2002 ceremony for its efforts

in complying with its Project Civic Access settlement agreement.41 Springfield’s citizens have

also recognized and appreciated the city’s efforts

to increase access at its many parks, including

new accessible paths to playground equipment

and picnic tables. For example, Margaret Trimble,

a Springfield resident and self-described outdoors person, uses a walker because of a mobility impairment and often found her choices limited to those parks with the fewest obstacles.42

Ms. Trimble told the Department that she is

pleased with the changes and added, “The more

that parks and natural areas are accessible [the

more it] helps families. I really enjoy being able to

get down to the banks of a trout stream or being

able to attend family and other group outings –

wherever they are held.”43

Communities with extreme conditions can

encounter unique challenges in furthering the

ADA’s goal of full participation. For example, in

Juneau, Alaska, fishing is a major recreational

activity for tourists and citizens alike. Because of

Juneau’s extreme tides, providing docks at a

slope that can be navigated by persons with

mobility impairments is a difficult task. But,

given the importance of fishing as a community

recreational activity, Juneau was determined to

build accessible fishing docks. Officials used state

and federal money to build two accessible fishing

piers, one in freshwater and one in saltwater.

One dock is reinforced so that persons with

mobility impairments can drive their vehicles out

onto the dock, where a lift-off lip assists them as

they transfer onto boats. In 2004, the Department

reached a settlement agreement with Juneau,

according to which the city also agreed to

improve accessibility at several harbors, parks,

and gyms, as well as at an ice arena, shipping

dock, pool, museum, youth center, and visitor’s

center.44

39Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department to Meet with San Antonio Officials as Part of Initiative to Ensure

Civic Access for People With Disabilities (July 24, 2002), available at http://www.ada.gov/sanapr.htm.

40U.S. Dep’t of Justice, ADA Stories - San Antonio, Texas, available at http://www.ada.gov/sanastor.htm.

41Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Department to Meet with Springfield Officials as Part of Initiative to Ensure

Civic Access for People With Disabilities (July 24, 2002), available at http://www.ada.gov/sprstpr.htm.

42U.S. Dep’t of Justice, ADA Stories - Springfield, Missouri, available at http://www.ada.gov/sprstor.htm.

43 Id.

44 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of Juneau, Alaska (Aug. 5, 2004), available at http://www.ada.

gov/JuneauSA.htm.

Twelfth Anniversary ADA Ceremony in July 2002 at

DOJ with participants including Former Assistant

Attorney General Ralph Boyd and Deputy

Assistant Attorney General Loretta King.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 25

San Antonio, Springfield, and Juneau are just

three examples of the many local governments

that have already significantly improved access

to parks and recreation programs as a result of

Project Civic Access. Virtually all of the Project

Civic Access agreements the Department has

reached in the past five years have required cities

and counties to begin work to make recreation

facilities and programs more accessible to people

with disabilities. For example, in 2005 the

Department signed an agreement with Florence

County, South Carolina, requiring the county to,

among other things, improve access to five parks

and its civic center.45 And this year, the

Department reached a settlement agreement with

Arlington County, Virginia, which requires

Arlington to improve accessibility at eleven

parks, four community centers, two recreation

centers, a nature center, a skate park, and a sports

and fitness center.46

Accessible Fishing platform in Juneau, Alaska.

Accessible picnic table, route to

playground equipment, and drinking fountain in Arlington County,

Virginia.

45 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Florence County, S.C. (May 5, 2005), available at http://www.ada.

gov/florencesc.htm.

46 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Arlington County, Va. (Mar. 30, 2006), available at http://www.ada.

gov/arlingsa.htm.
United States Department of Justice

26 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

Whether the fix is simple, such as extending a

picnic table to allow an individual who uses a

wheelchair to use it, or more complex, like providing access to docks in communities with tides,

these solutions are essential to ensure that people

with disabilities have the same opportunities as

others to enjoy recreational facilities with their

family members, friends, and colleagues. Equal

access to parks and recreation is a mandate of the

Americans with Disabilities Act. The Department

will continue to make the enforcement of this

mandate a priority along with enforcing equal

access in other aspects of everyday civic life.

B. Ensuring Equal Health Care Access

Titles II and III of the ADA cover doctors,

dentists, and other health care providers, as well

as all hospital programs and services, including

emergency room care, inpatient and outpatient

services, surgery, clinic services, educational

classes, and cafeteria and gift shop services.

Despite the ADA’s mandate of equal treatment and accessibility, people with disabilities

experience discrimination in a variety of manners

in health care settings. For example, in 2001 the

Department began an investigation of the Staten

Island University Hospital in response to complaints filed with the Department alleging a

range of accessibility problems: a separate

entrance and separate waiting room for patients

with developmental disabilities at its dental clinic, lack of accessible parking and accessible restrooms at its dental clinic, and lack of accessible

equipment at its gynecological clinic. The

Department negotiated a settlement agreement in

2003 requiring the hospital to resolve these problems and, in addition, to provide auxiliary aids

and services for effective communication with

people who are deaf or hard of hearing, to make

reasonable modifications in policies and procedures as necessary to avoid discriminating

against people with disabilities, to provide ADA

training to staff, to notify the public of the hospital’s obligations under the ADA, and to pay $8000

in civil penalties.47

The three most prevalent accessibility issues

in health care settings are lack of effective communication, lack of accessible equipment and

services, and refusal of care.

1. Effective Communication

Wherever patients with hearing disabilities

interact with hospital staff, a hospital is obligated

under the ADA to provide effective communication. The Department’s agreements and consent

decrees match the methods of communication

and services or aids needed to effectuate communication with the abilities of the person who is

deaf or hard of hearing and the nature of the communications that are required. For example,

exchanging written notes or pointing to items for

purchase will likely be effective communication

for brief and relatively simple face-to-face conversations, such as a visitor’s inquiry about a

patient’s room number or a purchase in the gift

shop or cafeteria. Written forms or information

sheets may provide effective communication in

situations where there is little call for interactive

communication, such as providing billing and

insurance information or filling out admission

forms and medical history inquiries.

However, in the past few years the Department has focused on ensuring that, for more complicated and interactive communications, health

care personnel are aware that it may be necessary

to provide a qualified sign language interpreter.

Examples of such communications include discussion of symptoms between a patient and medical personnel; presentation by a physician of

diagnosis and treatment options to patients or

family members; communication with a patient

during treatment, testing procedures, or rounds;

group therapy sessions; or delivery of educational presentations.

In addition, under some circumstances, the

Department’s agreements and decrees have provided for an interpreter or other aid for a

patient’s family members who are deaf or hard of

hearing. In United States v. Parkway Hospital, Inc.,

47 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Staten Island Univ. Hosp. (Aug. 6, 2003).
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 27

the Department filed a lawsuit in 2003 against

Parkway Hospital, a private hospital in Queens,

New York, because the hospital allegedly failed

to provide a qualified sign language interpreter

for Sarah Posner, an elderly deaf patient, or her

husband, who is also deaf, during Mrs. Posner’s

extended hospitalization at Parkway. In addition,

the Department alleged the hospital violated the

ADA by imposing communication responsibilities on the Posners’ grown children, who were

expected to act as conduits for information

between the family and hospital staff. Because of

these failures, Mr. Posner allegedly was unable to

obtain complete information about his wife’s

medical diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis.

Under a consent decree approved by the United

States District Court for the Eastern District of

New York in 2004, the hospital was required to

pay $125,000 in compensatory damages to the

family of Mrs. Posner, who was then deceased,

and to adopt sign language interpreting policies

and procedures intended to ensure effective communication for deaf patients and their family

members.48

The Department recognizes that enhanced

and emerging technologies may allow health care

providers to obtain qualified interpreters more

quickly, economically, and efficiently 24 hours a

day. For instance, providers may utilize video

interpreting services whereby a qualified sign

language interpreter appears via video from a

remote location on a television-like screen. A

health care provider opting for this approach,

however, must take the necessary steps to ensure

that the appropriate hardware and software are

in place to support the system, and that staff

understand how to operate and maintain the

equipment. This is especially critical in the hospital setting. Where a hospital purports to utilize

video interpreting services but does not provide

the necessary administrative and operational

support to ensure the system works, a patient

with a hearing disability is denied his or her right

to fully participate in health care decisions, and

family members are shut out from communicating with the hospital about their loved one.

For example, in 2006 the Department intervened in a private lawsuit, Gillespie v. Dimensions

Health Corp., d/b/a Laurel Regional Hospital,

49

brought by seven deaf individuals against Laurel

Regional Hospital alleging a failure to provide

appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including

qualified interpreters, necessary to ensure effective communication for deaf patients or deaf family members, either in the emergency department

48 United States v. Parkway Hosp., Inc., No. 03-1565 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/parkway.htm.

49 Gillespie v. Dimensions Health Corp., d/b/a Laurel Reg. Hosp., No. 05-73 (D. Md.), available at http://www.ada.gov/ 

laurelco.htm.

“The ADA law is an important part of deaf

communities... and their rights to have

American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters.

Some hospitals and others do not recognize

ADA laws. With my case ... Parkway Hospital

... didn’t provide ASL interpreters. I feel that

ADA is a strong advocate for the deaf and

other handicapped people.” 

— E-mail dated August 7, 2006, from

Norman Posner, husband of Sarah Posner
United States Department of Justice

28 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

or during hospitalizations. In that case, the

Maryland hospital had an older system of video

interpreting services available, but hospital staff

allegedly had difficulty setting up and operating

the system. The picture allegedly was, at times,

too blurry for a patient to clearly distinguish the

arms and hands of the video interpreters, and the

video camera allegedly could not be adjusted for

prone patients so that the interpreter and the

patient could clearly see each other’s hands,

arms, and heads.

The allegations in the Laurel Hospital case

illustrate the problems that can result when a

hospital fails to take the necessary steps, through

a video interpreting service or otherwise, to

ensure effective communication. Hospitals often

mistakenly use family members as interpreters in

non-emergency situations and inappropriately

rely on lip-reading for complicated medical communications – allegations the Department has

also encountered in other cases in which it has

been involved.50 In Laurel Hospital, the complainants alleged that the hospital failed to provide an interpreter for a deaf patient during hospitalization. The hospital allegedly did not

attempt to communicate with the deaf patient in

any way, but rather forced her hearing mother to

function as a relay person, consecutively

exchanging simplistic messages between her

adult daughter and the hospital regarding her

daughter’s condition and treatment. The patient

complained to the Department that her mother

was often unable to communicate to her what

hospital personnel had said, and that because her

mother does not know sign language, the patient

was forced, often unsuccessfully, to try to read

her mother’s lips. The patient said she felt frustrated, angry, and ignored by the hospital.

In 2006, the Department resolved the Laurel

Hospital case through a comprehensive consent

decree,51 which was modeled after several other

agreements and decrees executed in the last few

years,52 and which included detailed provisions

for the implementation and administration of a

program to ensure effective communication with

persons with hearing disabilities. The consent

decree required the hospital to continue to provide both on-site interpreters and interpreters

appearing through video interpreting services

where necessary for effective communication; to

provide other auxiliary aids and services as necessary; to modify medical and intake forms to

ensure that once a deaf or hard-of-hearing patient

or family member enters the hospital, the hospital makes a communication assessment and, if

necessary, a reassessment of the patient or family

member; to maintain a complaint resolution/

grievance procedure regarding the provision of

auxiliary aids and services; and to train hospital

personnel to accommodate the communication

needs and preferences of deaf or hard-of-hearing

patients and family members.

In addition, the Department required Laurel

Hospital to satisfy specified performance standards for its video interpreting services regarding

the quality and clarity of the televised video and

audio, regardless of the body position of the

patient, and to train hospital staff to quickly and

easily set up and operate the system. The

Department also made clear that, except in very

limited instances, medical providers should not

ask family members or other representatives to

interpret for a person who is deaf or hard of hearing because of potential emotional involvement,

considerations of confidentiality, and limited

interpreting skills. 

In United States v. Fairview Health Services,

53

the Department entered into a consent decree settling a lawsuit alleging that Fairview Health

50 See, e.g., Parkway Hosp., supra n. 48 (allegations included inappropriate reliance on adult hearing daughter for all communications between hospital and deaf patient and spouse).

51 Gillespie and United States v. Dimension Health Corp. d/b/a Laurel Reg. Hosp., No. 05-73 (D. Md. July 12, 2006), available at

http://www.ada.gov/laurelco.htm.

52 See, e.g., Parkway Hosp., supra n. 48; Settlement Agreement between the United States and Advocate Ravenswood Hosp. Med.

Ctr. (Apr. 3, 2001).

53 United States v. Fairview Health Serv., No. 04-4955 (D. Minn. Dec. 8, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/fairview.htm.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 29

Services failed to provide qualified sign language

interpreters and services to deaf patients. Under

the agreement, Fairview agreed to hire and make

available one or more qualified sign language

interpreters 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to

provide effective communication at each of its

five hospitals in Minnesota, and to pay $188,000

in damages to four complainants and $20,000 in

civil penalties. Fairview will also rewrite its hospital policy and procedures affecting patients

with disabilities, develop patient and visitor

information and notices in forms that are accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing patients, and conduct comprehensive training of hospital personnel. Similar agreements have been reached with

Greater Southeast Community Hospital in

Washington, D.C., St. Francis Healthcare in

Wilmington, Delaware, and South Florida Baptist

Hospital in Plant City, Florida.54

The Department has resolved complaints

about other types of health care providers as well.

For example, an eye surgeon doing business in

New York City as Advanced Eye Care Associates

advertised a free consultation for anyone considering laser vision correction. A man who is deaf

called to schedule an appointment and advised

the doctor’s office that he would need a sign language interpreter at the consultation. He alleged

that the doctor’s office refused to pay for an interpreter, cancelled the appointment, and told the

complainant that he was not a suitable candidate

for laser eye surgery because he was deaf.

Under the 2005 consent decree in United States v.

Saimovici, Advanced Eye Care agreed to follow a

policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of disability and to provide appropriate auxiliary aids,

including qualified sign language interpreters,

free of charge when necessary to ensure effective

communication.55 The doctor also agreed to pay

$3500 in civil penalties and $1500 in compensatory damages to the complainant.

In another case, a consulting psychologist in

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, who had been courtassigned to consult and evaluate family members

involved in a divorce case, allegedly failed to provide an interpreter during an evaluation of a

minor child who is deaf. The Department reached

an agreement with the psychologist in August

2005 in which he agreed to provide individuals

who are deaf or hard of hearing with appropriate

auxiliary aids and services, to conduct an individualized assessment to determine which aid or

service is needed, and to inform people with disabilities of the availability of auxiliary aids and

services.56

A dental clinic in Indiana also entered into an

agreement with the Department, resolving a

complaint filed by a woman on behalf of her husband who is deaf. The complainant alleged that

she requested a sign language interpreter when

she called the clinic to schedule a dental appointment for her husband, who needed complex and

extensive dental services, but the clinic refused

her request. In the April 2006 agreement, the clinic agreed to adopt an effective communication

policy and an effective communication assessment form, to post a sign in all of its ten dental

offices informing patients that the clinic will provide qualified sign language interpreters when

necessary, and to provide mandatory training to

all of its employees about the ADA and its new

effective communication policy.57

2. Accessible Medical Equipment and

Facilities

The use of medical equipment is vital to the

provision of medical care. Health care providers

use diagnostic equipment to detect serious diseases at an early stage when such diseases are

54 See Settlement Agreements entered into by the United States with Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. (June 22, 2005), available at

http://www.ada.gov/secommhosp.htm; St. Francis Healthcare (Nov. 4, 2005); and South Florida Baptist Hosp. (May 5, 2006).

55 United States v. Saimovici, No. 05-7712 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 1, 2005).

56Settlement Agreement between the United States and Dr. Ray Hand (Aug. 17, 2005), available at http://www.ada.gov/ rhandsa.htm.

57Settlement Agreement between the United States and Modern Dental Professional, Indiana, P.C. (Apr. 17, 2006).
United States Department of Justice

30 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

treatable. Unfortunately, the lack of accessible

medical equipment and facilities denies health

care to many individuals with disabilities.

Necessary accessible medical equipment includes

examination tables, examination chairs, scales,

radiologic equipment (e.g., x-ray and MRI equipment), dental chairs, ophthalmology equipment,

and any other equipment used in the medical

context that are accessible to and usable by individuals with mobility impairments and other disabilities. 

Many individuals with disabilities do not

receive adequate medical treatment. For instance,

many such individuals receive less comprehensive medical examinations than they should

because they are unable to transfer to the proper

examining table or chair or to use inaccessible

equipment.

The increasing significance of diagnostic testing further underscores the importance of full

and equal access to health care services for individuals with disabilities. Cervical and breast cancer rates have been reduced, due in large part to

the critical role of preventive measures such as

mammography and pap smear tests. These tools

are essential in early disease detection, which

often is the key to effective treatment and survival. Failure or refusal to perform such examinations and tests due to disability is discriminatory

and can have grave consequences. The Department is committed to ensuring that, as the ADA

requires, health care services, medical equipment, and diagnostic tests are accessible to individuals with disabilities.

For example, in 2005 Exodus Women’s

Center, which provides obstetrics and gynecology services to women in four different locations

in Florida, entered into a settlement agreement

with the Department.58 The agreement stems

from a complaint filed by a woman who uses a

wheelchair due to a neurological condition. The

complainant alleged that, when she arrived for

her appointment, Center staff told her that she

needed to bring someone to assist her onto the

examination table and refused to help her transfer. She left without receiving an important medical examination.

Under the terms of the agreement with the

Department, Exodus Women’s Center agreed to:

purchase an adjustable-height examination

table for one office within two months of the

agreement and a second table for another

office within twelve months;

ask patients, when scheduling an appointment, if they will need any assistance, modification of policy, or auxiliary aid or service

during the exam due to a disability; and

conduct ADA training for all of its medical

and administrative staff, including teaching

transferring techniques and providing sensitivity training on interacting with individuals with disabilities.

Another alleged failure to provide obstetrics

and gynecology treatment involved the Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinic at Georgetown

University Medical Center. In 2001, the Department and Georgetown entered into a settlement

agreement after the Department received a complaint by a woman who alleged that Georgetown

had failed to assist her with transferring from her

wheelchair to an examination table when the sole

adjustable table was not working.59 Georgetown

agreed to pay a civil penalty of $10,000 and damages of $15,000 to the complainant.

When visiting doctors’ offices, individuals

with disabilities often face major obstacles due to

simple things that people without disabilities

would not even notice. For example, individuals

with mobility impairments may not be able to get

into examining rooms due to narrow doors, or

they may not be able to maneuver within a room







58Settlement Agreement between the United States and Exodus Women’s Center (Apr. 26, 2005), available at

http://www.ada.gov/exodus.htm.

59Settlement Agreement between the United States and Georgetown Univ. Hosp. (Oct. 31, 2001), available at 

http://www.ada.gov/gtownhos.htm.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 31

once they gain access. In addition, examination

tables and chairs present some of the biggest

obstacles for individuals who use wheelchairs or

other mobility aids; transfer to an examining

table or chair can be impossible without an

adjustable table or mechanical lift. The

Department’s settlement agreement in 2005 with

Dr. Robila Ashfaq, a solo practitioner in family

medicine in Irvine, California, followed a complaint from a woman with paraplegia who used a

wheelchair. She alleged that her husband assisted

her onto the examining table during her first visit

and that subsequent examinations were conducted in her wheelchair. The complainant further

alleged that after she requested that the doctor

borrow or purchase an adjustable examination

table or lift to facilitate her transfer, Dr. Ashfaq

stated that she could not provide an accessible

table or lift due to budget constraints and discontinued treating the complainant as a patient.

“When I asked my physician to purchase an

accessible exam table, or make some other kind

of accommodation, she refused . . . I knew my

rights and knew the ADA law backed up my

request, so I contacted the Department of

Justice and asked for help. They were very

understanding, and the claim process was

much simpler than I ever thought it would be.

When the case was settled and my doctor purchased the accessible exam table, I felt like I

had done something really important for others who had mobility issues, especially for

women, because there are so few doctors that

have them. It feels good to know that I not

only helped myself, but helped others, as

well.”

— E-mail dated August 8, 2006, from Holly

Bercik, Orange County, California

Under the terms of the agreement with the

Department, Dr. Ashfaq agreed to:

purchase an accessible, adjustable-height

exam table;

adopt a nondiscrimination policy;

attend training with her staff about ADA

requirements; and

ask patients, when scheduling appointments,

if they will need any assistance, modification

of policy, or auxiliary aid or service during

the exam due to a disability.60

In some cases, mammography equipment is

literally out of reach of women who are unable to

stand, and, in addition, many medical offices and

hospitals do not have scales designed to weigh a

patient while sitting in his or her wheelchair.

Lastly, some facilities lack simple ancillary equipment (e.g., stabilizing elements on examination

tables to prevent falling or leg supports for gynecological examinations) that would make otherwise inaccessible medical equipment fully accessible.

As part of its commitment to ensure fully

accessible medical treatment for persons with

disabilities, the Department entered into two of

its most comprehensive settlement agreements

under the ADA with Washington Hospital Center

and Valley Radiologists Medical Group in

November 2005.

Under the terms of the agreement,

Washington Hospital Center agreed to:

create a minimum of 35 fully accessible

patient rooms, with each including an accessible toilet room and an accessible shower (or

access to one);

purchase adjustable-height beds for all of its

accessible inpatient rooms;

ensure that each department has at least one

accessible examination table that lowers to

17-19 inches from the floor to enable individuals who use wheelchairs to transfer to the

examination equipment;

60Settlement Agreement between the United States and Dr. Robila Ashfaq (Jan. 12, 2005), available at

http://www.ada.gov/drashfaq.htm.














United States Department of Justice

32 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

survey all of the equipment in the hospital

and purchase new accessible equipment

needed to ensure that individuals with disabilities receive equal access to medical services, including an accessible examination

table or chair in each hospital department

that utilizes them;

implement a barrier removal plan; and

update hospital policies and train staff to

address the needs of individuals with disabilities.61

“Being proactive with health care is essential

to promoting wellness and preventing unnecessary complications from pre-existing conditions. Knowing that Washington Hospital

Center will be barrier-free and provide full

access to all patient services will allow me to

access quality, life-preserving medical care.” 

— E-mail dated August 8, 2006, from

Rosemary Ciotti, R.N., M.S.N.

The Department’s agreement with Valley

Radiologists Medical Group arose out of a complaint involving a woman who visited a radiologist’s office for a full-body bone density x-ray.

Because the woman uses a wheelchair, she

allegedly was unable to transfer herself to an

examination table without a mechanical lift,

which the clinic did not have. As a result, the xray could not be performed.

Under the terms of the agreement with the

Department, Valley Radiologists Medical Group

agreed to:

purchase four mechanical lifts and eight

transfer boards;

ask patients, when scheduling an appointment, if they will need any assistance or service during the exam due to a disability;

provide appropriate assistance and equipment at an appointment when requested;

and

train all medical and administrative staff

about the requirements of the ADA, the operation of the transfer equipment, and techniques for assisting individuals with mobility impairments with transferring to the exam

table.62

3. Refusal of Care

Having access to health care is a fundamental

part of American life. For some individuals with

HIV, that access is compromised by health care

professionals who refuse to treat those with HIV.

The Department recognizes the importance of

full access to health care, and has moved aggressively to investigate and resolve such complaints.

The Department has carefully studied the medical evidence about HIV and heeded the guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control















61 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Washington Hosp. Ctr. (Nov. 2, 2005), available at http://www.ada.

gov/ whc.htm.

62 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Valley Radiologists Med. Group (Nov. 2, 2005), available at

http://www.ada.gov/vri.htm.
asked his doctor about surgical options. Mr.

Bourdon alleged that his doctor refused to perform surgery because of his HIV. Mr. Bourdon

filed a lawsuit against his physician, and the

Department intervened in 2003. The case settled

prior to trial through a consent decree, in which

Arizona Bone & Joint Specialists agreed to pay

$120,000 in compensatory damages to Mr.

Bourdon and $20,000 in civil penalties.67 The doctors adopted a nondiscrimination policy, and

agreed in the future not to deny services to individuals with HIV or other disabilities.

Complaints are not limited to refusals to provide care in an office setting. The Department has

also focused on the denial of care in an emergency situation. In 2001, John Gill Smith of Philadelphia called 9-1-1 because he believed he was

having a heart attack. Paramedics employed by

the City of Philadelphia arrived on the scene and,

after being informed of Mr. Smith’s HIV status,

refused to provide the pre-hospital care that

would have been reasonable and appropriate for

an individual complaining of chest pains. Mr.

Smith alleged that they refused to touch him or

assess his condition and refused to give him

physical assistance in getting out of his home and

into the ambulance. He alleged that on the way to

the hospital he was verbally harassed and insulted because of his HIV status. The Department

filed suit in 2004 seeking to prevent the City’s

EMS providers from discriminating against individuals with HIV and seeking an award of compensatory damages for Mr. Smith.68 The parties

are in settlement discussions to resolve issues in

the case. If settlement fails, the case will be

scheduled for trial.

II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 33

governing safe treatment.63 The Department is

also guided by the Supreme Court’s decision in

Bragdon v. Abbott,64 a case involving a dentist

who refused to provide even the most routine

dental care to a patient with HIV. The Court held

that a medical provider may not refuse to treat by

invoking the “direct threat” defense unless the

risk of HIV transmission is “significant” and

based on objective evidence.65

In 2003, the Department resolved allegations

in a complaint filed by a young man who went to

the Burleson St. Joseph Health Center in Burton,

Texas, for treatment of sinusitis. In the course of

providing his medical history, he disclosed that

he had HIV. Several weeks later, the Health

Center sent him a letter by certified mail informing him that he could no longer receive treatment

at the clinic “due to [his] medical condition being

out of the scope of service of our nurse practitioner,” and suggesting that he see a physician in

a town an hour away. Under the settlement

agreement negotiated by the Department,

Burleson St. Joseph agreed that it would no

longer turn away patients with HIV whom it is

otherwise qualified to treat, and employees

would be trained about the nondiscrimination

requirements of the ADA.66

Mark Bourdon alleged a similar experience

when his doctor informed him that he would not

treat him because of Mr. Bourdon’s HIV. In May

2000, Mr. Bourdon consulted the Arizona Bone &

Joint Specialists, Ltd., a sports medicine practice

with offices in Phoenix and Scottsdale, about a

strained muscle in his shoulder. At his initial

visit, Mr. Bourdon disclosed he had HIV. When

physical therapy failed to correct the problem, he

63 See, e.g., Centers for Disease Control, Recommendations for Preventing Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and

Hepatitis B During Exposure-Prone Invasive Procedures, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (July 12, 1991), Vol. 40, (RR08), 1-

9; Guidelines for Prevention of Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis B Virus to Health-Care and Public-Safety

Workers, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (June 23, 1989), Vol. 38, No. S-6; Recommendations for Prevention of HIV

Transmission in Health-Care Settings, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Aug. 21, 1987), Vol. 36, No. 2S.

64 Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 625 (1998).

65 Id. at 649-55.

66Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Burleson St. Joseph Health Ctr. (Apr. 21, 2003).

67 Bourdon and United States v. Croft, No. 02-1233 (D. Ariz. Feb. 10, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/bourdoncons.htm.

68 Smith and United States v. City of Philadelphia, No. 03-6494 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
United States Department of Justice

34 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

C. Gateways to Job Opportunities for

People with Disabilities

1. Employment

“Prejudice, we are beginning to understand,

rises not from malice or hostile animus alone.

It may result as well from insensitivity caused

by simple want of careful, rational reflection

or from some instinctive mechanism to guard

against people who appear to be different in

some respects from ourselves. Quite apart

from any historical documentation, knowledge

of our own human instincts teaches that persons who find it difficult to perform routine

functions by reason of some mental or physical impairment might at first seem unsettling

to us, unless we are guided by the better

angels of our nature.”

– Justice Anthony Kennedy69

As we move through the 21st century, a

strong economy, the increasing need to replace

large numbers of workers exiting the workforce

through retirement, and the ready pool of qualified workers with disabilities present an historic

opportunity to fulfill the promise of unlimited

employment opportunities for people with disabilities. By the year 2014, 36 million people are

expected to leave their jobs and will need to be

replaced.70 Fully ten percent of undergraduate

students – that is, over 1.5 million individuals –

report having one or more disabilities.71 It is

more important than ever to ensure that people

with disabilities in the workforce, and those seeking to enter it, are not turned aside by discrimination.

Responsibility for eliminating disabilitybased employment discrimination is shared by

the Department of Justice and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The

EEOC is responsible for ensuring nondiscrimination in private sector employment and the

Department is responsible for ensuring nondiscrimination in employment by state and local

government employers. In United States v.

Tennessee, the Department challenged Tennessee’s

blanket statutory exclusion of all individuals

with “apparent mental disorders” from employment as sheriffs, police officers, correctional officers, and youth service officers. The case came to

the Department’s attention after two 9-1-1 dispatchers employed by Weakley County were

suddenly subjected to psychological evaluations

in 1997 and subsequently terminated even

though they had successfully performed their

jobs for several years. Under a 2003 consent

decree with the Department, Tennessee agreed to

stop enforcing the policies, to ask the legislature

to rescind the statutes, and to draft new policies

pursuent to the ADA.72

Some discrimination, as in Tennessee, results

from sweeping policies. Other forms are more

individualized, such as that faced by a Baltimore

City public school teacher. In United States v.

Baltimore Public Schools, an elementary school

teacher who is blind applied for a teaching position with the Baltimore school system. During

her two interviews, she used a cane. She was

offered a job. When she mentioned that she

would soon be picking up her new service animal, the school principal withdrew the job offer.

In its 2001 consent decree with the Department,

Baltimore agreed to pay the teacher $55,000 in

damages and appointed an ADA coordinator for

employment matters to help prevent future discrimination.73

69 Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001) (Kennedy, J., concurring).

70 W. Roy Grizzard, Ed.D., Assistant Sec’y of Labor, Luncheon Keynote Address, Diversity Profit Generation Series: Proving

the Financial Business Case for Diversity, New York, New York (June 20, 2006), available at

http://www.dol.gov/odep/media/speeches/diversitynyc.htm.

71 Id.

72 United States v. Tennessee, No. 98-1357 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 15, 2003), available at http://www.ada.gov/tennesse.htm.

73 United States v. Baltimore Pub. Schs., No. 01-4187 (D. Md. Dec. 31, 2001).
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 35

In Missouri, a nurses’ aid, whose job duties

consisted of bathing, grooming, feeding, and generally caring for elderly patients in a nursing

home, disclosed to her employer that she had

contracted HIV. She alleged that even though her

job did not include any invasive procedures, she

was promptly terminated because of her disability. In its 2006 consent decree with the Department, Marion County Nursing Home agreed to

pay the assistant $25,000 in damages, and agreed

to change its employment policies to conform to

the requirements of the ADA.74

After many years of hard work, Ronnie

Collins entered the police academy to begin training as a state highway patrol trooper. While

attending the rigorous, military-style cadet training academy, he asked for additional food as a

reasonable accommodation for his diabetes.

When it was denied, his blood sugar allegedly

became dangerously low, and, as a result, he

became combative and was unable to timely

report for training. He was then terminated from

the academy, rendering him unable to work as a

trooper. In its 2004 consent decree with the

Department, the Mississippi Department of

Public Safety agreed to pay Mr. Collins $35,000 in

damages, adopt and institute a reasonable

accommodation policy, and train academy personnel about diabetes.75

“It was important to me to know that because

of the ADA, the discrimination I encountered

because of my diabetes was unlawful and

would not happen to others.” 

— E-mail dated August 12, 2006,

from Ronnie Collins 

In each of these cases, qualified individuals

were denied employment opportunities in a variety of necessary and important jobs simply

because they had, or were perceived as having, a

disability. The ADA was designed to address situations such as these. Enforcement of the ADA

through education, mediation, and litigation is

designed to ensure that employers hire and retain

individuals with disabilities, and those that are

perceived to be disabled, based on merit alone.

2. Higher Education

As more students with disabilities acquire

high school degrees, an increasing number are

seeking the opportunities presented by higher

education – at two-year colleges or trade schools,

universities, and graduate schools. But many students with disabilities face barriers to full enjoyment of their educational experience. These barriers to education in turn make it much more difficult for people with disabilities to achieve their

full potential in the labor market.

For example, a student with a mobility

impairment may be limited to courses offered in

buildings and classrooms that are accessible.

And even where she can enter a classroom building, she may not be able to use the laboratory

equipment in a science class, open the door to an

English classroom, pull up in her wheelchair to

74 United States v. Marion County Nursing Home, Inc., No. 05-70 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2006).

75 United States v. Mississippi Dep’t of Pub. Safety, No. 00-377 (S.D. Miss. Mar. 4, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/mdps.htm.

Title I of the Americans with

Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies,

and labor unions from discriminating

against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement,

compensation, job training, and

other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA

covers employers with 15 or more

employees. The ADA’s nondiscrimination standards also apply to federal sector employees under Section

501 of the Rehabilitation Act, as

amended, and its implementing

rules.
United States Department of Justice

36 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

the stations in a computer science class, find seating in a history lecture, or visit her professor’s

office. She may have to go to another building to

use an accessible restroom or water fountain.

But the route to that building may be blocked by

construction debris or may not have curb cuts

that enable her to cross the street. There may be

no signs to direct her to an accessible entrance to

a facility.

Her classmate who is hard of hearing may not

be provided an assistive listening device in an

auditorium so that he can understand the instructor’s words. If fire alarms or emergency

announcements in his residence hall or the

library do not include a visual component, he

will not be aware of them.

A student with a vision impairment may be

lost on campus without the benefit of signs that

have Braille or raised lettering, and that designate names of rooms or indicate directions to certain locations. She can be harmed by protruding

objects – like temporary or permanent hanging

signs or certain water fountains – if they are

placed in a location that her cane cannot detect.

The Department has been vigilant in

responding to complaints of barriers to education. In one 2002 case, the Department investigated a complaint that a number of buildings and

facilities on the campus of Millikin University in

Illinois were not accessible to people with mobility impairments. Students with mobility impairments allegedly could not access some of the residential facilities offered by the University and

could not go from one level of the student union

to another without exiting the building. Under a

settlement agreement with the Department, the

University made a broad range of its campus

activities accessible to people with disabilities.76

It agreed to modify entrances, counters, food

service lines, telephones, bathrooms, drinking

fountains, dining booths, doors, tables, and picnic areas; to repair sidewalks and curbs in order

to create accessible routes between buildings; to

install an elevator in the student union; and to

provide accessible wheelchair seating locations

and assistive listening devices in lecture halls.

In 2005, the Department began an initiative to

review a number of private colleges and universities, including proprietary schools, in various

parts of the country, even absent a specific complaint. The Department recently announced its

first two comprehensive agreements with the

University of Chicago and Colorado College,77

with others anticipated soon. Both agreements

address a wide array of issues and require the

schools to ensure increased access to their campuses for students, faculty, and visitors – in particular those with mobility, hearing, and vision

impairments. For example, the colleges will:

submit accessibility plans outlining proposals to comply with the agreement to the

Department for review after seeking public

comment;

implement campus-wide emergency evacuation, sheltering, and shelter-in-place plans

for individuals with disabilities after public

comment and Department review;

ensure that three percent of the units (and

adjacent toilet rooms) in student living facilities are accessible and dispersed among the

facilities, and that a reasonable number of

housing facilities have an accessible

entrance, first floor common area, and toilet

room that is usable by a visitor with a disability;

display information on their websites identifying accessible routes through the campuses, accessible parking areas, accessible

entrances to buildings, and accessible spaces

within buildings;

76 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Millikin Univ. (Mar. 14, 2002), available at http://www.ada.gov/millikin.htm.

77 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Univ. of Chicago (July 17, 2006), available at http://www.ada.gov/

unichicagosa.htm; and Settlement Agreement between the United States and Colorado Coll. (Aug. 3, 2006).








II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 37

post signs at facility entrances and toilet

rooms identifying those that are accessible

and, at inaccessible entrances and toilet

rooms, directing individuals to the nearest

accessible entrance or toilet room;

provide assistive listening devices for people

with hearing impairments in lecture halls,

meeting rooms, auditoria, and other assembly areas;

move classes and other activities to fully

accessible locations when necessary; and

correct violations of the accessibility standards for new construction.

The University of Chicago also agreed to

ensure that its transportation services – including

its fixed-route campus-wide bus system and its

on-call evening and night-time service – satisfy

the requirements of the ADA.

More and more students, including those

with disabilities, are also continuing their education by attending graduate school or postgraduate professional school. But some students with

disabilities face discrimination in taking the

admissions tests or the classes that prepare students for those tests. In 2002, the Department

filed suit against the Law School Admission

Council, the agency that administers the Law

School Admission Test, based on complaints that

the Council had failed to provide reasonable testing accommodations to four persons with disabilities. The individuals had requested extra

time to complete the examination because of their

physical disability, cerebral palsy. But the Council

inappropriately insisted that the applicants

undergo testing for learning disabilities, without

which they would not be granted extra time.

Under the terms of the consent decree resolving

the case, the Council agreed to grant the requested testing accommodation to candidates who

have been granted the same or comparable

accommodation on other standardized admission tests; give considerable weight to the recommendation of the candidate’s doctor or other

evaluator; not require individuals to undergo

diagnostic or functional tests that are unnecessary or not commonly utilized by the medical

community; and pay $20,000 in damages.78

In June 2006, the Department filed suit

against and reached a consent order with

TestMasters, one of the nation’s largest providers

of preparatory courses for graduate school

admissions tests.79 This action was based on a

78 United States v. Law Sch. Admission Council, No. 99-6209 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 26, 2002), available at http://www.ada.gov/lsac.htm.

79 United States v. Robin Singh Educ. Servs. (“TestMasters”), No. 06-3466 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2006).







 The University of Chicago’s Palevsky Dormitory.

The University of Chicago’s Old Quad.
United States Department of Justice

38 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

complaint by a deaf individual, who was denied

a sign language interpreter for a class preparing

for the Law School Admission Test. When he

complained to the company that they were violating the ADA, the company canceled his registration and would not allow him to take the class.

Under the consent order, TestMasters agreed to

provide auxiliary aids to students who need

them for its preparatory courses nationwide.

TestMasters also agreed to appoint an ADA coordinator, train its staff regarding the company’s

obligations under the ADA, pay $20,000 in damages to the deaf student, and pay $10,000 in civil

penalties.

3. Childcare

“I work 40 hours a week on the southwest side

of town. This act alone [refusing to provide

care for my child] brought me to tears. Having

to make such an important decision, I was left

with no other choice than to inform my

employer that I could not return back to work

until I successfully found adequate child care

for my son.”

— Complaint received by

Disability Rights Section in 2005

The Department of Justice receives a large

number of complaints that echo this story. The

Department is committed to rooting out discrimination against children with disabilities, in part

because of the importance of giving parents of

children with disabilities the opportunity to participate in the workforce. Recent Census Bureau

data shows that two percent of children under

the age of three and 3.6 percent of children

between the ages of three and five have some

type of disability.80 The U.S. Department of

Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics recently

reported that nearly 63 percent of the

nation’s children under the age of five have

mothers in the workforce and require some

childcare arrangement.81 Fifty-three percent

of school-aged children between the ages of

five and fourteen also require some type of

weekly childcare arrangement, including

access to summer camps and after-school

care.82

Childcare providers that meet the definition of public accommodation – essentially those childcare providers that provide

services open to the public, but not including childcare operated by religious organizations or entities controlled by religious

organizations – regardless of size or number

of employees, must comply with Title III of

the ADA. Similarly, Title II of the ADA

applies to childcare centers run by public

entities, including Headstart programs and

other state and local programs that provide

childcare. The ADA prohibits childcare

providers from discriminating against persons with disabilities on the basis of disability. Under federal regulations, childcare

providers must allow children and parents

with disabilities an equal opportunity to

participate in the childcare center’s programs and services. Specifically, the ADA

and/or its regulations provide that:

Covered centers cannot exclude children with disabilities from admission

to, or integration within, their programs

unless their presence would pose a significant risk to the health or safety of

others, would require a fundamental

alteration of the program, or would

result in an undue burden to the center.

Covered centers must provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services needed for effective communication with chil80 U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, June-September 2002.

81 U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Women in the Workforce: A Databook, May 2005.

82 U.S. Census Bureau, Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Winter 2002 (2005).




II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 39

dren or adults with disabilities, unless doing

so would constitute an undue burden or

would fundamentally alter the program.

Covered centers must generally make their

facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. Existing facilities are subject to the readily achievable standard for barrier removal,

while newly constructed facilities and any

altered portions of existing facilities must be

fully accessible.

“After around a week, [the childcare provider]

finally called me back. She said she had discussed [my child’s] case with her supervisor,

the school nurse, and the school’s attorney and

informed me that they would be unable to

accept our application . . . . I tried to explain

that there’s no reason to treat a child with a

shunt any differently much less exclude him.

Many people with vp shunts lead normal lives

– I don’t think you guys really understand the

situation, what a shunt is and what needs to

be done or even what can be done to deal with

it. She said she understood, but kids [my

son’s] age fall all the time so it will be difficult

to prevent that . . . I explained again that

nobody can prevent kids from falling, we just

try to do our best . . . . But I never imagined it

could lead to his exclusion and I’m still

astounded that [the facility] would discriminate against anyone with this condition.

And the horrifying thing is the implication

that other schools, clubs, etc. might treat [our

child] the same way in the future. Then where

can he go? How can he have a normal life?. . .

The goal of filing this complaint is . . . to know

that our son can’t and won’t be discriminated

against as he goes through life.” 

— Complaint received by

Disability Rights Section in 2005

The ADA is designed to ensure that decisions

affecting persons with disabilities are based on

the reality of each individual’s situation. This is

frequently not the case in childcare settings.

Some childcare providers wrongly assume that a

child’s disabilities are too severe for the child to

be integrated successfully into the center’s childcare program. Federal regulations require a

childcare provider to make an individualized

assessment about whether it can appropriately

meet the particular needs of a child within its

program. Providers are often surprised at how

simple it is to include children with disabilities in

their mainstream programs.

For example, in 2004 the Department settled a

complaint against the Rieck Avenue Country Day

School, alleging that the privately-owned childcare facility in Millville, New Jersey, had refused

to enroll a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy

and epilepsy in a summer program.83 According

to the complaint, the girl’s mother called the

owner-director of the facility to inquire about

openings in its summer program. The daughter

had just finished first grade and had been attending public school and daycare since the age of

eighteen months. She required no additional

assistance with daily care or age-appropriate

activities, and no modifications to the center’s

activities or programs were anticipated, with one

exception: staff members would need to be

informed that she had occasional petit mal

seizures, after which she would be very tired or

fall asleep. Under the agreement, the facility

agreed to adopt a nondiscrimination policy and

to publicize that policy in its handbooks for parents and employees. The facility also agreed to

provide training to management and staff about

the obligations of childcare providers concerning

the rights of individuals with disabilities. Lastly,

it agreed to pay the mother, on behalf of her

daughter, $4000 in compensatory damages.

Sometimes, problems may be solved by childcare providers simply permitting more flexibility

83 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Rieck Ave. Country Day Sch., (June 2, 2004), available at http://www.

ada.gov/rieckave.htm.


United States Department of Justice

40 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

in their rules and policies. For example, in 2003

the Department resolved a matter against a Texas

childcare center that allegedly refused to enroll a

four-year-old child with Down Syndrome who

needed diapering.84 The center had a policy of

requiring children over the age of three to be toilet

trained. The provider agreed to pay $4000 in damages to the complainants, modify its policy to admit

children over three who are not toilet-trained if their

need for diapering is due to a disability, and provide

ADA training to its employees.

“My two year old son was recently barred

from enrolling in a day care center because

‘they can’t handle another special needs

child.’. . . he has a diagnosis on the autism

spectrum, widely considered by everyone who

has seen him to be mild and very treatable.

He does not have autism, and he functions

well in a typical day care setting and has since

he was three months old. . . . I have carefully

reviewed Title III of the ADA. A day care

center cannot refuse a child on the basis of disability unless he is a physical danger or admitting him would fundamentally change the

nature of the program. Neither are true. . . .I

would ask you to let them know that they cannot discriminate against children who are not

completely typical. I never expected to have

my son discriminated against so early in his

life.”

— Complaint received by

Disability Rights Section in 2005.

All children in childcare settings require a

certain amount of daily individualized attention.

The Department has received complaints alleging

that childcare providers are refusing to extend

their services to children with disabilities, claiming that they are unable to adequately serve the

children. In many instances, the child with disabilities needs little, if any, modification to the

program to successfully participate. For children

with more severe impairments, modifications can

often be made that do not fundamentally alter the

provider’s programs.

If a child does, however, need one-on-one

attention due to a disability, it is still possible

that, in certain circumstances, the child can be

integrated into a childcare program with reasonable modifications that do not fundamentally

alter the program. For instance, consider a child

with Down Syndrome and significant mental

retardation who applies for admission to a childcare program but who needs one-on-one care to

benefit fully from the childcare program. If a personal assistant will be provided at no cost to the

childcare center (usually by the parents or

through a government program), the child can

likely be integrated with reasonable modifications to allow for the child’s one-on-one care

within the program. (This is not to suggest that

all children with Down Syndrome need one-onone care or must be accompanied by a personal

assistant in order to be successfully integrated

into a mainstream childcare program.) It is

important to note that the ADA generally does

not require centers to hire additional staff or provide constant one-on-one supervision of a particular child with a disability.

The Department also has provided technical

assistance to centers to enable the providers to

find ways to accommodate children with severe

allergies. For example, in 2006, the Department

offered technical assistance to a large language

immersion summer camp program in the

Midwest that had refused to enroll a child with

severe food allergies because the provider would

not agree to administer epinephrine via an “Epipen Junior” in the event of a life-threatening

emergency. After receiving technical assistance

from the Department, the camp decided to enroll

the child and she participated successfully in the

camp program.

84 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Peggy’s Child Care, Inc. (July 31, 2003).
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 41

Similarly, the Department has helped children with diabetes, who can usually be integrated into a program without fundamentally altering it, to participate in various children’s programs.

“We are very grateful to the Department of

Justice for their interest in Eleanor’s case

[against TSI] and for their efforts on behalf of

her and all diabetic children.” 

— E-mail dated August 8, 2006 from

Quint Medley and Kay Thompson,

parents of Eleanor

For example, in 2006 the Department entered

into a consent decree with Town Sports

International, Inc., and its Wellesley, Massachusetts camp to resolve a lawsuit filed by parents of a child with insulin-dependant diabetes

and to ensure equal opportunity for children

with diabetes at Town Sports camps and programs.85 The consent decree, filed in the United

States District Court in Boston, resolved allegations that Town Sports excluded the elementary

school student because of both her diabetes and

her use of an insulin pump to control her diabetes

in violation of the ADA. The company and its

local sport club have agreed to evaluate the application of each child with diabetes who applies to

any Town Sports International camp in the

United States on a case-by-case basis and to make

reasonable modifications to permit children with

diabetes to attend its camps. TSI agreed to supervise campers while the campers check their blood

glucose levels and use insulin pumps, syringes,

or other diabetes-related medical equipment, and

to monitor the campers’ consumption of food.

The consent decree also required Town Sports

International to pay $25,000 in damages to the

plaintiff and $5000 in civil penalties. 

Finally, the Department continues to work to

eliminate discrimination against children without disabilities who face discrimination because

of the disability status of their parents. The

Department reached an agreement with WeeKare Nursery, a home-based daycare center in

Virginia, resolving a complaint that the childcare

provider had terminated a child from its program

because his mother had hepatitis C.86 Allegedly,

after the child’s mother told the daycare owner in

confidence that the reason she had been going to

so many doctor’s appointments was because of

her hepatitis C, the nursery owner said that she

would no longer take care of her son, even

though the child had tested negative for hepatitis

C. The owner of the facility also allegedly told

the parents of other children in the program of

the parent’s health issues. The owner agreed to

attend a training program on the ADA obligations of childcare providers, adopt a written

nondiscrimination policy, and pay $1000 in compensatory damages to the complainant.

85 E.M. v. Town Sports Int’l, Inc., and TSI Wellesley, Inc., No. 05-10611 (D. Mass. Apr. 10, 2006), available at http://www.ada.gov/

tsi.htm.

86 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Joetta Roberts (Nov. 18, 2003).

Kay Thompson and daughter Eleanor.
United States Department of Justice

42 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

D. Enjoying the American Way of Life

1. Entertainment and Leisure

Recreational activities for children and adults,

ranging from bowling and water aerobics to softball, baseball, basketball, and soccer leagues, play

a critical role in the lives of many Americans.

Recreation vastly improves the quality of people’s daily lives. Unfortunately, many adults and

children with disabilities have been excluded

from participating in many games and activities

not by choice, but by exclusionary policies that

put them on the sidelines.

The ADA addresses this problem by giving

people with disabilities an equal opportunity to

participate in most recreational activities unless

participation by a person with a disability would

pose an undue burden or would fundamentally

alter the recreational activity. The United States

Supreme Court endorsed this concept of equal

participation for people with disabilities when it

held in PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin that it was appropriate to reasonably modify a rule banning golf

carts when necessary to allow a disabled professional golfer to participate.87

The Department has worked to advance this

important goal for people with disabilities. For

example, a deaf referee in the Eastern College

Athletic Conference (ECAC) alleged that her officiating assignments were reduced and she was

excused from the otherwise mandatory referee

camp for women’s basketball officials because

she required a sign language interpreter. The

Department entered into a 2003 settlement agreement with the ECAC to provide her with an

equal opportunity to officiate at games, to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services, and

to notify its member institutions about the ADA’s

requirement for effective communication.88

The Department and PONY Baseball, Inc.

signed a 2006 settlement agreement that will en- 

“The ADA is a good law. If I can’t have an

interpreter I can’t understand the game.

With the ADA I can have an interpreter and

can communicate with my coaches in a tournament.”

— E-mail dated August 17, 2006, from

Justin “Pono” Tokioka, age 11.

sure that players who are disabled, including

those who are deaf or hard of hearing, have an

equal opportunity to participate in PONY’s 3500

baseball and softball leagues.89 The agreement

stemmed from a complaint from the parents of

Justin “Pono” Tokioka, who alleged that their son

was denied access to a sign language interpreter

during a 2005 PONY baseball tournament. As

part of the settlement agreement, PONY agreed

to modify its rules to allow players to use sign

language interpreters during games, provide sign

language interpreters for players who are deaf or

87 PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001).

88 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Eastern Coll. Athletic Conference (Oct. 21, 2003).

89 Settlement Agreement between the United States and PONY Baseball, Inc. (Aug. 17, 2006).
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 43

hard of hearing, and make reasonable modifications to its rules and practices to allow players

with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate.

These examples illustrate how simple modifications in policies or reasonable accommodations

can have a profound impact on individuals with

disabilities – and can make the difference

between enjoyment and exclusion.

During the congressional hearings preceding

the passage of the ADA, reports, surveys, and testimony offered by numerous witnesses made

plain that many persons with disabilities led isolated lives and did not frequent places of public

accommodation. For example, according to one

national poll: “The survey results dealing with

social life and leisure experiences paint a sobering picture of an isolated and secluded population of individuals with disabilities. The large

majority of people with disabilities do not go to

movies, do not go to the theater, do not go to see

musical performances, and do not go to sports

events.”90 To address these problems, Title III of

the ADA expressly prohibits disability-based discrimination at places of public accommodation

and commercial facilities, including movie theaters, sports arenas, concert halls, and outdoor

stadiums. Over the last five years, the Department has made great strides toward ensuring

that persons with disabilities, along with their

families and friends, have equal access to, and

full enjoyment of, popular entertainment venues

on the same terms as other Americans.

When trying to attend entertainment events

at places of public accommodation, people with

disabilities frequently face discrimination in ticketing policies and practices. Such problems range

from unequal ticketing services to inaccessible

ticket counters and the unavailability of accessible seating in stadiums, concert halls, theaters, or

sports facilities. Over the last several years, the

Department has focused its enforcement efforts

on correcting these inequities. For example, in

2002 the Department signed settlement agreements with a number of theaters in Branson,

Missouri, which, among other things, required

the theaters to provide accessible ticket counters

and to implement new ticketing policies so that

designated accessible seating is held for customers with disabilities until all other seating has

been filled.91

The Department also signed a wide-ranging

settlement agreement in 2005 with the world’s

largest ticketing company – Ticketmaster, Inc. –

requiring it to make its ticketing services more

accessible to persons with disabilities.92 In this

agreement, Ticketmaster agreed to make agents

available to sell accessible seating via telephone

and e-mail during all hours its system is operational. Ticketmaster also agreed to take appropriate steps to inform customers promptly if its

inventory of accessible seating is sold out and

whether additional seating might be available

directly from the venue. In addition, Ticketmaster

will work with venues to implement procedures

to reserve the inventory of unsold accessible seats

for customers with disabilities until two weeks

prior to the event, even if general seating is sold

out, and will continue its efforts to develop a system to sell accessible seating directly on its website.

Another hurdle commonly faced by persons

with disabilities and their companions when attending entertainment events at public facilities

is inferior and uncomfortable seating locations.

The Department’s ADA regulations require public accommodations to provide persons with disabilities choices of admission prices and lines of

sight comparable to other members of the audience. All too often, however, persons with disabilities and their companions are offered few – if

90 H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2 at 34 (1990) (summarizing 1986 Lewis Harris poll).

91 Settlement Agreement between the United States of America and Mel Tillis Theater (Aug. 1, 2002), available at http://www.

ada.gov/meltilth.htm; Settlement Agreement between the United States and Magical Palace (Sept. 30, 2002), available at

http://www.ada.gov/magicpal.htm.

92 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Ticketmaster, Inc. (Dec. 22, 2005), available at http://www.ada.gov/ticketmaster.htm.
United States Department of Justice

44 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

any – seating choices and instead are relegated to

the least desirable seating locations with painful

or distorted views of the stage or screen. These

problems have proven particularly acute at most

of the existing stadium-style movie theaters

around the country in which persons with disabilities are often compelled to sit outside the stadium section in the rows closest to the screen.

One disabled veteran described his seating location near the front of one stadium-style theater as

follows:

“[S]omewhere where before I was in a

[wheel]chair I wouldn’t even dream of sitting

because of the location. A lot of times it’s where

the parents put their kids, and they sit in better

rows. So there’s a lot of commotion in that area

down front. I have been kicked in the head by a

kid flipping over in the seats, all that, so that’s

why I call it the pit area . . . . You are looking more

up. And my chair doesn’t recline like your movie

chairs. You sit in this position and you can recline

somewhat, and my chair doesn’t. So I’m . . .

watching a movie and always trying to get the

full screen effect, and it bothers your neck, my

back and sometimes you get headaches . . . . I go

out of the theater, out to their lobby area, and my

wife helps me. . .stretch around. And then after

about five minutes or whatever, we go back in . .

. . I would like to be able to – you know, I pay the

money, the same price everyone else pays. I

would like to be able to be comfortable, sit

through the movie with my family or wife and

see the movie, you know, the way I used to be

able to. Now I am restricted to where they want

me to sit. So I have no options.93

To address such inequities, the Department

has reached nationwide settlements with, or had

court orders entered against, the largest theater

chains in the country – including the Regal

Entertainment Group, Cinemark USA, Inc.,

National Amusements, Inc., Hoyts Cinemas

Corporation, and AMC Entertainment, Inc.

Under a consent decree entered in United States v.

Cinemark,94 that chain must design new theaters

in accordance with Department guidance and

approval, placing wheelchair locations in the

middle of each auditorium. Cinemark agreed to

move wheelchair locations back in over 100 theaters within the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit

(which covers Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, and

Michigan) and at theaters in California, Illinois,

New York, Utah, and Oregon. The United States

negotiated a nationwide consent decree in United

States v. Regal Entertainment Group as well, delivering improved sight lines for persons who use

wheelchairs across the largest movie theater

chain in the country, covering over 3,500

screens.95 Regal agreed to provide improved

lines of sight in both existing and new construc93 Statement of Uncontroverted Facts and Conclusions of Law in Support of Plaintiff United States’ Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment Re: Line of Sight Remedies at 14, United States v. AMC Entertainment, Inc., et al., No. 99-1034 (C.D. Cal.

Nov. 18, 2002).

94 United States v. Cinemark USA, Inc., No. 99-705 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 5, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/cinemark/ cinemark4main.htm.

95 United States v. Hoyts Cinemas Corporation, Regal Entertainment Group, and Regal Cinemas, Inc., No. 00-12567 (Mass. June 8,

2005), available at http://www.ada.gov/regal.htm.

A typical stadium-style movie theater.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 45

tion movie auditoriums. All future construction

will place wheelchair locations in the middle of

the seating area, where other patrons choose to

sit. A consent order was entered in United States v.

National Amusements that provides similar relief

at the National Amusements chain.96 Each of

these agreements or court orders requires the

respective movie theater company to construct

ramps to the stadium section in specified auditoriums in their respective stadium-style theaters;

to move wheelchair and companion seating farther back from the screen in additional auditoriums; and to correct other ADA violations (such as

non-compliant companion seating) as necessary

in other auditoriums. These agreements and

orders include design standards for stadiumstyle theaters to be constructed that mirror the

Department’s proposed regulatory standards set

forth in the Department’s Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking issued in September

2004.97 Further, in the AMC litigation, the Court

ordered AMC to pay civil penalties of $100,000

and compensatory damages to patrons with disabilities who had suffered discrimination.

The Department’s enforcement efforts with

respect to addressing seating issues in public

accommodations has also included other entertainment venues, such as concert halls and opera

houses. The Department entered into a Consent

Decree in 2005 with the Apollo Theater

Foundation, which operates the historic Apollo

Theater in Harlem, requiring the theater to install

twelve permanent wheelchair seating locations

with companion seats in its orchestra section, as

well as to correct other barriers to access at the

theater.98 In addition, the Department entered a

Consent Decree in 2003 with the Shubert

Organization, Inc., to make live theater venues in

New York City, both on and off Broadway, more

accessible. Wheelchair seating was added in sixteen theaters and ticketing practices have been

improved so that tickets for wheelchair seating

will be held for persons with disabilities until all

other seating is sold out. Shubert also paid civil

penalties of $50,000. And, in 2004 the Department

settled with the City of Des Moines, requiring the

city to make the outdoor riverside Simon Estes

Amphitheater more accessible to persons with

disabilities by installing a lift and ramps to provide access to newly designated wheelchair seating areas and by installing an assistive listening

system for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing.99

96 United States v. National Amusements, Inc., No. 00-12568 (Mass. Jan. 9, 2006), available at http://www.ada.gov/national.htm.

97 69 Fed. Reg. 58,768 (Sept. 30, 2004).

98 United States v. Apollo Theater Foundation, No. 05-5988 (S.D.N.Y. June 28, 2005), available at

http://www.ada.gov/apollomain.htm.

99 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the City of Des Moines, Iowa (Jan. 29. 2004).

Wheelchair users can now enjoy the historic

Apollo Theater in Harlem.
United States Department of Justice

46 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

In another agreement, the Washington Opera

Company in Washington, D.C., agreed in 2002 to

increase the number and locations of accessible

seats at its performances held offsite while the

Opera House at the John F. Kennedy Center for

the Performing Arts was undergoing renovation.100 These new accessible seating locations

were dispersed throughout the orchestra section

and sold at all of the price categories offered to

the general public. In addition, Washington

Opera agreed to designate an ADA coordinator,

create an ADA advisory committee, and conduct

extensive advertising about the availability, pricing, and locations of accessible seating.

Structural improvements at the Kennedy Center

Opera House also led to more accessible seating

at Washington Opera performances. These

improvements included increasing the amount of

accessible seating dispersed throughout the renovated auditorium. Previously, the only wheelchair-accessible seats in the Kennedy Center

Opera House were the most expensive seats.

Now, opera fans at these facilities who use wheelchairs truly have an equal opportunity to enjoy

performances as they enjoy admission price

choices and lines of sight comparable to those

afforded the general public.

In addition to seating problems, persons with

disabilities frequently encounter inaccessible lobbies, concession counters, restrooms, parking

lots, or other architectural features outside the

seating areas of places of public accommodations. Settlement agreements and consent decrees

over the last five years have also led to significant

corrections in such inaccessible features outside

the seating areas at a wide variety of establishments – including AMC stadium-style movie theaters nationwide; the Apollo Theater in New

York, New York; the White House Theater, Mel

Tillis Theater, and Magical Palace in Branson,

Missouri; the Huntsville Speedway in Huntsville,

Alabama;101 the M&T Bank Stadium (formerly

known as PSINet Stadium) in Baltimore, Maryland;102 the West Orange YMCA in Orlando,

Florida;103 and the Brookside Gardens near

Washington, D.C.104 In the Huntsville Speedway

case, for example, the owner has agreed to make

physical modifications to ticket counters and toilet rooms for spectators and racers, to improve

spectator seating, and to increase accessible

routes to the seating.

One final area addressed by the Department

concerns the ability of persons with disabilities to

safely enjoy entertainment events at places of

public accommodation without fear of discriminatory rules restricting access to prescription

drugs or other necessary medical supplies. 

100 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Washington Opera (Sept. 18, 2002), available at http://www.ada.

gov/washoper.htm.

101 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Huntsville Speedway (Jan. 19, 2006).

102 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Maryland Stadium Auth. (Dec. 14, 2001), available at http://www

.ada.gov/mstadium.htm.

103 Settlement Agreement between the United States and West Orange YMCA (Nov. 21, 2003).

104 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Maryland Nat’l Capital Parks and Planning Comm’n (Oct. 20,

2003), available at http://www.ada.gov/brooksidegard.htm.

A ramp and accessible seating at the Huntsville

Speedway in Huntsville, Alabama.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 47

“When I was told that I couldn’t keep my diabetes supplies with me at a concert, I suddenly knew first hand what it was like to be discriminated because of my diabetes. I realized

that discrimination can, indeed, create lifethreatening situations. I knew I had to fight,

not just for myself, but for the teenaged concert goers who would be separated from their

needed supplies if the rules weren’t changed.

Because of the work that the Department of

Justice and the American Diabetes Association did in my case, I came to realize that

discrimination based on disability can — and

should — be fought. The settlement that DOJ

achieved is a model to make all public places

safe and accessible for people with diabetes.”

— E-mail dated July 31, 2006, from

Jim Radermacher, complainant in

United States v. SFX Entertainment, Inc. 

In 2003, Clear Channel Entertainment settled

with the Department to resolve a lawsuit challenging Clear Channel’s policy of prohibiting

individuals with diabetes from keeping their

medical supplies with them while attending concerts in the 100-plus concert venues owned or

operated by Clear Channel throughout the country.105 The policy prohibited patrons from taking

any syringes or needles used for medical purposes, including needles used for insulin and lancets

for testing blood, into the concert venue unless

secured in a first aid room. The policy allegedly

violated Title III of the ADA by denying individuals with diabetes an equal opportunity to attend

and enjoy concerts since many individuals with

diabetes who use insulin must test their blood

sugar with lancets and inject insulin with

syringes. Lack of immediate access to blood testing equipment, food and/or glucose, and insulin

can be life-threatening for such individuals.

Under the consent decree, Clear Channel agreed

to adopt a new policy that allows individuals

with diabetes to keep their medical supplies with

them at concerts, to pay damages to the complainants, and to train its employees on its new

policy.

“When I was separated from a concert line for

carrying my diabetic supplies I was incredibly

embarrassed. I felt as if I was being treated like

a criminal. My embarrassment quickly turned

to anger ... I needed to keep my supplies with

me in order to maintain safe controls of my

blood sugars. I honestly did not want any

other diabetic to experience the humiliation I

felt ... the ADA was so quick to respond and so

genuinely concerned ... I had a renewed

strength in keeping my medical needs and

health a priority. I will always be grateful to

the ADA.” 

— E-mail dated August 5, 2006, from

Mary Jungenberg, complainant in

United States v. SFX Entertainment, Inc. 

105 United States v. SFX Entertainment, Inc., d/b/a Clear Channel Entertainment (E.D. Pa. June 11, 2003), available at http://www.

ada.gov/sfxinc.htm.

Jim Radermacher and family.
United States Department of Justice

48 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

2. Lodging

A hotel reservation for an accessible room made a

year in advance for travel to a family wedding

that is not available on the day of arrival.

A reservation made for a hotel room with a roll-in

shower that is non-existent when the guest

arrives.

A hotel room without a visual alarm that leaves

sleeping guests who are deaf vulnerable to potential emergencies.

A couple with visual disabilities left at the cruise

ship gate because they did not bring an attendant.

The Department of Justice routinely receives

complaints like these from travelers with disabilities who try to stay in hotels, motels, and other

places of lodging, or who try to schedule a cruise.

Long-planned family vacations, cruises, and family reunions, as well as routine business trips, are

disrupted or ruined. “No room at the inn” is a

reality for many travelers with disabilities,

including an ever-increasing number of business

travelers with disabilities who regularly face barriers even in newly constructed hotels and

motels.

Under the ADA, all facilities, including

hotels, motels, inns, and other places of lodging

designed or constructed after January 26, 1993,

must be accessible to and usable by persons with

disabilities.107 To meet this requirement, facilities

must be built and operated in a manner that complies with regulations published by the Justice

Department.108 The regulations contain detailed

architectural requirements called the ADA

Standards for Accessible Design.109

106 Harris Interactive Research Among Adults with Disabilities: Travel and Hospitality (July 2005) at 34. Prepared for Open Doors

Organization.

107 42 U.S.C. § 12183.

108 42 U.S.C. § 12204.

109 28 C.F.R. § 36 app.A (2005).

Mary Jungenberg

According to a 2005 study by the

Harris Poll and Open Doors

Organization, a Chicago non-profit

organization, four million business

travelers and twenty million leisure

travelers with disabilities travel regularly. That translates into 70 percent

of persons with disabilities in the

United States traveling and more

than 50 percent of all persons with

disabilities in the United States regularly staying in hotels, motels, and

places of lodging. When persons

with disabilities travel with colleagues, friends, and family members, the potential for lodging dollars

spent at small and large businesses

expands exponentially.106
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 49

The ADA Standards for Accessible Design are

structured to ensure that facilities are accessible

by individuals with a wide variety of different

disabilities, such as persons who are blind or

have low vision, people who are deaf or hard of

hearing, persons with limited use of hands or

arms, persons who use wheelchairs, and individuals with a mobility disability who use a cane,

crutches, braces, or a walker. Thus, the Standards

set minimum architectural requirements to meet

the different needs of persons with each of these

types of disabilities.

Existing facilities must undertake readily

achievable barrier removal, which entails eliminating barriers that can be removed without significant difficulty or expense. The preamble to the

Department of Justice ADA Title III regulations

explains that ramping two or three steps probably would be readily achievable barrier removal

while installing an elevator in place of a stairway

in an older building probably would not be readily achievable.110 Similarly, adding grab bars in a

toilet room is readily achievable in most cases,

while replacing an entire toilet room may not be

readily achievable.

The Department of Justice receives a large

number of complaints from persons with disabilities about hotels, motels, and places of lodging,

and consequently has dedicated considerable

time and resources addressing common issues in

the lodging industry. For example, in 2005, the

Department entered into an agreement with

Motel 6 Operating L.P. to resolve violations of the

ADA’s new construction, alterations, and barrier

removal requirements identified in a nationwide

review of the hotel chain.111 Under the terms of

the agreement, Motel 6 will ensure that more than

600 corporately owned or operated hotels are in

compliance with the ADA by December 31, 2006.

Following a 2001 agreement with New YorkNew York Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas,

Nevada,112 the 2023 room hotel will include 32-

inch wide accessible bathroom doors in every

room so that guests with disabilities may not only

use the accessible rooms, but will also have access

to bathrooms in rooms and suites where family

members or friends are staying. In addition, New

York-New York will provide accessible spas,

jacuzzis, restaurants, bars, meeting rooms, gaming tables, and slot machines, as well as sign language interpreters, among other improvements.

In 2005, Sports Haven International agreed to

complete barrier removal throughout Skyline

Mountain Resort in Fairview, Utah, including

making at least one of its cabins fully accessible,

removing barriers to the clubhouse, including to

toilets and shower rooms, and to providing

accessible parking at the golf course.113 As a

110 28 C.F.R. pt. 36 app.B at 705 (2005).

111 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Motel 6 Operating LP (Aug. 12, 2004), available at http://www.ada.

gov/motel62.htm.

112 Settlement Agreement between the United States and New York-New York Hotel and Casino LLC (Dec. 13, 2001), available at http://www.ada.gov/nyvegas.htm.

113 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Skyline Mountain Resort (Apr. 27, 2005), available at http://www.

ada.gov/skylinemtn.htm.

Front entrance of a Motel 6 .
United States Department of Justice

50 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

result of a 2004 Settlement Agreement, the

Marriott at Metro Center in Washington D.C.,

recently added roll-in showers in several guest

rooms to permit persons who use wheelchairs to

shower without transferring onto a tub seat.114

The roll-in showers were required by the ADA

but had not been included when the hotel was

completely renovated. The Department also

recently completed negotiations with the

Madonna Inn, a California hotel that provides

unique amenities in each guest room; the 2006

agreement calls for barrier removal throughout

the historic hotel.115

In 2001, the Department entered into an

agreement with Norwegian Cruise Lines to settle

allegations that Norwegian was discriminating

against guests with vision impairments by

requiring them to travel with attendants, provide

doctors’ notes proving ability to travel, and signing forms assuming liability for on-board injuries

during travel, which were not required of sighted

guests. As part of the agreement, Norwegian

agreed to discontinue such practices and to apply

the same requirements to all travelers regardless

of disability. The cruise line also agreed to pay a

total of $42,000 in damages. Although many

cruise lines have argued that they are not covered

by the ADA, the Supreme Court recently held in

Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Lines116 that cruise

lines doing business in U.S. ports are covered by

the ADA, at least with regard to certain programs

or activities. Although that suit was unrelated to

the Department’s earlier settlement agreement,

the Department filed a “friend of the court” brief

in the court of appeals and Supreme Court. The

Department is currently reviewing over 200 complaints about cruise lines in light of this recent

Supreme Court decision.

The Department often receives complaints

from guests with hearing disabilities. The

Department recently found that three Ramada

Inn hotels had failed to provide “communication

kits” to guests with hearing disabilities. Under a

series of 2003 agreements with each of the three

hotels, the hotels agreed to purchase an appropriate number of kits to assure that guests with hearing impairments would have TTY’s, visual door

knockers, visual or tactile alarm clocks, and visual signaling devices for their rooms.117 In addition, each hotel will provide TTY’s at the desk so

that guests may call for assistance with anything

from maid service to emergencies and communicate with the hotel management as other guests

do routinely. In addition, the Department has

reached settlement agreements with other hotels

and hotel chains across the country, including

Hilton Garden Inn, Super 8, Howard Johnson’s,

Best Western, Westin, Days Inn, Holiday Inn, and

other independent hotels.

The Department also frequently receives

complaints from persons with low vision, claiming that hotels have refused to rent rooms to them

because of guide dogs. Among others, settlement

agreements were completed in 2003 with the

Hampton Inn in Taos, New Mexico,118 and the

Hilton Garden Inn in Washington D.C.,119 requiring the hotels to permit service animals into the

hotel and to enforce policies that allow persons

with vision impairments to share in the amenities

at those hotels.

3. Transportation

Equal access to public and private transportation is one of the most important rights guaranteed by the ADA because it facilitates the exercise

114 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Marriott at Metro Ctr. Hotel(June 21, 2004), available at http://www.

ada.gov/marriottmetro.htm.

115 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Madonna Inn, Inc. (Aug. 18, 2006).

116 Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005).

117 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Kingston Ramada Inn, N.Y. (Jan. 7, 2003), available at http://www.

ada.gov/kingston.htm; Settlement Agreement between the United States and Ramada Inn Philadelphia Int’l Airport, Essington,

Pa. (Jan. 7, 2003), available at http://www.ada.gov/ramadaph.htm; Settlement Agreement between the United States and Ramada

Inn and Suites, South El Monte, Cal. (Mar. 11, 2003), available at http://www.ada.gov/ramadabc.htm.

118 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Hampton Inn (July 21, 2003).

119 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Hilton Garden Inn (Nov. 5, 2003).
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 51

of so many other ADA rights. Working, accessing

government services, purchasing groceries –

many people with disabilities can only do these

things if they have accessible transportation.

Accessible transportation also helps integrate

people with disabilities into the mainstream of

American life. An accessible shopping mall, theater, or park is meaningless for someone who is

unable to get there.

The Department has worked to ensure the

accessibility of both public and private transportation services and programs. One person

who has benefitted from the Department’s efforts

to make public transportation accessible is

Lawrence Dilworth, Jr., a Detroit resident who

has spina bifida and uses a wheelchair. Mr.

Dilworth encountered so many Detroit buses

with inoperable wheelchair lifts that he completely stopped using the city’s buses. He and

other individuals with disabilities filed a lawsuit

against the City of Detroit, alleging that the city

used buses with inoperable wheelchair lifts and

lacked maintenance and repair programs that

would ensure the availability of buses with working lifts. The Department intervened in the litigation to support Mr. Dilworth and the other plaintiffs’ right to accessible public transportation.

In 2005, Detroit signed a consent decree

under which it agreed to establish systems for

promptly identifying, removing from service,

and repairing buses with malfunctioning wheelchair lifts, including performing daily maintenance checks and keeping service logs for each

bus.120 Detroit also agreed to retrain its drivers

and mechanics in the proper way to deploy

wheelchair lifts and to assist passengers with disabilities with courtesy and respect. In addition,

the city agreed to obtain alternative transportation promptly when there are breakdowns in

accessible service, to implement a complaint system to ensure that ADA-related complaints are

quickly addressed and resolved, to appoint an

ADA coordinator, and to retain an independent

auditor to assess compliance with the agreement.

“I became involved in the lawsuit against the

City of Detroit to make things better and fairer for all people who use wheelchairs and who

rely on public transportation. Here in Detroit

it is cold and icy for much of the year and

when the buses’ wheelchair lifts don’t work,

many people are housebound or, worse, left

stranded waiting for a bus with a working lift.

When the City refused to do what was necessary to keep accessible buses on the road, I

knew that federal laws like the ADA could

force the City to do what it should have been

doing voluntarily. I appreciate the work of

lawyers here in Detroit and at the Department

of Justice who worked with us to make this

happen. Since the lawsuit, I’ve seen improvement in Detroit’s bus service for people with

disabilities and I look forward to continued

improvements thanks to the ADA.” 

— E-mail dated September 7, 2006,

from Lawrence W. Dilworth, Jr.

(“Leapin Larry”)

120 Dilworth v. City of Detroit, No. 04-73152 (S.D. Mich. Nov. 3, 2005), available at http://www.ada.gov/detroittransit05.htm.
United States Department of Justice

52 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

Private transportation entities such as taxis

and shuttles also provide critical services to people with disabilities. Approximately ten percent

of the customer base for taxis consists of people

with disabilities.121 Travelers with disabilities

also rely on private shuttles to get them to airports and rental cars. The Department has made

significant efforts to ensure that taxis and shuttles

are accessible to people with disabilities.

One taxi company agreed to make changes

after the Department investigated a complaint

alleging that one of its drivers refused to help a

customer place his wheelchair in the trunk. The

company now requires its drivers to provide

service to people with disabilities, to assist with

the stowing of mobility devices, to transport

service animals in the company of individuals

with disabilities, to charge the same fares and

fees to individuals with disabilities accompanied

by service animals or equipment as is charged to

others, to post disability rights and complaint

notices in taxis, and to maintain a log of all such

complaints and resolutions.122 Another company

allegedly told people who used wheelchairs that

the company’s policy did not permit its cab drivers to transport wheelchairs. The Department

secured monetary rewards and injunctive relief

for these customers.123 Finally, the Department

has resolved complaints, without litigation, to

ensure that individuals who use a service animal

because they are blind, have low vision, or are

deaf have equal access to taxi cab services.124

The Department has also helped ensure the

accessibility of airport and rental car shuttles.

SuperShuttle International, Inc., the nation’s

largest door-to-door airport shuttle company,

agreed in 2002 to provide the same level of service to wheelchair users as it provides to the general public.125 This was the first agreement

reached by the Department with a national company that provides transportation on demand as

opposed to transportation along a fixed route on

a fixed schedule. SuperShuttle agreed to maintain

two accessible vehicles at each of its eleven corporate locations nationwide and to subcontract

with accessible transportation providers to meet

overflow demand. These eleven corporate locations include Phoenix, Arizona; Los Angeles,

Califor-nia; Denver, Colorado; Washington, D.C.;

Tampa, Florida; Baltimore, Maryland; New York,

New York; and Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas. In

addition, Super-Shuttle agreed to train its dispatchers, reservation agents, and drivers about

providing equivalent service to its customers on a

nondiscriminatory basis. SuperShuttle also paid

$4612 in damages to the National Multiple

Sclerosis Society.

In addition, ANC Rental Corporation and its

subsidiaries, Alamo Rent-A-Car, LLC and

National Car Rental System, Inc., have agreed to

provide accessible shuttle buses at all airport car

rental locations owned by ANC nationwide.126

The settlement agreement resolves several complaints filed by travelers who use wheelchairs or

scooters alleging that the companies did not provide accessible shuttle buses between the airport

terminal and the rental lots. Under the 2003

agreement, ANC agreed to acquire at least one

accessible shuttle bus at each of its locations.

121 Project Action, The Americans With Disabilities Act and You: Frequently Asked Questions on Taxicab Service, available at

http://projectaction.easterseals.com/site/DocServer/TAXI_ADA_print-ready11-2__2_.pdf?docID=17743 (last visited September 7,

2006).

122 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Enforcing the ADA: A Status Report from the Dep’t of Justice, (April - June 2002), available at

http://www.ada.gov/aprjun02.htm http://www.ada.gov/limocab.htm.

123 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Limo Economy Cab (Dec. 1, 2005), available at http://www.ada.gov/

limocab.htm.

124 See, e.g., Settlement Agreement between the United States and Yellow Cab Drivers Association, Inc. (July 7, 2003), available at http://www.ada.gov/yellocab.htm; Settlement Agreement between the United States and Reno Sparks Cab Company (June

12, 2003).

125 Settlement Agreement between the United States and SuperShuttle Int’l, Inc. (Apr. 26, 2002), available at http://www.ada.

gov/superstl.htm.

126 Settlement Agreement between the United States and ANC Rental Corp., Alamo Rent-a-Car, LLC, and Nat’l Car Rental

System, Inc. (Oct. 10, 2003), available at http://www.ada.gov/alamonat.htm.
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 53

ANC also agreed to ensure that all larger shuttle

bus vehicles seating 17 or more passengers, as

well as up to 10 percent of smaller vehicles they

purchase or lease in the future, are accessible.

They also agreed to adopt a policy of ensuring

equivalent service to individuals with disabilities

by providing curbside pick-up and drop-off services when an accessible shuttle bus vehicle is not

available.

The Department also entered into a consent

decree in 2004 with The Bette Bus Shuttle, Inc., a

private provider of fixed route transportation

between Memphis, Tennessee, and the airport at

Little Rock, Arkansas, and its successor company,

Metro Services, Inc. of Moscow, Tennessee.127

The U.S. Attorney for the Western District of

Tennessee received a complaint alleging that

Bette Bus did not provide wheelchair-accessible

vans and that Bette Bus staff refused to allow the

complainant to take her wheelchair on its inaccessible vans. As a result, the complainant, who

uses a wheelchair for full mobility, was required

to travel without her wheelchair, severely limiting her ability to leave her hotel room. The Bette

Bus owner acknowledged that the company had

purchased at least six 15-passenger vans since

1990, none of which were lift-equipped, and that

the company had never provided service to people with disabilities because it thought it was too

expensive and would require medical personnel

on board. The consent order requires immediate

installation of a lift on one vehicle, the equipping

of more vehicles with lifts in the future depending on the degree of fixed-route service provided,

the elimination of discriminatory policies, the

provision of training to employees on how to

assist persons with disabilities, and payment of

$1000 in damages and $500 in civil penalties.

4. Gas Stations and Convenience Stores 

Advances in automobile modifications have

enabled a growing number of people with disabilities to drive. People with disabilities also

travel frequently as passengers. As both drivers

and passengers, people with disabilities must

have access to gas pumps and accompanying

convenience stores.

Federal regulations require gas stations to

provide equal access for their customers with disabilities. In an agreement entered in 2006 by the

United States Attorney’s Office for the District of

Minnesota, Twin Cities Avanti d/b/a Oasis

Markets agreed to undertake a significant barrier

removal program at its gas station facilities in

Minnesota to ensure access for individuals with

disabilities.128 In addition, Oasis Markets agreed

to train all of its employees to assist customers

with disabilities with refueling, consistent with

the Department’s technical assistance guidance

in this area.

“We hope that this settlement will send a message to other businesses about the importance

of accessibility to all of their customers . . . .

It is great to see the system work for positive

change!” 

— E-mail dated August 16, 2006, from

Diane Winegar, Advocacy/Ramp

Program Manager, SMILES Center for

Independent Living, Mankato, Minnesota,

on the Twin Cities Avanti d/b/a

Oasis Markets settlement agreement

The ADA also requires that retail establishments like the convenience stores connected to

gas stations comply with the ADA’s new construction alterations and barrier removal requirements. Parking areas, entrances, product displays, and other areas available to the store’s customers must comply with the ADA.

The Department received a complaint from a

woman whose son – a wheelchair user – was

allegedly unable to enter a Little General convenience store to use the restroom. The store’s

127 United States v. Bette Bus Shuttle, Inc. aka Metro Services, Inc. of Moscow, Tenn. (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 23, 2004), available at

http://www.ada.gov/bettebus.htm.

128 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Twin Cities Avanti Stores LLC (d/b/a Oasis Markets) (June 22, 2006).
United States Department of Justice

54 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

entrance and restroom allegedly had barriers to

access, the removal of which would have been

readily achievable. After an investigation, the

Department entered into an agreement in 2003

with Little General Stores, Inc. that required Little

General to pay the complainant $3000 in compensatory damages and to improve accessibility

throughout the company’s chain of 48 gas station/convenience stores.129 Little General represented that 30 out of its 48 retail stores did, in fact,

comply with the ADA and agreed to submit documentation and photos of certain elements (such

as parking, entrances, toilet rooms, counters, and

interior and exterior routes from each store), and

to work with the Department to bring these

stores into compliance if any further barriers

were identified. In addition, Little General agreed

to remove barriers to access where readily

achievable in the 18 remaining stores that were

constructed before the ADA’s effective date. It

also agreed to make modifications to stores that

were altered since the ADA’s effective date in

order to bring them into compliance with the

ADA Standards for Accessible Design. 

In a similar agreement with the Department,

Sunoco Optima committed to ensuring accessibility at its gas station/convenience stores.130 In

2005, Sunoco Optima agreed to make modifications to its Optima brand gas stations and convenience stores, including by improving accessibility of parking, gasoline pumps, curb ramps,

convenience store entrances, and access to items

for sale within the convenience stores. Sunoco

also agreed to build future stores in compliance

with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Similarly, the Department received a complaint alleging that three Florida Chevron stations with convenience stores had failed to

remove numerous architectural barriers that prevented or restricted access to the stations by individuals with disabilities, including people who

use wheelchairs and people with visual impairments. After investigating the complaint, the

Department entered into an agreement in 2006

with Automated Petroleum and Energy

Company, Inc., the owner and operator of the gas

stations with convenience stores, requiring the

company to remove the barriers, including by

adding van-accessible parking spaces; reconfiguring entrances; rearranging furniture to provide

accessible aisles; and providing accessible restrooms by widening doorways, adjusting the

height of lavatories and dispensers, and

installing grab bars and accessible hardware.131

5. Dining and Shopping

Restaurants have long served as a key setting

for social experiences in America. Whether the

reunion location for a milestone family celebration, the intersection point for networking business associates, or the gathering spot for trendconscious teens, restaurants regularly serve as

the backdrop for Americans’ interactions with

family, friends, and colleagues. Restaurant owners and staff go to great effort and expense to

make the dining experience enjoyable, comfortable, and memorable for their patrons and to

encourage their return business.

Although most restaurants focus on pleasurable dining experiences for all of their customers,

in recent history some establishments have

gained notoriety for their discriminatory practices forbidding particular groups entry or service. Today, people with disabilities continue to

face barriers to entering and enjoying restaurant

experiences. These barriers come in various guises, but they are alike in their ability to bar

entrance, embarrass patrons, and even endanger

individuals with disabilities.

Lack of accessible parking and steps at

entrances, for example, can send the message that

people who have mobility impairments are not

welcome. That is the message received, for exam129 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Little General Stores, Inc. (Mar. 22, 2003), available at http://www.

ada.gov/littlegen.htm.

130 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) (Nov. 29, 2005), available at http://www.ada.gov/

sunocooptima.htm.

131 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Automated Petroleum and Energy Co. Inc. (Mar. 22, 2006).
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 55

ple, by a father who uses a wheelchair when he

takes his toddlers out for a long-promised treat

and finds that there is no accessible parking in the

restaurant lot. Even if he surmounts that barrier,

when he arrives at the restaurant entrance he

may find that he cannot enter because of two

steps at the door.

The Department entered into a settlement

agreement with NPC International, Inc. which

operates approximately 800 Pizza Hut restaurants in 25 states and is the largest single franchisee of Pizza Hut restaurants in the United

States.132 The March 2006 agreement with NPC

will ensure accessible parking lots, entrances,

seating areas, toilet rooms, self-service counters,

and accessible routes through the restaurants.

NPC will also build all future facilities in compliance with ADA Standards for Accessible Design,

designate a compliance officer, and train all personnel involved in implementing the agreement.

Inaccessible parking and entrances are not the

only barriers that keep people with disabilities

from entering restaurants. No-pet policies prevent people with disabilities who use service animals from entering. Arguments can erupt over

whether the restaurant owner must allow in a

service animal, oftentimes in front of other

patrons. The would-be patron with a disability

frequently leaves embarrassed and unable to

enjoy a meal with her family or friends like

everyone else.

The Department worked to correct such a situation when it entered into a consent decree in

2003 with Top China Buffet, an Indianapolis

restaurant that allegedly violated the ADA when

it refused service to a woman who was accompanied by her service dog.133 The complainant, who

uses a wheelchair, is assisted by the animal in

picking up and delivering objects that she is

unable to reach herself. A Top China employee

allegedly refused entry to the complainant and

her family as they entered the restaurant, even

though the dog was wearing a blue harness identifying him as a service animal. The complainant

and her husband told the employee that the dog

was not a pet, but was her service animal and

should be allowed to enter the restaurant. She

presented a card certifying that her dog is a specially trained service animal, but the employee

repeated that no dogs were allowed. Unable to be

132 Settlement Agreement between the United States and NPC Int’l, Inc. (Mar. 27, 2006), available at http://www.ada.gov/npcinter.htm.

133 United States v. Top China Buffet, No. IP 02-1038 (S.D. Ind. July 8, 2002), available at http://www.ada.gov/topchina.htm.

134 Harris Interactive Research Among Adults with Disabilities: Travel and Hospitality (July 2005) at 11. Prepared for Open Doors

Organization.

135 Id.

“Kirk allows me to fully participate in life,

including going out to dinner with my family ... I wanted everyone to realize that disabled

individuals should not be kept in the closet,

but are important people in the work world

and society.” 

— Betty Barnett, complainant in

United States v. Top China Buffet, 

pictured with Kirk, her service animal.
United States Department of Justice

56 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

136 Perkins and United States v. Valenti Mid-South Management, LLC, No. 99-3070 (W.D. Tenn. May 1, 2001).

137 United States v. Century Mgmt., et al., No. 03-2061 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 14, 2005).

138 Settlement Agreement between the United States and McDonald’s Corp. (Nov. 14, 2005).

seated or served, she and her family left the

restaurant. Top China agreed to take corrective

steps, including adopting and enforcing a compliance policy about the treatment of customers

who use service animals, training its employees,

and posting appropriate signs at the restaurant

welcoming individuals with disabilities who are

accompanied by their service animals. Top China

also agreed to pay a total of $5000 in damages to

the complainant and her family and $2400 in civil

penalties.

A recent survey by Open Doors Organization134 showed that almost two-thirds of adults

with disabilities encountered obstacles in restaurants – lack of clear routes through the restaurant,

inaccessible restrooms, and counters and buffets

that are too high to use – making dining out a difficult or impossible experience. While the Open

Doors Organization showed that in 2005 more

than 50 percent of people with disabilities visited

fast-food restaurants once a week, barriers within these popular restaurants continue to exist.135

One effort to remove barriers in a fast-food

chain involved the Department’s intervention in

a lawsuit to enforce the barrier removal requirements of Title III against Valenti Mid-South

Management, LLC, a franchisee operating a chain

of 54 Wendy’s Restaurants in Tennessee,

Mississippi, Arkansas, and Missouri. Under the

resulting consent decree, Valenti agreed to make

a wide range of improvements to each of its

restaurants to provide greater accessibility.136

The required barrier removal for each restaurant

varies but generally includes providing new curb

ramps from parking lots to sidewalks, creating

more clear space at entrances to facilitate the

opening of doors, reconfiguring customer service

lines to allow access to wheelchair users, providing more accessible dining tables, lowering service and condiment counters, widening restroom

doors, replacing toilets, adding or remounting

grab bars, replacing lavatories, and lowering

paper towel dispensers. The order also requires

Valenti to pay damages to the private plaintiff in

the amount of $25,000.

Although restaurants consider ensuring diners’ comfort to be a priority, the connection

between the comfort of diners with disabilities

and accessible restrooms is too often ignored.

Repeatedly, diners with disabilities find either

that there are no accessible restrooms at all, that

accessible restrooms are unusable because they

are constructed improperly, or that accessible

restrooms contain boxes and other storage materials making the spaces partially or completely

inaccessible. Sometimes the accessible restrooms

are so poorly constructed that they can cause

injury to the user with a disability.

The safety of patrons with disabilities was the

focus of a 2005 consent decree between the

Department and 28 Memphis-area McDonald’s

restaurants owned by Fred Tillman and managed

by Century Management.137 The decree ensures

that the restaurants will be accessible to individuals with mobility disabilities and individuals

who are blind or have low vision. The decree also

provides for extensive barrier removal in these

restaurants, including by installing a standard

accessible stall or accessible unisex restroom in all

restaurants, providing accessible routes from

parking and public sidewalks, improving signage, lowering self-service counters, placing dispensers within proper wheelchair reach ranges,

and removing protruding objects from circulation paths. The consent order also provides for

damages in the amount of $40,000 to the complainant, an individual with a mobility disability

who was injured when she attempted to use one

of the inaccessible restrooms, and a civil penalty

of $55,000. In a separate settlement agreement,

the McDonald’s Corporation guaranteed that it

would implement the structural changes

required by the consent decree in the event that

Tillman or Century Management failed to comply.138
II. Enforcing the ADA

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 57

139 Settlement Agreement between the United States, et al. and Safeway, Inc. (Mar. 10, 2004), available at http://www.ada.gov/

safeway04.htm.

140 Settlement Agreement between the United States and JoAnn Stores, Inc. (July 18, 2006.

While eating out in restaurants offers a pleasurable social experience associated with food,

grocery shopping is one of the basic activities of

everyday living, essential to all of us. Yet people

with disabilities face barriers even in getting milk

and bread. Inaccessible parking, lack of curb

ramps, shopping cart corrals that block passage

into and out of the store, and aisleways narrowed

by merchandise displays all contribute to barring

people with mobility impairments from shopping for groceries for themselves and their families.

In an effort to make grocery shopping more

accessible to customers with disabilities across

the country, the Department in 2004 reached a

settlement agreement with Safeway and the

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund,

requiring Safeway to correct alleged ADA violations at its over 1500 grocery stores nationwide,

including stores owned by Safeway and operated

under another name such as Vons, Pavillions,

Dominick’s Fine Foods, Randall’s, Tom Thumb,

Genuardi’s, or Carr-Gottstein Foods, Co. Safeway agreed to complete barrier removal and to

fix all alleged new construction violations before

March 31, 2005.139 It also agreed to hire a fulltime compliance officer who will be responsible

for ensuring compliance throughout the chain, to

provide ADA training to all store managers, and

to hire an independent consultant to survey up to

90 Safeway stores (selected by the Department of

Justice). Safeway was required to pay up to

$200,000 in additional civil penalties as well if the

surveys show substantial noncompliance.

“Disabled people ... do a lot of crafting. I’m

very happy that they’re going to be changing

the stores.” 

— Amy Powers, customer of JoAnn Stores

Similarly, in 2006 the Department entered

into a settlement agreement with JoAnn Stores,

Inc., one of the nation’s largest fabric and craft

stores, to ensure that its 840 stores are accessible

to people with disabilities.140 JoAnn agreed to

make parking under its control accessible, add

accessible routes from the parking areas to its

stores, make its entrances accessible, widen its

aisles, lower its fabric cutting areas and check-out

counters, and make its merchandise display areas

accessible. In addition, JoAnn agreed to provide

ADA training for all store managers and other

employees, and will incorporate ADA training

into the curriculum at JoAnn Superstore University. JoAnn also agreed to pay $55,000 in civil

penalties if it fails to meet certain benchmarks

and provided $2000 in compensatory damages to

each of two complainants.

Shopping and dining out with family and

friends are quintessentially American activities

from which people with disabilities continue to

be excluded. The Department is striving to

ensure that over 50 million people with disabilities are given the same options as everyone else

to socialize and accomplish daily chores independently and with dignity.

III. Protecting the Constitutionality of the ADA 

III. Protecting the Constitutionality

of the ADA 

The Department has been actively engaged in 

defending the constitutionality of the ADA. The 

Department intervenes in private suits across the 

country to defend the constitutionality of the 

statute against challenges by state defendants. 

In early 2001, the Supreme Court limited the 

reach of the ADA by holding in Board of Trustees of 

the University of Alabama v. Garrett141 that a private individual may not, consistent with the 

Constitution, sue a State or state agency to 

enforce the employment discrimination protections in Title I of the ADA. The Court held that 

States are protected from such suits by sovereign 

immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. 

Following earlier decisions holding that Congress may remove States’ immunity only when 

acting pursuant to its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court in Garrett held that 

Title I’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis 

of disability went beyond Congress’s authority 

under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus plaintiffs may not sue a State directly to enforce Title I. 

The Garrett opinion, however, does not bar 

all ADA actions challenging state and local government policies or practices. The Court made 

clear that the federal government may continue 

to sue States for injunctive relief and money 

damages under Title I, and that private individuals may sue state officials in their official capacities as long as the plaintiffs do not seek money 

damages. Also, the Garrett decision only prohibited Title I suits against state governments, not 

cities or counties, because sovereign immunity as 

embodied in the Eleventh Amendment does not 

apply to local governments. Moreover, the Court 

left open the question whether private individuals may sue States under Title II, as opposed to 

Title I. 

Following the decision in Garrett, numerous 

lawsuits were brought against state and local governments under Title II of the ADA. The 

Department has intervened in scores of cases at all 

levels of the federal court system throughout the 

country to defend the constitutionality of Title II 

in these private suits. The cases involve a wide 

range of claims regarding courts, prisons, public 

transit, voting, public education, parking placards, 

licensing, and institutionalization. In defending 

the constitutionality of Title II of the ADA, the 

Department has argued that Congress had the 

authority to remove States’ immunity because the 

ADA is an appropriate and constitutional means 

of remedying the history of pervasive discrimination against people with disabilities. 

Since Garrett, the Supreme Court has addressed the application of Title II in two instances. In 

2004, the Supreme Court issued a decision in 

Tennessee v. Lane,

142 holding that individuals may 

sue States directly to require States to make their 

courts and judicial services accessible under the 

ADA. The plaintiffs alleged that the State of 

Tennessee and 25 of its counties violated the ADA 

by having inaccessible courthouses. They asked 

the federal court to order that the courts be made 

accessible and to award compensatory damages. 

One plaintiff, a wheelchair user who was charged 

with two misdemeanor offenses, alleged that he 

had to crawl up two flights of stairs to make a 

required court appearance. The other, a court 

reporter who is also a wheelchair user, alleged 

that many of Tennessee’s courthouses and courtrooms had barriers that made it difficult for her to 

practice her profession. The Court held that Title 

II is an appropriate response by Congress to prevent denial of the right of access to state courts in 

light of the history of unconstitutional treatment 

by States of people with disabilities. The Lane 

decision left open the question of the constitutionality of Title II suits challenging state practices or policy in other areas of activity. 

141 Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001). 

142 Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). 

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 59 
United States Department of Justice


Following Lane, the Supreme Court in 2006 

ruled unanimously in United States v. Georgia143 

that a prisoner could proceed with his Title II 

claims for damages against the State of Georgia to 

the extent that his claims alleged independent 

violations of the Constitution. The Court’s opinion did not address the extent to which individuals may enforce Title II against States to secure 

ADA rights in prison that are more expansive 

than those that are provided by the Constitution. 

The plaintiff, a prisoner who has paraplegia and 

uses a wheelchair, alleged that his cell was too 

small for him to maneuver his wheelchair, making it impossible for him to gain access to his bed, 

toilet, and shower without assistance, which was 

often denied. He also claimed that architectural 

barriers in the prison prevented him from using 

the library, attending religious services, and participating in a wide range of counseling, education, and vocational training programs. The 

Court remanded the case to the district court to 

determine which of his Title II claims would also 

allege constitutional violations. 

As a result of the decision in United States v. 

Georgia, many Title II cases pending in appellate 

courts are being sent back to district courts to 

determine whether they can be upheld because 

they seek to enforce Title II rights that do not go 

further than those protected by the Constitution. 

The Department of Justice is continuing its 

nationwide effort to intervene in such cases and 

others to defend the constitutionality of Title II of 

the ADA. 

143 United States v. Georgia, 126 S. Ct. 877 (2006). 

60 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 
IV. Resolving ADA Complaints Through Mediation

IV. Resolving ADA Complaints

Through Mediation 

We, as a country, have made remarkable 

progress and opened numerous doors thanks to 

the ADA. But discrimination continues, keeping 

people with disabilities out of the mainstream, 

limiting their opportunities, and, in many 

instances, leaving them feeling powerless. In 

order to achieve even more widespread change, 

the Department relies on creative methods, utilizing a number of different approaches to eliminating barriers and discrimination. 

The Department’s innovative ADA Mediation 

Program is an integral part of this approach. 

Since January 2001, more than 1800 complaints 

filed with the Department alleging violations of 

Title II and Title III have been referred to the program. Seventy-seven percent of complaints 

mediated have been successfully resolved. 

Using more than 400 professional ADAtrained mediators throughout the United States, 

the ADA Mediation Program continues to ensure 

compliance with the ADA at minimal expense to 

the government. Executed through a partnership 

between the federal government and the private 

sector, the Program has achieved measurable 

results, eliminating architectural, communication, and attitudinal barriers for hundreds of people with all types of disabilities throughout the 

country, allowing the Department to achieve 

compliance with the law while conserving limited resources. A wheelchair user can now shop at 

the local grocery store because there is a ramp, a 

citizen who is deaf can testify at a county hearing 

because there is a sign language interpreter, and 

someone who uses a service animal can eat at her 

diner because a “no pets” policy has been 

changed. 

Many types of ADA disputes are well-suited to 

the mediation process, including barrier removal; 

service animal policy modifications; effective communication for individuals who are deaf, hard of 

hearing, or blind; and access to local government 

programs and services. The following are examples of disputes successfully resolved through the 

mediation program since 2001: 

�In Pennsylvania, a parent of an adolescent 

who uses a wheelchair complained that the 

town athletic field was inaccessible. The 

town created a van-accessible parking space 

with required access aisle and signage, 

installed curb cuts at the accessible parking 

space and near the main gate entrance, and 

leveled the ground adjacent to the concession stand. The town agreed to ensure that 

the gates to the playing field would remain 

open during all events. 

�In Minnesota, a person who is deaf complained that a doctor’s office failed to provide interpreter services for an appointment. 

The doctor agreed to provide interpreters in 

the future, to train his staff about the requirements of the ADA, and to add telephone 

numbers for interpreters to the office telephone roster. The doctor also disciplined the 

employee who refused to provide the interpreter and apologized to the complainant. 

�In Kentucky, a parent of a child with diabetes 

complained that a movie theater that sold 

only candy and soda refused to allow the 

parent to bring food for her child into the 

theater. The theater owner changed its policy 

and installed signage stating food and drink 

are allowed in the theater if needed because 

of a disability, trained all staff on the policy 

change, and apologized to the parent. 

�A wheelchair user from Idaho complained 

that a Utah hotel had only one accessible 

room, which had been rented to another 

guest, and that the hotel provided transportation to him in an ambulance because 

the hotel’s airport shuttle was not accessible. 

The hotel agreed to construct twelve additional accessible guest rooms, including the 

appropriate number of rooms equipped with 

roll-in showers, in compliance with the 

ADA. After agreeing to expand the scope of 

the mediation to cover all 36 properties 

owned by the corporation, the corporation 

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 61 
United States Department of Justice 

agreed to conduct a comprehensive review


of its properties for compliance with the


ADA prior to initiation of any planned reno­


vations and to achieve full compliance in all


hotels. The corporation will develop and


provide ADA training for each new employ­


ee, will train all employees on an annual


basis, and will implement a “train the train­


er” program to ensure continuity of ADA


knowledge at each location. The corporation


agreed to provide lift-equipped hotel shuttle


service at every location, and will distribute


a memo, which includes a list of ADA


resources provided by the complainant, to all


properties about the importance of ADA


compliance and about how to provide effec­


tive, accessible transportation for guests with


disabilities. Finally, the corporation paid the


complainant $7500 in damages and invited


the complainant and his family to visit the


hotel after completion of the accessibility


modifications as guests, including airfare


and hotel accommodations.


Quotes from Complainants (excerpted from 

anonymous mediation evaluation forms): 

desk staff and management about the ADA. 

The motel also agreed to work with the 

regional corporate office to increase awareness of all franchise motel owners about the 

ADA’s requirements relating to service animals. The motel also made donations of $150 

each to two guide dog organizations. 

�In Wyoming, an advocate for individuals 

who are hard of hearing complained that a 

city did not provide assistive listening equipment at its public meetings. The city installed 

a new accessible sound system in the convention center where meetings are held and 

city staff, the mayor, and the advocate were 

trained in its operation. In addition, the city 

purchased eight portable assistive listening 

systems available for use in other city meeting locations and publicized their availability on signs throughout the city, in meeting 

announcements, and on cable TV and radio. 

The city apologized to the three people who 

initiated the complaint and agreed to provide ongoing training to city employees to 

more effectively work with all people with 

disabilities. 

Quotes from Respondents (excerpted from “The mediator was extremely careful, courte- anonymous mediation evaluation forms): ous, effective facilitator. Mediation was right 

process for this case - parties needed clear communication.” “Excellent mediator, fair, sensitive, balanced, 

very positive – very good process. Helped me 

as a business person to understand ADA bet- “Mediator was very impartial. Allowed each ter.”
 party opportunity to present information in a


professional manner. This process allows for a “Mediator’s demeanor was key to settlement,
 positive outcome for both parties.” his knowledge of the legal issues helped resolve 

the case, commitment went above and 

“Mediator was kind and understanding, (I) beyond.” 

was uncomfortable with other party, but 

mediator separated us in caucus which made “This is tax money well spent.” 

me more comfortable.” 

The ADA Mediation Program is successful for 

�An individual who is blind complained that a number of reasons. For instance, the mediation 

a motel in Missouri refused to rent him a goes to the people – mediations occur locally, in 

room because he used a guide dog. The communities where people live, work, and play. 

motel agreed to post a sign welcoming per- After determining a complaint is appropriate for 

sons with service animals and to train front- mediation, the Department formally contacts 

62 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 
IV. Resolving ADA Complaints Through Mediation

both parties, offering the opportunity to resolve 

the complaint through mediation. Complaints 

are then mediated locally or by conference call if 

the parties are geographically distant from each 

other. 

Moreover, unlike traditional enforcement 

methods, mediation places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of both parties, who themselves control both the process and the outcome 

of the mediation. This cooperative approach preserves, rather than severs, the relationship 

between the parties, which is especially important for individuals in rural areas who have few 

options for carrying out business, leisure, or government activities. Mediation also can have a significant effect on the less tangible but equally 

exclusionary barriers that confront people with 

disabilities, including ignorance, stereotypic 

assumptions, and simple fear. Often, mediation is 

the first time a business owner or government 

official has direct contact with a person with a 

disability for any length of time. Because mediation requires parties to talk with each other and 

work cooperatively, it provides the opportunity 

for both sides to begin to know and understand 

each other. Mediation is empowering, providing 

an environment where parties can speak on their 

own behalf, make decisions, and resolve issues. 

In short, the very structure of mediation helps 

alter perceptions and change attitudes. Successful mediations produce win-win results. 

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 63

V. Providing Technical Assistance 

V. Providing Technical Assistance 

“But I don’t understand why the law says I have to keep 18” of clear space on the latch side of the door. 

It doesn’t make sense.” 

“Nobody with a disability ever comes in here, so why do I have to do anything?” 

“This is a restaurant and we don’t allow pets. Now there’s a woman in here and she says I have to let her 

in with her guide dog.” 

The ADA is the first civil rights law to require 

the government to help people and organizations 

understand their rights and responsibilities 

under the law. And that is no small task: the 

ADA covers more than seven million businesses, 

more than 80,000 units of state and local government, and over 50 million people with disabilities. To accomplish this seemingly daunting task, 

the Department engages in a wide range of activities to foster understanding of, and voluntary 

compliance with, the ADA. Those activities 

include providing a vast array of technical assistance materials; maintaining the popular ADA 

Website; offering a nationwide, toll-free ADA 

Information Line; running the ADA Business 

Connection; and conducting outreach initiatives 

to reach businesses, state and local governments, 

and people with disabilities. Below, we describe 

some of the individual components of the 

Department’s Technical Assistance program. 

Every component shares one common goal: to 

provide accurate, understandable, and timely 

information to people across the country in the 

manner that best meets their individual needs. 

A. ADA Information Line 

“ADA Technical Assistance. How may I help 

you?” This phrase is heard every day by people 

throughout the United States when they call the 

Department’s ADA Information Line, looking for 

answers to their questions. The Information Line 

is a key link between the public and the Department’s Disability Rights Section. The Information 

Line receives more than 100,000 calls per year 

and, since January 2001, an average of more than 

50,000 callers have been personally assisted by 

Technical Assistance Specialists each year. 

The ADA Information Line (1-800-514-

0301/v; 1-800-514-0383/tty) assists callers in 

understanding the ADA and how it applies to a 

caller’s specific situation, thereby assisting people with disabilities in fully participating in all 

aspects of society. The Information Line seeks to 

educate callers to ensure that: 

� a person who is deaf is able to communicate 

effectively to discuss treatment with her doctor, to access a 9-1-1 emergency call center 

equipped with a TTY, or to do something as 

simple as ordering a pizza via a telephone 

relay service; 

� children with disabilities are not denied 

admission to childcare simply because they 

have a disability; 

� post-secondary schools provide testing 

accommodations for people who are blind or 

who have cognitive or learning disabilities; 

� people are allowed to bring their service animals into businesses, hospitals, and taxis; 

� people with cognitive disabilities are given 

assistance in filling out applications for state 

services; and 

144 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Reaching Out to Customers With Disabilities, available at http://www.ada.gov/reachingout/intro1.htm. 

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 65 
United States Department of Justice 

66 

people who use wheelchairs or other mobilipublic. 

well as to general information about the 

become one of the Department’s five most2.6 million visitors in fiscal year 2005; those visitors viewed the pages and images on the site 

In fiscal year 2005, the Department added to 

Reaching Out to Customers with 

Disabilities, an interactive, online course that 

es.144 

understand. The course is in an accessible format 

low vision. 

Using video the 

two years. 145 

explaining the law in common sense terms. Police 

Response to People with Disabilities146 

well as people who have mental illnesses, mental 

145 

146 Id. 

Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

ty devices can access hotels, grocery stores, 

doctors’ offices, courthouses, and other businesses providing goods and services to the 

B. ADA Website 

The popular ADA Website (www.ada.gov) provides direct access to the Department’s ADA publications, briefs, and settlement agreements as 

Department’s enforcement, mediation, technical 

assistance, and certification programs. The site 

also includes information about any proposed 

changes in ADA regulations and requirements, 

links to ADA press releases, and links to other 

federal agencies’ websites that contain ADA 

information.The easy-to-remember address has 

viewed web pages. The website served more than 

more than 37 million times, a 218 percent increase 

from fiscal year 2001. 

the ADA Website 

explains the ADA and how it applies to businessThe course condenses hundreds of pages of 

regulations, technical guidance, and Department 

policy into a product that is easy to use and 

that can be used by people who are blind or have 

streaming technology, 

Department has also added three fully accessible 

streaming videos to the ADA Website in the past 

Ten Small Business Mistakes features 

statements by store owners expressing their doubts 

or misunderstandings about the ADA followed by 

responses from Department officials and staff 

addresses law 

enforcement situations involving people who have 

mobility, speech, hearing, or vision disabilities, as 

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, ADA Streaming Video Gallery, available at http://www.ada.gov/videogallery.htm. 
V. Providing Technical Assistance


retardation, or seizure disorders. The ADA Signing 

Ceremony147documents the speech given by President George H. W. Bush when he signed the 

ADA into law on July 26, 1990. Copies of these 

videos can be ordered through the ADA 

Information Line or the ADA Website. 

Videos available from the Department. 

C. The ADA Business Connection

The ADA Business Connection is a multifaceted Department initiative that aims to improve 

access to everyday commerce by fostering dialogue and cooperation between the business community and the disability community. The ADA 

Business Connection has two main components: 

meetings and ongoing technical assistance for 

small businesses. 

Since 2001, more than 640 participants from 

small and mid-sized businesses, large corporations, 

and organizations of people with disabilities have 

attended 16 dynamic ADA Business Connection 

Leadership meetings in cities across the United 

States. The sessions presented speakers from multi147 Id. 

national companies, local businesses, and individuals with disabilities, who spoke about building business cases for accessible products and services, providing staff training, hiring employees with disabilities, and honing effective marketing techniques. 

These meetings have sparked lively and productive 

discussions, as well as promising collaborations 

between the business and disability communities. 

Some examples of the positive responses to the presentations include: 

� A three-way collaboration on accessible website design resulted from a meeting in 

Houston, Texas. A business technology consulting firm, a large technology corporation, 

and a disability technical assistance organization developed a design competition to 

encourage Houston businesses to create 

accessible websites. 

� One meeting participant, who serves as a 

senior vice president of a major hotel corporation, suggested to her company that its 

diversity advisory board include a representative of the disability community for the 

first time. She recommended a fellow ADA 

Business Connection meeting participant for 

that board position. 

� The hotel executive also responded to the 

session’s content by requiring closed captioning on all new television commercials 

produced for her company and by recommending to a university’s new hotel school 

that it include an instructional module on 

serving patrons with disabilities in its curriculum. 

� Upon leaving a Washington, D.C., meeting, a 

trade association vice president and the 

director of a disability organization began 

planning a joint effort to produce ADA compliance assistance materials for restaurant 

owners. 

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 67 
United States Department of Justice


“The ADA Business Connection is a great 

thing. The meetings are important for maintaining connection to the issues and the people; the biggest value of the meeting is the 

communication.” 

— A business representative who attended 

a 2002 Business Connection meeting 

in Washington, D.C. 

The ADA Business Connection has also produced a variety of compliance assistance materials addressing issues of specific interest to small 

businesses. Since 2001, the program has produced five ADA Business Briefs – short documents 

explaining specific ADA issues that are designed 

to be easily printed and distributed to employees. 

Topics addressed include service animals, restriping parking lots, providing assistance at gas stations, and effectively communicating in hotel and 

hospital settings with people who are deaf or 

hard of hearing. 

The program also produced Expanding Your 

Market, a series of documents providing demographic and topical information specifically tailored to each of the meeting locations, identifying 

people with disabilities as a largely untapped 

market of customers and potential employees. 

In addition, the program maintains the ADA 

Business Connection destination on the ADA 

Website.148 This web location houses the publications mentioned above, as well as Reaching Out 

to Customers with Disabilities, a fully accessible 

interactive online course that explains the ADA 

and how it applies to businesses in ten lessons. 

Also available on the ADA website is a streaming 

video of 10 Small Business Mistakes, a 13-minute 

video that identifies common mistakes that small 

businesses make when trying to comply with the 

ADA.149 

148 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, ADA Business Connection, available at http://www.ada.gov/business.htm. 149 U.S. Dep’t of Justice, ADA Video Gallery, available at http://www.ada.gov/videogallery.htm. 

68 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 

VI. Certifying State Accessibility Codes

VI. Certifying State Accessibility

Codes

In order to truly realize the ADA’s primary

objective of enabling people with disabilities to

participate fully in the business, civic, and social

activities of their communities, we must eliminate the architectural, transportation, and communication barriers that limit or prevent such

participation. The ADA specifically recognizes

the importance of eliminating structural and

architectural barriers by requiring all new or

altered facilities subject to the ADA to be readily

accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. Covered entities must comply with the

Department’s ADA regulations, including the

ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Facilities that must comply with the ADA

Standards may also be required to comply with

accessibility requirements established under state

or local laws. There are thousands of jurisdictions

in the United States that adopt or enforce building codes, some of which also include accessibility requirements. Although many state codes are

based on national models, there can be significant

variations among the state and local code

requirements. Design and construction under

state and local codes complies with the ADA only

when the codes provide accessibility that equals

or exceeds the ADA requirements. When these

laws are inconsistent, the burden falls on building owners and design professionals to ensure

compliance with both federal and state laws.

The enforcement of state codes is the responsibility of state or local officials – usually through

plan reviews and building inspections. The ADA

relies on the traditional method of civil rights

enforcement through litigation in federal courts.

Local officials do not have the authority to

enforce the ADA on behalf of the federal government.

In an effort both to facilitate compliance with

all applicable laws and to mitigate the tension

between federal and state enforcement processes,

the ADA authorizes the Department of Justice,

upon request of state or local officials, to certify

that state or local accessibility laws meet or

exceed the requirements of the ADA.150

Certification bridges the gap between the federal

and state enforcement processes. The certification

process neither delegates ADA enforcement

authority to the states nor eliminates an individual’s right to seek relief through the federal

courts. However, effective enforcement of a certified code can mitigate the need for federal

enforcement by ensuring that new or altered

buildings are accessible. This process gives building owners and design professionals some assurance in advance of construction that the ADA

requirements will be satisfied. And, if a lawsuit is

filed, compliance with a certified code may be

offered as rebuttable evidence of compliance with

the ADA.

Certification has other advantages. It facilitates compliance by transferring the burden of

reconciling differences between applicable

requirements from the covered entity to the

Department of Justice and the responsible local

building authority. It permits design professionals to rely on local compliance inspections and it

ensures that accessibility will be routinely considered in those inspections. When compliance

problems are identified, they can be corrected

early in the construction process, at a time when

mistakes can be corrected relatively easily and

cost­effectively. By meshing local processes with

federal requirements, certification makes accessibility part of the process, not an afterthought.

Since January 2001, the Department has certified the statewide accessibility codes of

Maryland and North Carolina. Prior certification

recipients included Washington, Texas, Maine,

and Florida. The Department has provided

detailed technical guidance to Indiana and

California to assist them to make their codes

equivalent to the ADA design standards. The

Department has received and is reviewing certification requests from Utah and Washington

150 43 U.S.C. § 12188.

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 69 
United States Department of Justice

(which has adopted a new code) as well as a tech­ people with disabilities in the life of their communical assistance request from Michigan. A certifi­ nities. Together, we can ensure that the promise of

cation request from New Jersey is also under the ADA is fulfilled while, at the same time, fosreview. tering creativity, utility, and cost­efficiency in

building design and construction.

Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim presents an

ADA Certification and a congratulatory letter to

North Carolina Commissioner of Insurance James

Long and staff members Laurel Wright and Jeffrey

Kanner at February 9, 2006 ceremony in Cary,

North Carolina, recognizing the ADA certification

of the North Carolina Accessibility Code.

The Department has reached out to governors

and state officials to encourage them to seek certification of their States’ accessibility codes.

Moreover, in tandem with the U.S. Access

Board’s efforts to encourage greater harmonization between model accessibility codes and federal accessibility guidelines, the Department has

reached out to the private sector organizations

that develop the model codes. In that regard, the

Department is reviewing a request from the

International Code Council, one of the largest

model code organizations in the country, for technical guidance concerning the compatibility of its

model accessibility code requirements with those

of the ADA accessibility standards.

These certification efforts signal an era of cooperation, rather than adversity, between the Department of Justice, state and local code officials, and

model code development organizations, working

to eliminate barriers to the full participation of

70 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 
VII. Appendix: Other Sources of Information

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers publications and technical assistance to the 

public on the employment provisions of Title I of the ADA. 

ADA publications ADA questions 

800-669-3362 (voice) 800-669-4000 (voice) 

800-800-3302 (TTY) 800-669-6820 (TTY) 

Internet address 

www.eeoc.gov 

The Federal Communications Commission offers publications and technical assistance to the public 

on the communication provisions of Title IV of the ADA. 

ADA publications and questions


888-225-5322 (voice)


888-835-5322 (TTY)


Internet address 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro 

The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, offers publications and 

technical assistance on the transportation provisions of Title II and Title III of the ADA. 

ADA Assistance Line


888-446-4511 (voice/relay)


Internet address 

www.fta.dot.gov/ada 

E-mail address 

ada.assistance@fta.dot.gov 

The U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, or Access Board, offers publications and technical assistance to the public on the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. 

ADA publications and questions


800-872-2253 (voice)


800-993-2822 (TTY)


Internet address 

www.access-board.gov 

E-mail address 

ta@access-board.gov 

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 71
United States Department of Justice 

The ADA and Information Technology Technical Assistance Centers are funded by the U.S. 

Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), in ten 

regions of the country to provide publications and technical assistance on the ADA. 

ADA publications and questions


800-949-4232 (voice/TTY)


Internet address 

www.adata.org 

Project ACTION is funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation to provide ADA information 

and publications on making transportation accessible. 

Information on accessible transportation 

800-659-6428 (voice/relay) 

Internet address 

http://projectaction.easterseals.com 

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a free telephone consulting service funded by the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Office on Disability Employment Policy. It provides information and advice to 

employers and people with disabilities on reasonable accommodation in the workplace. 

Information on workplace accommodation 

800-526-7234 (voice/TTY) 

Internet address 

www.jan.wvu.edu 

72 Access for All: Five Years of Progress 
VII. Appendix: Other Sources of Information

How to File Complaints 

Title I 

Complaints about violations of Title I (employment) by units of State and local government or by private employers should be filed with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission. Call 800-669-4000 (voice) or 800-669-6820 (TTY) to reach 

the field office in your area. 

Titles II and III 

Complaints about violations of Title II by units of State and local government or violations of Title III by public accommodations and commercial facilities should be filed 

with: 

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division


950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.


DRS-NYA


Washington, D.C. 20530


If you wish the complaint to be resolved through the Department’s ADA Mediation 

Program, please mark “Attention: Mediation” on the outside of the envelope. 

A Report from the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act 73