National Disability Policy: A Progress Report

Has the Promise Been Kept? 

Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2)

National Council on Disability

October 31, 2019
National Council on Disability (NCD)

1331 F Street NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

National Disability Policy: A Progress Report

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2)

National Council on Disability, October 31, 2019

This report is also available in alternative formats. Please visit the National Council on Disability 

(NCD) website (www.ncd.gov) or contact NCD to request an alternative format using the following 

information:

ncd@ncd.gov Email

202-272-2004 Voice

202-272-2022 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration, as this and 

all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress 

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families.

Letter of Transmittal

October 31, 2019

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President,

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is pleased to present the 2019 National Disability Policy: A 

Progress Report, titled Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws 

(Part 2). Each year, NCD submits a statutorily mandated report to the White House and Congress to 

offer recommendations on continuing, new, and emerging issues which affect the lives of people with 

disabilities.

This report is the second in a two-part series in which the Council revisits the NCD report, Promises to 

Keep: A Decade of Federal Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, released in 2000. NCD 

reviews the efforts of U.S. Departments of Justice (DOJ), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to implement and enforce federal disability rights laws.

The federal agencies examined in this report play a key role to ensure that people with disabilities have 

the same opportunity to live in and access the community, and to enjoy the benefits of new technology 

as any other American. This report assesses how these agencies implement and enforce the ADA and 

other federal disability rights laws and programs.

Promises to Keep was published just one year after the U.S. Supreme Court held in the seminal case of 

Olmstead v. L.C. that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that services to people with 

disabilities be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate. Since that time, the Olmstead decision 

has had a significant impact on the enforcement and education efforts of DOJ and to some degree HUD. 

In 2010 Congress passed the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) 

to ensure accessibility to people with disabilities to the rapidly changing telecommunications and 

information technology sector.

NCD submits this report at a time when an entire generation of people with disabilities have grown up 

with the statutory rights of the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, and other laws passed during the latter part 

of the last century. Enforcement and effective implementation of federal disability civil rights laws and 

housing statutes are vital for people with disabilities to share fully in the American economy, to participate 

in the local and national community, and to interact with the Federal Government. While some progress 

in reaching the goal of full equality and justice for Americans with disabilities has been made since the 

release of Promises to Keep, continued progress and more consistent enforcement efforts are needed. 

NCD offers recommendations for DOJ, HUD, and the FCC to enhance their implementation, investigative, 

1331 F Street, NW ■ Suite 850 ■ Washington, DC 20004

202-272-2004 Voice ■ 202-272-2074 TTY ■ 202-272-2022 Fax ■ www.ncd.gov
and compliance efforts in order to respond to ongoing and emerging barriers faced by people with 

disabilities. NCD encourages these agencies to both improve communications with people with a wide 

range of disabilities, including cognitive, mental, sensory, and physical disabilities, and to better utilize 

existing resources in investigations and compliance efforts.

NCD looks forward to working with the Administration to ensure the ongoing protection of people with 

disabilities from discrimination in all aspects of their lives through oversight and enforcement of our 

nation’s disability rights laws.

Respectfully,

Neil Romano

Chairman

(The same letter of transmittal was sent to the President Pro Tempore of the U.S. Senate and the Speaker of the 

U.S. House of Representatives.)

2 National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members

Neil Romano Chairman

Benro T. Ogunyipe, Vice Chairperson

Billy W. Altom

Rabia Belt

James T. Brett

Daniel M. Gade

Andrés Gallegos

Wendy S. Harbour

Clyde E. Terry

Staff

Lisa Grubb, Executive Director

Phoebe Ball, Legislative Affairs Specialist

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Netterie Lewis, Administrative Support Specialist

Amy Nicholas, Attorney Advisor

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach

Nicholas Sabula, Public Affairs Specialist

Amged Soliman, Attorney Advisor

Ana Torres-Davis, Attorney Advisor

Keith Woods, Financial Management Analyst

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 3
4 National Council on Disability
Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  

Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

Chapter 1: U.S. Department of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Regulatory, Sub-Regulatory and Policy Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2

Proactive and Reactive Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Competent and Credible Investigative Process and 

Enforcement Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Timely Resolution of Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Communication with Complainants and the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Strategic Litigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Interagency Collaboration and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Adequacy of Agency Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4

Chapter 2: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Regulatory, Sub-Regulatory and Policy Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Proactive and Reactive Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Competent and Credible Investigative Process and 

Enforcement Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5

Timely Resolution of Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Communication with Complainants and the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Interagency Collaboration and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Adequacy of Agency Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 5
Chapter 3: Federal Communications Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

Communications with the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Proactive and Reactive Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Regulatory, Policy, and Sub-Regulatory Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Adequacy of Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Competent and Credible Investigative Process and 

Enforcement Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Training and Technical Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Conclusion: Has the Promise Been Kept? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Appendix A: Agency Budget and Staffing Charts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8

Appendix B: Federal Disability Civil Rights Laws Considered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as Amended...

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Fair Housing Act of 1968, as Amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Twenty-First Century Communications and 

Video Accessibility Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Appendix C: Overview of Promises to Keep and Methodology Used for 

the 2019 Progress Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Overview of Promises to Keep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9

Methodology Used for the 2019 Progress Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

6 National Council on Disability
Acknowledgments

The National Council on Disability (NCD) wishes to thank the National Disability Rights Network, particularly 

David Hutt, Esq., PhD, Kenneth Shiotani, Esq., Janice Johnson Hunter, Esq., and Elizabeth Priaulx, JD, and 

their partners Alison Barkoff, Esq. at the Center for Public Representation, and Zainab Alkebsi, Esq. at the 

National Association of the Deaf for the development of this report.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 7
8 National Council on Disability
Executive Summary

F

or the past 46 years, as measured from 

the enactment of the Rehabilitation Act 

on September 26, 1973, the United States 

has through legislation gradually improved the 

ability of people with disabilities to realize their 

right to live, work, and participate fully in the 

community. Passage of the 1988 amendments 

to the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the 1990 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the 2008 

ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), and the 2010 

Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act (CVAA) have played major 

roles in the increased protection of the rights 

of people with disabilities and the promotion of 

greater inclusion into society. In between these 

landmark statutes, numerous other federal 

laws, regulations, and Executive Orders have 

sought to increase the opportunities for people 

with disabilities. The legislative enactment of 

federal disability civil rights laws and programs, 

however, is only one step in the full realization of 

equal opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Effective federal implementation, oversight, and 

enforcement of these laws are critical to sustain 

and advance justice and equality for people with 

disabilities.

This Progress Report, Has the Promise Been 

Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights 

Laws, is the second in a two-part series to revisit 

a National Council on Disability (NCD) report 

titled Promises to Keep: A Decade of Federal 

Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, published in 2000. Promises to Keep

considered the ADA enforcement efforts of the 

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 

with minor consideration of the Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access 

Board). Similar to the 2018 NCD Progress Report 

which considered the EEOC, the Access Board, 

and the Department of Labor in light of Promises 

to Keep,

1

 this Progress Report again uses the 11 

guidepost elements created in Promises to Keep

to assess the efforts of DOJ, the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the 

FCC to enforce and implement the ADA and other 

federal disability rights laws. NCD also assesses 

any progress made by DOJ and the FCC in 

response to the Council’s recommendations in 

Promises to Keep.

Some progress to ensure greater opportunities 

for people with disabilities has occurred since 

Promises to Keep, best exemplified by the 

bipartisan passage of the ADAAA, and later 

the CVAA. The federal enforcement agencies 

considered in this report, however, still face 

budgetary and staffing issues; are too slow to 

respond to rapidly changing social, technical, 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 9
and other environmental changes; are inconsistent 

in their enforcement efforts; and in some cases, 

lack transparency in enforcement efforts.

Among some of the key findings in this report:

■ DOJ, HUD, and FCC have developed helpful 

guidance documents to assist people with 

disabilities understand their federal rights.

■ DOJ fails to make critical enforcement data 

available to enable a proper assessment of 

the Department’s efforts to enforce federal 

disability rights laws.

■ DOJ has improved transparency through 

publishing letters of findings, settlement 

agreements, and consent decrees on the 

ADA.gov website.

■ DOJ has been inconsistent since Promises 

to Keep in using various litigation strategies 

to enforce federal disability rights laws, 

including in the critical area of community 

integration.

■ HUD is required to rely heavily on state and 

local fair housing enforcement agencies, 

which can impact the consistency of 

investigations of disability rights housing 

complaints.

■ HUD enforcement efforts are negatively 

impacted by decreasing staff levels in the 

Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity 

(FHEO).

■ The FCC is able to resolve all complaints by 

people with disabilities through negotiations 

without the need for any investigative or 

enforcement action, but such resolutions 

negatively impact the transparency of the 

work of the FCC.

■ Rapid changes in the development and use of 

telecommunications technology, such as text 

messaging and Internet Protocol Captioned 

Telephone Service often outpace the ability 

of the FCC and DOJ to ensure the availability 

and quality of such services to people with 

disabilities.

Among a number NCD’s recommendations in 

this report:

■ DOJ should develop regulations on web 

accessibility for entities covered under 

Title II and III of the ADA, adopt the Access 

Board’s guidance on accessible medical 

equipment and diagnostic equipment, 

increase Olmstead investigations and 

enforcement, and maintain a stronger and 

more consistent level of litigation around 

disability rights.

■ HUD should increase training and technical 

assistance around the application of the 

Fair Housing Act to multifamily housing, 

increase the use of Secretary- initiated 

complaints, and increase the number of 

Section 504 reviews.

■ The FCC should ensure that pay rates 

for the various telecommunications relay 

services available are sufficient to attract 

providers and provide quality service to 

people with disabilities who rely on such 

services.

■ Congress should require DOJ to collect 

and make available statistical information 

on disability rights complaints and 

enforcement as already occurs for HUD 

and the EEOC.

10 National Council on Disability
Acronyms

ABA Architectural Barriers Act

ACS Advanced Communications Services

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

ADAAA ADA Amendments Act of 2008

ADAAG ADA Accessibility Guidelines (1991 & 2010)

AFFH Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

ASL American Sign Language

ASR Automated Speech Recognition

CRIPA Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act

CRT Civil Rights Division (Dept. of Justice)

CVAA Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act

DAC Disability Advisory Committee (Federal Communications Commission)

DOL Department of Labor

DOJ Department of Justice

DOT Department of Transportation

DRO Disability Rights Office (Federal Communications Commission)

DRS Disability Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division (Dept. of Justice)

EAS Emergency Alert System

ED Department of Education

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FHA Fair Housing Act of 1964, as amended

FHAP Fair Housing Assistance Program (Dept. of Housing & Urban Development)

FHEO Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (Dept. of Housing & Urban Development)

FHIP Fair Housing Initiative Program (Dept. of Housing & Urban Development)

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

GAO Government Accountability Office

HAC Hearing Aid Compatible

HCES Housing & Civil Enforcement Section of the Civil Rights Division (Dept. of Justice)

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

IP CTS Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 11
iTRS Interstate Telecommunications Relay Service

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

PSAPs Public Safety Answering Points

SPL Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division (Dept. of Justice)

SRO Single Room Occupancy

TA Technical Assistance

TRS Telecommunications Relay Services

TTY Text Telephone

TVPA Trafficking Victims Protection Act

USAO United States Attorney’s Office

VRS Video Relay Services

VRI Video Remote Interpreting

VoIP Voiceover Internet Protocol

WEA Wireless Emergency Alert

12 National Council on Disability
As the nation recognizes the 20th 

anniversary of the Olmstead decision, 

and with the 30th anniversary of the 

ADA less than a year away, we must 

continue to ask, “Has the promise 

been kept?”

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 13
14 National Council on Disability
Introduction

T

he National Council on Disability (NCD) 

is congressionally mandated to advise 

the President, Congress, and other 

policymakers on disability policies and practices 

that enhance equal opportunity for people with 

disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, 

independent living, and inclusion and integration 

into all aspects of society. This Progress Report, 

the second in a two-part series entitled, Has the 

Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of 

Disability Rights Laws, fulfills NCD’s congressional 

mandate to advise policymakers on policies 

and practices that enable federal agencies to 

effectively enforce federal disability rights laws.

The United States, led by people with disabilities 

who demand equality and justice, has been at the 

forefront of the movement to advance the legal 

rights of people with disabilities. The legislative 

recognition by the United States that disability 

rights are civil rights has not been swift and has 

required the dedicated effort of the disability rights 

movement to spur a number of federal civil rights 

laws, most notably the Americans with Disabilities 

Act (ADA),2

 that ensure equal opportunity for 

people with disabilities. Several of these federal 

laws considered in this report are described in 

Appendix B.

The enforcement of federal disability rights 

laws is critical to providing equal opportunity 

across all aspects of community life for people 

with disabilities. In 2000, NCD issued Promises 

to Keep: A Decade of Federal Enforcement of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act, the third in a 

series of reports around the turn of the century on 

ADA enforcement.3

 Promises to Keep considered 

the ADA enforcement activities of the U.S. Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 

the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), the U.S. 

Department of Transportation (DOT), and the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and 

addressed the technical assistance activities of 

the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 

Compliance Board (Access Board), the National 

Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 

and the former President’s Committee on the 

Employment of People with Disabilities.

In Promises to Keep, NCD recognized that 

“the placement of disability discrimination on 

par with race or gender discrimination exposed 

the common experiences of prejudice and 

segregation and provided clear rationale for the 

elimination of disability discrimination in this 

country.”4

 The report further found that federal 

agencies charged with ADA enforcement and 

policy development were “overly cautious, 

reactive, and lacking a coherent and unifying 

national strategy.”5 Enforcement efforts largely 

followed “a case-by-case approach based on 

individual complaints rather than one based on 

compliance monitoring and a cohesive, proactive 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 15
enforcement strategy.”6

 The five federal agencies 

tasked to enforce the ADA were also found to 

not be working in collaboration to develop a 

national strategy on enforcement.7

This Progress Report is the second in a two-part 

series to use the 11 elements created in Promises 

to Keep to assess the implementation and 

enforcement of federal disability rights laws and 

programs. The 2018 Progress Report considered 

the efforts of the U.S. Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. 

Department of Labor (DOL), and the Architectural 

and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board 

(Access Board). This Progress Report assesses 

the enforcement work of the U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ), the U.S. Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD), and the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC), again using 

the 11 guidepost elements. A number of the 

NCD recommendations in Promises to Keep are 

further revisited to evaluate progress made by 

DOJ and FCC, while for the first time using the 

Promises to Keep framework to consider the role 

of HUD in the enforcement of federal housing 

laws, which impact people with disabilities. The 

first three chapters provide an analysis of, and 

recommendations for, these agencies. Appendix 

C contains a further overview of the 11 elements 

develop in Promises to Keep and a description of 

the research methodology used in this report.

The legal, social, economic, and technological 

landscape has changed since Promises to Keep.

The nation has witnessed the reorientation of 

services to people with disabilities following the 

landmark U.S. Supreme Court determination 

in Olmstead v. L.C. which clarified that the 

ADA requires that services be provided in the 

most integrated community setting appropriate 

to a person’s needs. Technological advances, 

especially the rapid expansion of wireless 

communications, the Internet, and social media, 

have revolutionized telecommunications and 

social interaction. Personal digital devices have 

offered people with autism new ways to interact 

and communicate with family, friends, and the 

larger community. Improvements in screenreading, text-to-speech, dictation, and similar 

software have increased the ability of the Deaf 

or Hard of Hearing and people who are blind 

or have low vision to communicate and access 

information. In 2008, with overwhelming bipartisan support, Congress passed the ADA 

Amendments Act (ADAAA) in response to the 

weakening of the ADA by the federal courts.8 In 

2010, Congress similarly passed the Twenty-First 

Century Communications and Video Accessibility 

Act (CVAA) to address the rapid changes in 

telecommunications and enable people with 

disabilities to fully participate in such advances.9

In a 1992 speech, Justin Dart, Jr., the “father 

of the ADA,” offered prophetic remarks:

[the ADA] . . . is a landmark breakthrough. 

People with disabilities have been granted 

full, legally enforceable equality by one of 

the world’s most influential nations. . . . 

The ADA is an absolutely essential legal 

and educational tool to achieve equality 

and to achieve employment. But the ADA 

is not equality and it is not employment. 

ADA is a promise to be kept. And what is 

that promise? For whatever the law says 

legally, the clear promise of the ADA is that 

all people with disabilities will be fully equal, 

fully productive, fully prosperous, and fully 

welcome participants in the mainstream. 

Keeping the promise of the ADA is not 

going to be easy.10

16 National Council on Disability
As the nation recognizes the 20th anniversary 

of the Olmstead decision, and with the 30th 

anniversary of the ADA less than a year away, we 

must continue to ask, “Has the promise been 

kept?” While federal legal advances still continue 

in disability rights following the pivotal moments 

of the passage of the Rehabilitation Act in 1973 

and the ADA in 1990, legal developments alone 

are insufficient without consistent vigorous 

enforcement and oversight. This report discusses 

to what extent such vigorous enforcement has 

occurred.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 17
18 National Council on Disability
Chapter 1: U.S. Department of Justi

Based on the analysis contained in this chapter, NCD recommends that 

the responsible entities within DOJ:

■ Revise regulations concerning movie captioning and audio descriptions to require that 

digital theaters show only movies equipped with accessibility features.

■ Respond to technological and other social changes, which includes guidance developed 

from the Access Board, by issuing regulations in a reasonable timeframe that ensure 

access to and for people with disabilities.

■ Proceed with the development of web accessibility regulations under both Title II and 

Title III of the ADA.

■ Develop Next Generation 9-1-1 regulations applicable to Public Safety Answering Points.

■ Promptly adopt the U.S. Access Board’s Accessibility Standards for Diagnostic Medical 

Equipment as the enforceable standard.

■ Reinstate the October 2017 Guidance Document on the application of Olmstead to state 

employment systems.

■ Update the ADA Title II and Title III Technical Assistance Manuals.

■ Significantly reorganize the enforcement documents (letters of findings, letters of resolutions, 

settlement agreements, and consent decrees) available on ADA.gov by topic and setting type, 

as well as alphabetically and by date.

■ Maintain disability rights enforcement as a priority and amend the current Strategic Plan to 

include disability rights as such.

■ Significantly increase the number of Project Civic Access reviews to the levels conducted 

between 2001 and 2005 and obtain more agreements with state and local governments to 

ensure access to public facilities for people with disabilities.

(continued)

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 19
Based on the analysis contained in this chapter, NCD recommends that 

the responsible entities within DOJ: continued

■ The Disability Rights and Special Litigation Sections increase their investigations and 

enforcement activities around Olmstead violations in facilities covered under the ADA 

and CRIPA.

■ Consider the implications of the November 2018 memorandum which places restrictions 

on agreements involving state and local governments and excludes application of the 

memorandum in settlements to address any Olmstead violations.

■ Continue to work closely with disability advocates to address ways to prevent and react to 

hate crimes and the trafficking of people with disabilities.

■ Provide expansive training to all personnel employed within the Voting Section on ADA 

requirements at polling locations and the authority to remedy such violations.

■ Simplify the language on its website to enable people with intellectual and other cognitive 

disabilities to effectively use the website and file a complaint.

■ All websites that explain the filing of complaints prominently indicate how to request a 

reasonable accommodation as part of the description.

■ Improve the complaint phone line by reducing wait times, informing callers about the wait 

time, and allowing for easier access to an agent.

■ Increase and maintain greater consistency in its litigation efforts involving disability rights.

■ File statements of interest, where appropriate, in support of private Olmstead cases in 

federal court.

■ Continue to emphasize community integration and community service delivery requirements 

under Olmstead in any investigation of the conditions for people with disabilities within a state 

mental health, nursing, or intellectual or developmental disabilities facility.

■ Continue to include unnecessary educational segregation as part of its Olmstead

enforcement work.

■ HCES work closely with HUD to create comprehensive training and technical assistance 

guidance outlining the applicability of the FHA and ADA to multifamily housing developers, 

property designers, property owners, and managers, and to develop methods for effective 

distribution of such assistance.

■ Conduct a study to better understand the steady decline in calls to the ADA information line.

■ Prominently display information about the ADA information line to increase awareness of 

its benefits to the public.

20 National Council on Disability
NCD recommends that Congress:

■ Ensure that DOJ has the resources necessary to maintain stable staffing levels within the 

Civil Rights Division to ensure consistent disability rights enforcement efforts.

■ Require DOJ to track and publish data on the timeliness of resolving disability rights 

complaints on an annual basis.

■ Commission a study on the problem of human trafficking of people with disabilities to better 

understand the scope of the problem, ways to prevent such trafficking, and how to best 

support trafficking victims with disabilities.

■ Require DOJ to collect and make available comprehensive statistical information about the 

number of disability rights complaints received by DOJ and the outcome of such complaints 

on at least an annual basis.

■ Require DOJ to establish stringent oversight of the ADA mediation program to include audits 

of the work of the contract mediator on a regular basis.

Overview

The U.S. Department of Justice is responsible for 

the enforcement of numerous federal laws which 

have a direct and indirect impact on people with 

disabilities. These laws include Title II of the ADA 

which applies to state and local governments, and 

Title III of the ADA which applies to businesses 

and commercial facilities, and other private 

entities which provide public accommodations. 

DOJ enforces the Civil Rights of Institutionalized 

Persons Act (CRIPA), which requires compliance 

with the rights of people confined to facilities 

such as prisons, mental health facilities, 

intermediate care facilities and nursing homes; 

and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 

as amended, which includes rights for people 

with disabilities similar to the ADA in regard to 

federal contractors, entities that receive federal 

financial assistance, and federal government 

agencies. DOJ shares responsibilities with the 

EEOC to enforce Title I of the ADA in cases of 

employment discrimination based on disability by 

a state or local government agency, covered in 

the 2018 Progress Report.11 Similarly, DOJ shares 

responsibilities with HUD to enforce the Fair 

Housing Act when certain cases are brought to 

federal court.

The Civil Rights Division (CRT), created in 1957, 

is the primary entity within DOJ to enforce federal 

civil rights laws, including disability rights. CRT is 

composed of 11 separate enforcement-related 

sections, plus an administrative management 

section.12 This chapter focuses particularly on CRT’s 

Disability Rights and Special Litigation sections 

which play the most active role in DOJ’s disability 

rights enforcement. The work of the CRT Criminal, 

Housing and Civil Enforcement, and Voting 

sections are also addressed, but in less detail.

The Disability Rights Section (DRS) is the 

principal entity which enforces and develops 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 21
regulations for the ADA, and Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act (Appendix B provides an 

explanation of important provisions in the 

Rehabilitation Act). The Special Litigation Section 

(SPL) enforces CRIPA and the ADA. Through DRS 

and SPL, the Civil Rights Division enforces the ADA 

Title II integration mandate as interpreted by the 

Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. involving people 

in institutions, or at serious risk of unnecessary 

institutionalization or segregation. CRT enforcement 

actions involve private institutions, such as adult 

homes of private nursing facilities, and public 

institutions, such as state-operated Intermediate 

Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual and 

Developmental Disabilities (ICF-IDDs), stateoperated psychiatric 

hospitals, and public 

nursing facilities.

DRS, in collaboration 

with SPL, issues 

guidance documents 

on the requirements 

of Olmstead. In prior 

years, DOJ had a formal 

Olmstead Task Force to coordinate various 

efforts. While the Task Force no longer exists, 

DOJ still maintains formal intra-departmental 

coordination to enforce Olmstead. DRS and SPL 

also engage in inter-agency coordination around 

Olmstead and community integration issues 

with other federal entities including HUD, and 

the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS) in the Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS).

Regulatory, Sub-Regulatory and 

Policy Guidance

DOJ issues regulations and guidance documents 

for ADA Titles II and III.13 Since Promises to 

With rapid changes in technology 

and the built environment, DOJ’s 

record in issuing timely regulations 

related to physical accessibility for 

people with disabilities has been at 

best mixed and often disappointing.

Keep, DOJ has made substantive changes to the 

original ADA regulations and issued a number of 

new guidance documents. Some revisions were 

the result of changes to the definition of disability 

contained in the ADAAA,14 but most regulations 

and guidance documents issued since 2000 have 

dealt with issues unrelated to the ADAAA.

Promises to Keep recommended that DOJ set, 

and meet, a prompt deadline to adopt updated 

accessibility guidelines created by the U.S. 

Access Board, an independent federal agency 

with authority to develop accessibility guidelines 

for DOJ to set as the enforceable standard.15

With rapid changes in technology and the built 

environment, DOJ’s record in issuing timely 

regulations related to 

physical accessibility for 

people with disabilities 

has been at best mixed 

and often disappointing. 

In many instances, DOJ 

moved far slower in the 

development of new 

ADA regulations than the 

disability and business community desired.

The Access Board established the original 

minimum guidelines for the accessibility of 

buildings and facilities, known as the ADA 

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), in July 1991.16

DOJ adopted the 1991 ADAAG at the same 

time as the federally enforceable accessibility 

requirements.17 Between 1994 and 2002, the 

Access Board developed new standards for 

areas not addressed in the 1991 ADAAG.18 The 

Access Board finalized a revised ADAAG in July 

2004,19 which included specific guidelines on 

the accessibility of state and local government 

facilities,20 building elements designed for use by 

children,21 play areas,22 and recreational facilities.23

22 National Council on Disability
Though DOJ quickly began the process to 

establish the revised ADAAG as the enforceable 

federal standard, the process stalled. After 

seeking public comments, it took 4 years for DOJ 

to propose regulations to adopt the revised 

ADAAG.24 On July 26, 2010, the 20th anniversary 

of the signing of the ADA, DOJ announced it was 

considering a number of other ADA regulatory 

revisions sought by the disability community. 

The possible revisions announced at that time 

included the accessibility of non-fixed equipment 

and furniture, including medical equipment; 

exercise equipment; accessible golf cars; 

accessible beds; and electronic and information 

technology.25 DOJ also announced potential 

changes to the Title II 

ADA regulations for the 

accessibility of Public 

Safety Answering Points 

(PSAPs, more commonly 

known as 9-1-1 call-taking 

centers which handle 

emergency 9-1-1 calls) to reflect changes in 

telecommunication technology.26 At the same 

time, DOJ announced plans to consider 

establishing specific requirements to make 

websites accessible to people with disabilities,27

and to require theaters to provide movie 

captioning and video description.28

In September 2010, DOJ issued the revised 

ADA Titles II29 and III30 regulations which included 

the updated ADAAG. However, gaps still remain. 

Under the 2010 ADA regulations, the Federal 

Government for the first time had enforceable 

accessibility standards to cover facilities such as 

(1) courtrooms, holding cells and visiting areas; 

(2) cells, medical care facilities, and visiting 

areas in detention facilities; (3) housing at a 

place of education; (4) new and permanently 

After seeking public comments, it 

took 4 years for DOJ to propose 

regulations to adopt the revised 

ADAAG.

installed amusement rides; (5) recreational 

boating facilities, fishing piers and platforms, 

and golf facilities; (6) children’s play areas; 

and (7) swimming pools, wading pools, and 

spas. Other new provisions in the 2010 ADA 

regulations required public and private entities 

to follow nondiscriminatory policies for the sale 

and distribution of tickets to limited access 

events and venues, reservations for hotel and 

motel rooms at places of lodging, and a new 

requirement to provide direct access to raised 

stages in theaters, auditoriums, and other 

“assembly areas.”

Through the 2010 regulations DOJ clarified 

certain provisions in an attempt to reduce 

confusion by entities 

covered under Title II and 

III.31 DOJ strengthened 

requirements on the 

provision of auxiliary 

aids and services by 

clarifying the definition of 

a qualified interpreter and a qualified reader and 

added detailed provisions for what is considered 

effective communications. For example, the 

revisions included, among other things, that in 

certain situations companions of people seeking 

access to a service, program, or activity who 

are Deaf may be entitled to interpreters, added 

a definition for Video Remote Interpreting (VRI), 

and restricted the permissible uses of family 

members or friends as interpreters. Specific 

to entities covered under Title III, DOJ revised 

the definition of a place of lodging to include 

timeshare properties and added provisions to 

mandate nondiscriminatory policies for hotel 

reservations.

The disability community was generally 

pleased with the 2010 revised ADA regulations, 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 23
with the notable exception that DOJ narrowed 

the definition of a service animal to generally 

include only dogs and explicitly excluded from 

the definition emotional support animals who 

do not work or perform tasks. Some persons 

with disabilities who use trained guide or service 

dogs expressed a concern that a more expansive 

definition of “service animals” might result in 

unnecessary questions or restrictions on the 

use of trained dogs.32 Other advocates, however, 

had urged DOJ to continue to include as service 

animals a broader range of animals that assist 

people with disabilities,33 and while DOJ did allow 

a trained miniature horse to be permitted as a 

reasonable modification in some circumstances, 

it otherwise imposed a 

narrow definition of a 

service animal.

DOJ failed to move 

forward on a handful of 

other issues contained in 

the proposed regulations, 

the most significant 

being effective communications in stadiums 

and standards for accessible golf carts. DOJ 

recognized, however, the rapid rate at which 

movie theaters were converting from analog 

to digital projection, and in 2016 completed 

regulations to require that movie theaters 

provide closed captioning and audio description 

whenever the theater shows a digital movie with 

such accessible features.34 The regulations took 

effect on January 17, 2017, but DOJ gave theaters 

an additional 18 months to comply. DOJ refused 

to adopt a consensus recommendation from a 

group of theater owners and the Deaf and Hard 

of Hearing community to require theaters in an 

area with a high population of Deaf and Hard of 

In other areas, DOJ delays and 

reversals to establish specific ADA 

accessibility regulations have 

created uncertainty about the 

appropriate legal standard.

Hearing people to acquire additional captioning 

devices if needed based on demand.35 The 

regulations continue to allow theaters to show 

digital movies that are not made with captioning 

and audio description features, and does not 

require that movies be shown with open 

captioning. NCD recommends that DOJ revise 

regulations concerning movie captioning 

and audio descriptions to require that digital 

theaters show only movies equipped with 

accessibility features.

In other areas, DOJ delays and reversals to 

establish specific ADA accessibility regulations 

have created uncertainty about the appropriate 

legal standard. In January 2017, DOJ proposed to 

revise its regulation to 

implement section 504 

of the Rehabilitation Act 

for federally assisted 

programs and activities,36

last updated in 2003, but 

as of this report DOJ 

has issued no updated 

regulations. In December 2017, after beginning the 

process over 7 years earlier, DOJ withdrew plans 

to develop ADA standards on website accessibility, 

Next Generation 9-1-1, and accessible furniture and 

equipment, including medical equipment. Both the 

disability and business communities have criticized 

DOJ delays in proceeding with regulations in these 

areas. NCD recommends that DOJ respond to 

technological and other social changes, which 

includes guidance developed from the Access 

Board, by issuing regulations in a reasonable 

timeframe that ensure access to and for people 

with disabilities.

The lack of web accessibility regulations 

remains the most significant gap in DOJ’s ADA 

24 National Council on Disability
regulatory requirements. In the fall of 2015, DOJ 

created one process to develop web accessibility 

regulations for state and local governments under 

Title II, and another separate process for private 

entities under Title III of the ADA.37 DOJ later 

decided to move ahead first with the Title II web 

accessibility regulations and in May 2016 sought 

additional public input on a wide range of 

issues pertaining to the 

accessibility of web 

information and services 

by public entities.38

Following Executive 

Orders 13771 and 13777, 

which constrain the 

issuance of new regulations, CRT is not 

planning to promulgate any new regulations.39

In December 2017 CRT formally withdrew 

four pending regulations, including the Title II 

rulemaking on accessibility of web information 

of state and local governments.40

The business 

community has 

criticized DOJ for the 

lack of requirements 

and standards for 

the accessibility of 

web information 

and services under 

Title III.41 In addition, 

litigation of web accessibility under Title III 

spiked in 2018, arguably in part because of 

a lack of clarity on the appropriate standard. 

Members of Congress have also expressed 

displeasure with the failure of DOJ to issue 

regulatory standards.42 DOJ responded to these 

complaints in September 2018 stating that it 

“first articulated its interpretation that the ADA 

The lack of web accessibility 

regulations remains the most 

significant gap in DOJ’s ADA 

regulatory requirements.

Adding to the complexity, courts 

across the country are further 

issuing slightly conflicting decisions 

about the ADA’s application to 

websites creating confusion and 

inconsistency.

applies to public accommodations’ websites 

over twenty years ago” and reiterated that the 

ADA applies to websites.43 With the proliferation 

of Internet communications, however, a simple 

reference that the ADA applies to websites 

without clear standards does little to enable 

people with disabilities to understand their 

specific rights to accessible websites. Adding to 

the complexity, courts 

across the country are 

further issuing slightly 

conflicting decisions 

about the ADA’s 

application to websites 

creating confusion 

and inconsistency.44 NCD recommends that 

DOJ proceed with the development of web 

accessibility regulations under both Title II 

and Title III of the ADA.

Similarly, the failure of DOJ to move forward 

with Next Generation 9-1-1 ADA regulations has 

impeded the ability of 

people with disabilities to 

utilize more advanced 

accessible technologies 

in emergency situations. 

Advocates in Arizona and 

other states and localities 

have brought cases in 

federal court against 

entities operating PSAPs that have failed to 

progress toward accepting text messages or 

other advanced communication technologies 

used by people with disabilities. The Arizona 

case settled in 2018 through creation of a fund 

to allow all PSAPs in the state to begin to install 

equipment necessary to receive text to 9-1-1 

calls over the next several years.45 Without DOJ 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 25
regulations, inconsistent and conflicting 

decisions on the text to 9-1-1 issue could occur 

in federal courts, as has already been seen in 

the context of websites. NCD recommends 

that DOJ develop Next Generation 9-1-1 

regulations applicable to Public Safety

Answering Points.

People with disabilities, as well as businesses 

and public entities, continue to complain about 

the lack of standards for equipment and furniture. 

This includes the use of new inaccessible 

technology for exchanging information such 

as at kiosks that provide information, checkin, or ordering; self-serve check-out devices at 

grocery stores and other retail establishments; 

and inaccessible beds in hotel rooms which are 

too high for wheelchair 

users to transfer onto. 

A particularly critical 

issue for people with 

disabilities is the lack of 

accessible diagnostic 

medical equipment, a 

problem complicated by 

the absence of DOJ regulations.46

In the absence of specific accessibility 

standards, DOJ has enforced the ADA’s 

nondiscrimination obligations against medical 

providers. In 2005 and 2006, DOJ entered 

into settlement agreements with five medical 

providers about the obligation to provide access 

to medical diagnostic equipment such as exam 

tables and radiology and MRI equipment.47 In 

2010, DOJ issued a Guidance Document entitled 

“Access to Medical Care for Individuals with 

Mobility Disabilities,” which offers an overview 

and discusses the general requirements for 

accessible examination rooms, exam tables, 

certain medical equipment, and scales.48

A particularly critical issue for 

people with disabilities is the lack 

of accessible diagnostic medical 

equipment, a problem complicated 

by the absence of DOJ regulations.

Nevertheless, after the flurry of enforcement 

activity in 2005 and 2006, and the issuance of the 

2010 Guidance Document, DOJ has posted only 

three additional accessible medical equipment 

settlements in recent years.49

The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care 

Act (ACA) authorized the Access Board to develop 

accessibility standards for medical diagnostic 

equipment.50 After a multiyear process, in early 

2017 the Access Board published “Accessibility 

Standards for Diagnostic Medical Equipment,” 

which DOJ has yet to adopt. Without specific 

enforceable regulations, medical providers do not 

know if new available equipment is accessible 

and patients with disabilities do not know what 

the ADA specifically requires at a medical office. 

The lack of enforceable 

standards severely 

curtails access to 

already limited choices 

for medical specialists, 

when needed transfer 

equipment is either 

unavailable or not usable 

because of an inaccessible design. Even the simple 

act of taking a patient’s weight is impossible for a 

wheelchair user unless an accessible scale is made 

available. Public accommodations and government 

entities also need standards to ensure accessibility 

when procuring new furniture and equipment. 

NCD recommends that DOJ promptly adopt 

the U.S. Access Board’s Accessibility Standards 

for Diagnostic Medical Equipment as the 

enforceable standard.

DOJ regulations on the community integration 

mandate have also been delayed and in some 

cases reversed since Promises to Keep. DOJ 

regulations defined the ADA Title II community 

integration mandate in 1991,51 years before 

26 National Council on Disability
Olmstead, but no formal regulations directly 

related to the integration mandate as interpreted 

by the Supreme Court in Olmstead have been 

issued.52 While DOJ has issued sub-regulatory 

guidance documents as a tool to educate public 

entities about their obligations and others about 

their rights under Olmstead, the first formal DOJ 

guidance was not issued until June 2011, 

12 years after the decision.53 This technical 

assistance guidance was developed as part of 

the “Year of Community Living” initiative that 

directed federal agencies to vigorously enforce 

the civil rights of people with disabilities. The 

guidance includes a series of questions and 

answers about Olmstead

enforcement, including 

states’ obligations; actions 

which may give rise to an 

Olmstead violation; an 

explanation of integrated 

versus segregated 

settings; a description of 

the affirmative defense of 

“fundamental alteration”; 

the interplay of Olmstead

and Medicaid; affirmative Olmstead planning by 

public entities; remedies for violations; and 

private enforcement.54

In December 2014, DOJ issued a second 

Olmstead guidance document in partnership 

with the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR) in 

response to concerns raised by the disability 

community about changes in pay and overtime 

requirements for home health care workers.55

DOJ and HHS guidance outlines the ADA and 

Olmstead obligations of states in light of the 

Department of Labor (DOL)’s decision to extend 

federal minimum wage and overtime protection 

to most home health care workers. Some 

The employment systems guidance 

answered many questions with 

respect to the application of the 

integration mandate to employment 

and day programs, including what 

is an integrated versus segregated 

employment setting . . .

states were imposing work hour caps on health 

care workers in response to the DOL wage 

and overtime changes. The guidance makes 

clear that states need to consider reasonable 

modifications, including exceptions to policies 

around work hour caps, to prevent placing 

people at serious risk of institutionalization.56

DOJ issued further guidance in October 2016 

focused on the application of Olmstead to states’ 

employment systems57 to complement and 

supplement the June 2011 Olmstead guidance. 

The employment systems guidance answered 

many questions with respect to the application 

of the integration mandate to employment and 

day programs, including 

what is an integrated 

versus segregated 

employment setting, 

what may give rise to 

an Olmstead violation in 

an employment system, 

and the remedies to 

address violations. DOJ, 

however, withdrew 

this guidance in 

December 2017 “to afford further discussion 

with relevant stakeholders, including public 

entities and the disability community, as to 

how best to provide technical assistance in this 

area.”58 The discussion has not yet occurred 

with all stakeholders. DOJ further noted 

that the withdrawal did not change the legal 

responsibilities of state and local governments 

under the ADA, including Olmstead, and that 

the withdrawal “should not be understood as 

expressing any view on the legal merits of the 

principles set forth in this Statement, or on 

the merit of any specific procedures currently 

in place in any state or local jurisdictions.”59

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 27
Over 200 disability organizations opposed the 

withdrawal of the guidance.60 NCD recommends 

that DOJ reinstate the October 2017 Guidance 

Document on the application of Olmstead to 

state employment systems.

In November 2016, DOJ and HUD’s Office 

of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) 

partnered to issue a guidance document 

entitled “State and Local Land Use Laws and 

Practices and the Application of the Fair Housing 

Act.”61 The joint DOJ-FHEO guidance includes 

a question and answer about how Olmstead

applies to the Fair Housing Act and discusses the 

different protections of the two laws and how 

housing policies can be implemented to comply 

with both.62 The guidance references both DOJ 

and HUD Olmstead resources, and updates and 

expands on a HUD and DOJ “Joint Statement on 

Group Homes, Local Land Use, and the FHA.”63

Most recently, on January 11, 2017, DOJ 

issued welcome guidance relating to the 

application of Title II, including Olmstead, to 

criminal justice systems.64 In the context of 

describing Title II’s requirements, the guidance 

provides helpful examples of how “local law 

enforcement, corrections, and justice system 

leaders have facilitated compliance with this 

obligation,”65 and includes examples of DOJ 

findings letters and settlement agreements 

addressing compliance with Title II in the 

criminal justice context, including Olmstead

settlement agreements.66

In addition to Olmstead guidance, over the 

years DOJ has developed substantial guidance 

28 National Council on Disability
material, which is now readily accessible through 

the DRS-maintained website ADA.gov. In the 

years immediately following passage of the 

ADA, DOJ developed the ADA Title II and Title 

III Technical Assistance Manuals which provided, 

in a more user-friendly format, the requirements 

of the ADA. DRS last updated the manual in 

November 1993.67 DOJ did develop a Supplement 

to the Title II Technical Assistance Manual68

and the Title III Technical Assistance Manual in 

1994.69 NCD recommends that DOJ update the

ADA Title II and Title III Technical Assistance 

Manuals.

Since 1994, most of DOJ’s ADA Guidance 

documents have been topical, ranging from 

“Frequently Asked Questions About Service 

Animals and the ADA,”70 “ADA Update: A 

Primer for Small Business,”71 to “Questions 

and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities 

Act and Persons with HIV/AIDS.”72 Since 

Promises to Keep, DOJ now posts numerous 

ADA enforcement documents on ADA.gov, 

which plaintiffs, defense attorneys, and ADA 

compliance staff find especially useful. These 

enforcement documents include “letters of 

findings” of violations against public entities 

covered under Title II of the ADA, statements 

of interest and amicus briefs filed by DOJ in 

cases brought in federal court by private parties, 

and a number of consent decrees obtained in 

federal cases involving DOJ. The vast majority 

of the enforcement documents posted on ADA.

gov, however, are settlement agreements and 

“letters of resolution” resolving violations by 

numerous entities.

From 1992 to 2005, DOJ posted over 40 ADA 

Title II settlement agreements on ADA.gov, and 

over 80 ADA Title III agreements, along with a 

number of other litigation documents. From 2006 

to the present, DOJ has posted over 65 ADA 

Title II settlements and close to 300 ADA Title 

III settlements or letters of resolution. These 

enforcement documents provide examples of 

areas which fall within the ADA, and detailed 

examples of what entities subject to the ADA 

are required to do.

For instance, a February 5, 2014, letter of 

findings on the Louisiana attorney licensure 

system provides a detailed explanation of a lengthy 

3-year DOJ investigation begun in response to 

a complaint on behalf of a person with a mental 

health disability seeking admission to the Louisiana 

bar.73 DOJ concluded that Louisiana’s practice 

of admitting certain people with mental health 

disabilities under a conditional licensing system is 

prohibited by the ADA, and that three questions 

asked about mental health by the admissions 

committee tended to screen out people with 

disabilities, subjected them to additional burdens, 

and were not necessary to determine whether 

the applicant is fit to practice law. DOJ set forth a 

detailed set of recommended remedial measures 

that Louisiana would need to take to end the ADA 

violation. The letter provides similar entities who 

administer or enforce admissions standards an 

example of the type of applicant questions that run 

afoul of the ADA, as well as providing examples of 

the limited questions that would be permitted.

As another example, DOJ entered into a 

consent decree with tax preparer H&R Block that 

addresses Title III web accessibility.74 DOJ 

intervened in a private case which alleged that 

people who are blind are unable to access the 

information, enjoy the services, or take advantage 

of the benefits offered through H&R Block’s 

website in violation of Title III.75 H&R Block agreed 

under the consent decree to designate a web 

accessibility coordinator, develop a web 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 29
accessibility policy, train its customer service staff, 

mandate training for employees involved in the 

website development, conduct accessibility 

testing, develop a priority response to fix 

problems, and to have its websites comply with 

the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 

Level A and AA Success Criteria (“WCAG 2.0 AA”) 

as the applicable technical accessibility standard.76

The H&R Block consent decree provides a useful 

example, in the absence of DOJ web accessibility 

regulations, of the reasonable timelines and the 

numerous steps necessary to make websites and 

mobile applications accessible to people with 

disabilities who use assistive technology.

DOJ settlement agreements also provide 

important examples when new technology is 

introduced. DOJ’s 2010 

settlement with Arizona 

State University involved 

the then new use of a 

tablet reader (Kindle) for 

educational materials, 

which was not accessible 

to blind students.77 DOJ 

has also initiated enforcement actions in cases 

involving disabilities that had not been clearly 

recognized as disabilities before the ADAAA. In 

2012 and 2019, DOJ settled with two separate 

universities in which both agreed that the 

university dining service and meal plans needed 

to make reasonable modifications for students 

with celiac disease or food allergies.78

While the enforcement documents available 

on ADA.gov are useful, it is very difficult to 

find specific topics. Currently, while some 

documents are posted specifically to certain 

webpages, such as Olmstead letters and 

agreements, and information on the Assistive 

Technology, Barrier-Free Health Care (which does 

DRS should improve the website to 

make it easier to find enforcement 

documents on specific topics as 

it has done with the Olmstead

webpage.

not include its accessible medical equipment 

settlements), Employment, HIV/AIDs, and 

Project Civic Access webpages, DRS simply 

posts the many documents under Title I, Title 

II or Title III, and Section 504 in no apparent 

order. DRS should improve the website to make 

it easier to find enforcement documents on 

specific topics as it has done with the Olmstead

webpage. As an illustration, all service animal 

enforcement documents should be under 

one general topic with subtopics on issues 

involving service animals in various settings 

such as schools, medical facilities, hotels, and 

restaurants. Similarly, auxiliary aides and services 

and effective communications enforcement 

documents should be arranged first by topic, 

and then by setting such 

as medical facilities, 

nursing homes, jails, 

and schools. NCD 

recommends that DRS 

significantly reorganize 

the enforcement 

documents (letters of 

findings, letters of resolutions, settlement 

agreements, and consent decrees) available 

on ADA.gov by topic and setting type, as well 

as alphabetically and by date.

Proactive and Reactive Strategies

Promises to Keep recommended that DOJ as a 

whole, and DRS specifically, create a strategic 

plan with a focused strategy on ADA Titles II and 

III enforcement.79 DOJ operates under a general 

5-year strategic plan, but the current plan has no 

specific strategy to enforce the ADA. The FY 

2014–FY 2018 DOJ strategic plan included 

disability rights in regard to hate crimes, housing 

discrimination, and education, as well as to 

30 National Council on Disability
protect ADA rights under the broad objective to 

“promote and protect American civil rights by 

preventing and prosecuting discriminatory 

practices.”80 The FY 2007–FY 2012 strategic plan 

provided slightly less mention of disability, but did 

include under the objective to “Uphold the civil 

and constitutional rights of all Americans,” a 

continued vigorous investigation and prosecution 

of ADA violations, housing discrimination involving 

people with disabilities among other groups, and 

a mention of Project Civic Access which has 

emerged as an important tool to achieve ADA 

compliance by state and local governments.81

The current DOJ strategic plan for FY 2018–

FY 2022 does not mention disability rights 

enforcement. The 

strategic plan “describes 

the priorities of [DOJ] 

over the next five years,” 

provides guidance to 

DOJ staff, informs DOJ’s 

relationship with other 

jurisdictions, and “sets 

expectations for the 

American public about the nature of the work 

[DOJ] will undertake.”82 It is a concern that, 

despite the continued inaccessibility and other 

challenges faced by people with disabilities, 

DOJ removed enforcement of disability rights 

from the Department’s strategic plan. NCD 

recommends that DOJ maintain disability 

rights enforcement as a priority and amend 

the current Strategic Plan to include disability 

rights as such.

Promises to Keep recommended that 

DOJ increase compliance reviews and “make 

creative use of accessibility surveys, testers, 

and other proactive techniques” to address ADA 

violations.83 DOJ has reviewed the accessibility 

It is a concern that, despite the 

continued inaccessibility and 

other challenges faced by people 

with disabilities, DOJ removed 

enforcement of disability rights from 

the Department’s strategic plan.

of certain public facilities under Project Civic 

Access, and individual U.S. Attorney’s Offices 

(USAOs) have found unique ways to tackle 

violations of disability rights specific to a locality. 

As with other aspects of DOJ’s enforcement, 

however, the effort has not been consistent over 

time, setting up the possibility of backsliding 

on enforcement and the successes already 

achieved.

In February 2001, “The New Freedom 

Initiative” was launched as “a comprehensive 

program to promote the full participation of 

people with disabilities in all areas of society by 

increasing access to assistive and universally 

designed technologies, expanding educational 

and employment 

opportunities, and 

promoting increased 

access into daily 

community life.”84 To 

implement this initiative, 

Executive Order 13217 

directed the Attorney 

General to “fully 

enforce” Title II of the ADA.85 In addition to the 

direct work of the DRS, USAOs are involved 

in ADA enforcement either through the U.S. 

Attorneys Program for ADA Enforcement in 

which the USAO leads the enforcement effort 

with assistance from DRS, or through a joint 

partnership between DRS and an individual 

USAO.

Around the same time as the New Freedom 

Initiative, in 2000 DRS began to conduct 

compliance reviews under Project Civic Access. 

Under Project Civic Access, DRS requests data 

from state and local government entities 

throughout the country and conducts physical 

surveys of facilities owned or leased by these 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 31
entities. The initial reviews focused largely 

on architectural accessibility of smaller local 

government buildings and text telephone (TTY) 

access to PSAPs. In 2004 and 2005, DRS 

completed and entered into its largest number 

of Project Civic Access agreements which 

included a number of larger cities and counties. 

Over time, the scope of the reviews has 

expanded to include emergency preparedness 

plans; accessibility of shelters; state and local 

government website accessibility; polling place 

accessibility; and any employment practices of 

these entities which might discriminate against 

people with disabilities.

Between FY 2001 and FY 2018, DRS 

completed a total 

of 225 Project Civic 

Access reviews in all 50 

states, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico. DRS conducted a 

project high 41 reviews 

in calendar year 2004 

and 35 in 2005. The number of completed 

reviews, however, has dropped significantly 

in recent years, and since 2012 the number 

of reviews annually have typically been in the 

single digits. With so few Project Civic Access 

reviews each year, people with disabilities in 

cities and counties face the potential of being 

left without accessible government services. 

NCD recommends the DRS significantly 

increase the number of Project Civic Access 

reviews to the levels conducted between 

2001 and 2005 and obtain more agreements 

with state and local governments to ensure 

access to public facilities for people with 

disabilities.

DRS has undertaken relatively few 

ADA Title III compliance reviews that 

were not prompted by a complaint 

and an investigation, based on 

information available to NCD.

DRS has undertaken relatively few ADA Title 

III compliance reviews that were not prompted 

by a complaint and an investigation, based on 

information available to NCD. Some USAOs 

have initiated compliance reviews. The highest 

profile reviews were initiated by the USAO 

for the Southern District of New York in 2005 

when it surveyed the accessibility of 60 hotels 

in Manhattan’s Theater District.86 Following 

these reviews, most of the hotels voluntarily 

agreed to bring their properties into compliance 

with the ADA, but the USAO brought cases in 

federal court against five hotels that refused 

to comply.87 According to DOJ, 16 out of the 

93 USAOs have initiated some compliance 

reviews of public 

accommodations in their 

jurisdictions.

Promises to Keep

recommended DOJ 

take a “proactive 

leadership role” to 

implement Olmstead,

88

but DOJ made limited efforts in the first 

decade following the decision. Prior to 2010, 

DRS assisted in only one private Olmstead

case through the submission of a statement 

of interest to a federal court.89 SPL began to 

include limited Olmstead claims after Executive 

Order 13217 in cases brought under CRIPA90

involving illegal conditions at publicly operated 

institutions. SPL’s Olmstead claims focused on 

the process for discharging people from the 

institution(s) at issue and monitoring people as 

they transitioned to the community.91

Beginning with the “Year of Community 

Living” initiative in June 2009, federal agencies 

were charged to take steps to increase access 

32 National Council on Disability
to community services and integrated housing, 

and DOJ launched a new emphasis on 

community living and Olmstead enforcement.92

CRT included Olmstead enforcement as an 

area of focus,93 and made staffing decisions 

to support this priority. CRT further identified a 

dedicated funding stream to support Olmstead

enforcement from the Health Care Fraud and 

Abuse Control (HCFAC) Program,94 which 

continues to be utilized.

Competent and Credible 

Investigative Process and 

Enforcement Action

The most serious concern regarding DOJ’s 

enforcement of disability rights is the lack of 

public data by which 

to assess how DRS 

accepts, handles, and 

investigates disability 

rights complaints 

received from the 

public and other federal 

agencies. According to what DOJ states is 

“longstanding Department policy,” it has not 

provided statistics on the number of disability 

rights complaints received per year; the number 

of complaints investigated or referred to 

mediation; the number of referrals from other 

federal agencies; the number of complaints 

dismissed for lack of merit or administrative 

reasons; or the number resolved through 

mediation. The lack of publicly available data 

significantly restricts a proper assessment 

of DOJ’s ADA enforcement efforts. NCD 

recommends that Congress requires DOJ to 

collect and make available comprehensive 

statistical information about the number of 

The lack of publicly available 

data significantly restricts a 

proper assessment of DOJ’s ADA 

enforcement efforts.

disability rights complaints received by DOJ 

and the outcome of such complaints on at 

least an annual basis.

CRT provided some of this information for the 

Promises to Keep report, but now states it no 

longer makes such information publicly available. 

Nearly 20 years later, even with the availability of 

some data for Promises to Keep, that report still 

recommended that DOJ dramatically improve 

its data collection and analysis of disability 

complaints, and provide statistics on complaint 

processing similar to the EEOC.95 With even 

less data available today, there is a significant 

setback in the transparency of the overall ADA 

enforcement efforts by DOJ.

CRT did provide statistical information 

on the resolution of 

enforcement matters 

undertaken either by 

CRT directly and through 

USAOs between FY 

2008 and FY 2018. The 

resolutions are classified 

as resulting in letters of resolution, settlement 

agreements, or consent decrees. A small handful 

of cases were settled after being filed by DOJ in 

federal court.

Promises to Keep recommended a strong 

mediation program, and CRT does refer disability 

rights complaints to mediation. CRT reported that 

more than 80 percent of disability complaints 

referred to meditation are resolved, but it does 

not release the actual number of complaints 

referred to or resolved through mediation. With 

no information on how many disability rights 

complaints are actually handled through mediation, 

it is impossible to assess the effectiveness 

of mediation within the overall CRT disability 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 33
rights enforcement mechanism. In addition, 

mediation agreements are confidential, and DRS 

assigns responsibility for ensuring that mediation 

agreements comply with the ADA to the contract 

mediator, Key Bridge Foundation. DRS trains 

Key Bridge Foundation mediators on the ADA, 

including the 2010 accessibility standards, and 

provides the contractor with information and 

clarification upon request. DOJ does not, however, 

conduct audits to ensure mediation agreements 

comply with the ADA. NCD recommends that 

Congress require DOJ to establish strong 

oversight of the ADA mediation program to 

include audits of the work of the contract 

mediator on a regular basis. The absence of 

publicly available statistical data on disability 

rights complaints, investigations, mediation, and 

resolutions by DOJ, leaves data DOJ provided 

to NCD about resolution of actual enforcement 

matters as the only statistical way to assess the 

Department. This limited analysis offers a very 

incomplete picture of DOJ’s enforcement of 

disability rights laws.

CHART 1: DOJ Resolution of ADA Enforcement Matters by Fiscal Year

As indicated in Chart 1, wide variation exists 

in the resolution of ADA enforcement matters 

by DOJ between FY 2008 and FY 2018. DOJ 

resolved a very large number of cases through 

letters of resolution in FY 2012, a year in which 

DOJ also resolved a total of 226 disability 

enforcement matters, the most in the 11-year 

period considered. Following this peak year, 

DOJ successfully resolved on average 106 

disability rights matters per year from FY 2013 

to FY 2018, which represents 59 fewer resolved 

matters per year than during the FY 2008 to FY 

2012 period.

While the level of DOJ’s effort in the 

enforcement of disability rights, as measured 

by the numbers of cases resolved and filings 

in court is inconsistent over time, the overall 

sophistication and comprehensiveness of 

DOJ settlement agreements have significantly 

improved. This is particularly true with cases on 

issues such as the reasonable accommodation 

obligations of day care facilities, camps, schools, 

and universities.

34 National Council on Disability
DOJ has also improved settlement agreements 

in the context of correctional facilities. For 

example, in February 2001, DOJ entered into a 

settlement agreement with the Fairfax County, 

Virginia Sheriff’s Office for not providing a Deaf 

detainee with an American Sign Language (ASL) 

interpreter after his arrest, not enabling him to 

make a telephone call, and not attempting to 

communicate with him through written notes.96

The settlement agreement was only 951 words 

long and required just a handful of changes in 

jail policies and staff training. In comparison, 

DOJ settled a case in 2016 which involved a 

Deaf detainee held in the 

Arlington County, Virginia, 

jail for over a month 

without auxiliary aids and 

services to communicate, 

and who underwent a 

medical exam without 

his consent. The 

settlement agreement 

with the Arlington 

County Sheriff’s Office 

is 10,160 words long with 

66 detailed paragraphs. 

The agreement contains requirements for 

evaluating a detainee’s need for auxiliary aids and 

services from booking to housing, for medical 

assessments, for classification and eligibility for 

legal representation, and for discussions about 

making bond for release, along with other details. 

The settlement also provided for significant 

compensatory monetary damages to the 

individual.97

DOJ has also learned to adapt its settlement 

agreements as technology changes. After the 

introduction of Video Remote Interpreting 

(VRI) services in the early 2000s, in 2006 DOJ 

While the level of DOJ’s effort 

in the enforcement of disability 

rights, as measured by the 

numbers of cases resolved and 

filings in court is inconsistent over 

time, the overall sophistication 

and comprehensiveness of DOJ 

settlement agreements have 

significantly improved.

intervened in a private case against a hospital 

involving effective communications. DOJ 

negotiated a consent decree which approved 

the hospital to use VRI services as an auxiliary 

aid, noting that such services “can provide 

immediate, effective access to interpreting 

services seven days per week, twenty-four 

hours a day in a variety of situations including 

emergencies and unplanned incidents.”98 In 

a 2007 settlement with another health care 

provider, DOJ added language that VRI services 

“can also be used as a stop-gap measure until 

a qualified interpreter is available.”99 DOJ set 

some conditions in the 

agreement on when 

video interpreting could 

be used which were later 

included in DOJ’s 2010 

regulations on VRI.

In the years since, 

DOJ has learned that 

hospitals have sought 

to rely exclusively on 

VRI and not use inperson interpreters, thus 

requiring an adjustment 

in DOJ’s strategy. In DOJ’s most recent 2018 

settlement agreements involving effective 

communications, it states that “VRI shall not be 

used when it is not effective due, for example, 

to a patient's limited ability to move his or her 

head, hands or arms; vision or cognitive issues; 

significant pain; or due to space limitations in 

the room. If, based on the circumstances, VRI is 

not providing effective communication . . . VRI 

shall not be used as a substitute for an on-site 

interpreter. . . .”100

DOJ settlement agreements have further 

moved from addressing flagrant violations to 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 35
addressing the contours of specific rights. Early 

DOJ settlements involving child care, camps, and 

schools dealt with the outright exclusion of 

children with certain disabilities.101 More recent 

cases, however, have focused on specific 

discrimination involving the refusal of these types 

of entities to modify policies and practices for 

children with specific disabilities. As illustration, 

recent DOJ settlement agreements have 

remedied the refusal of universities, child care 

centers, and camps to allow nonmedical 

personnel to administer medications to children or 

to adjust meal plans to 

accommodate children 

with certain disabilities.102

In one settlement, a day 

camp agreed to train staff 

on the use of a new 

emergency medication to 

treat seizures designed for 

administration by 

nonmedical personnel as a 

reasonable modification of 

camp policies.103

DOJ has focused 

enforcement efforts on 

patterns and practices 

of disability discrimination as seen through 

settlement agreements with national chains of 

schools and day care providers,104 and through 

both DOJ direct lawsuits and support of private 

litigants in cases involving the refusal of testing 

centers to provide reasonable accommodations. 

DOJ successfully defended its 2010 ADA 

regulations which required testing and licensing 

entities to provide accommodations that “best 

ensure” that the test measures knowledge or 

skill, and not disability.105 DOJ also intervened 

in private litigation challenging the Law School 

Of the 26 matters listed on the ADA 

Access-Technology/Enforcement 

webpage, only two are affirmative 

DOJ web accessibility federal cases, 

and in both cases DOJ intervened 

after the cases had initially been 

filed by private plaintiffs. Early DOJ 

settlements involving child care, 

camps, and schools dealt with the 

outright exclusion of children with 

certain disabilities.

Admissions Council’s (LSAC) alleged failure to 

provide testing accommodations when needed 

so that the Law School Admissions Test meets 

the ADA standard,106 which resulted in a consent 

decree.107

Other notable pattern and practice 

discrimination cases included a comprehensive 

settlement agreement with Wells Fargo in 

2011.108 DRS investigated a complaint alleging that 

Wells Fargo refused to conduct business over 

the phone with people with hearing and speech 

disabilities, and further uncovered that the bank 

failed to provide financial 

documents in alternate 

formats, did not provide 

appropriate auxiliary 

aids and services for 

in-person meetings, and 

did not remove barriers 

for people with mobility 

disabilities.

DRS’s enforcement 

activities have been 

limited in the area of web 

accessibility of public 

accommodations, 

although it has focused 

attention on enforcing the ADA regarding 

accessible technology for people with visual and 

reading disabilities. Of the 26 matters listed on 

the ADA Access-Technology/Enforcement 

webpage, only two are affirmative DOJ web 

accessibility federal cases, and in both cases 

DOJ intervened after the cases had initially been 

filed by private plaintiffs.109 One of the two web 

accessibility cases in which DRS intervened, a 

2015 case against Miami University of Ohio, 

involved web-based and other digital technology 

that was not accessible to students with visual 

36 National Council on Disability
disabilities.110 Miami University eventually agreed 

to make significant improvements to ensure that 

technologies across all its campuses are 

accessible, to reform its technology procurement 

practices, and to compensate students with 

disabilities for the violations.111 DRS has filed 

statements of interest in a significant number of 

matters in the areas of web accessibility and 

accessible technology that have resulted in 

significant accessibility improvements by both 

private and public entities. DRS filed a statement 

of interest in 2012 in support of plaintiffs in a case 

against Netflix for the lack of captioning on the 

“watch instantly” streaming service.112 The 

parties eventually settled, with Netflix agreeing to 

ensure 100 percent closed captioning within 

2 years.

In terms of Olmstead

enforcement, CRT 

conducts extensive 

investigations before 

making a determination 

that a public entity 

has violated Olmstead. Investigations typically 

involve review of documents and data provided 

by the public entity in response to requests 

for information; visits to the facility or facilities 

at issue by CRT staff with experts to evaluate 

policies, interview staff, and observe people; 

visits by CRT staff along with experts to 

evaluate community services; and meetings 

with impacted people, including people with 

disabilities and their families, providers, and state 

and local disability advocacy organizations.113

If CRT finds a violation of federal law 

pursuant to CRIPA, it sends a letter notifying 

the public entity of the conclusions of the 

investigation, the facts supporting these 

findings, and the steps necessary to remedy 

In terms of Olmstead enforcement, 

CRT conducts extensive investigations 

before making a determination that a 

public entity has violated Olmstead.

the violations.114 Similarly, if CRT finds a violation 

of the ADA, it issues a findings letter following 

ADA enforcement procedures.115 Since FY 

2008, CRT issued a total of 22 letters of finding 

involving a CRIPA disability rights matter, with 

most issued between FY 2008 to FY 2011. No 

letters of finding have been issued under CRIPA 

involving disability in FYs 2015, 2017, and 2018. 

NCD recommends that the Disability Rights 

and Special Litigation Sections increase their 

investigations and enforcement activities 

around Olmstead violations in facilities 

covered under the ADA and CRIPA.

The volume of CRT’s Olmstead enforcement 

work has decreased since the end of 2016. 

From FY 2009 to FY 2016, CRT issued 16 

Olmstead letters of 

finding and entered 

into 11 settlement 

agreements. Since 2016, 

CRT issued investigative 

conclusions in only one 

new Olmstead case, 

involving people with psychiatric disabilities in 

nursing facilities in Louisiana.116 At the end of 

2016, a number of letters of finding had been 

issued and CRT was in negotiations with the 

public entities. Out of these, two have settled, 

the Louisiana nursing facilities case mentioned 

above117 and an out-of-court settlement in May 

2019 involving youth with psychiatric disabilities 

in residential treatment centers in West 

Virginia.118 CRT is pursuing resolution of its 

investigation of South Dakota involving people 

with a range of disabilities in nursing facilities. 

CRT continues to monitor, and when necessary, 

enforce the terms of existing Olmstead

agreements, such as in North Carolina119 and 

New York.120 CRT continues to litigate Olmstead

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 37
cases that were filed up to the end of 2016, 

including cases about people with intellectual 

disabilities in nursing facilities in Texas,121

students with disabilities in a segregated 

educational program in Georgia,122 adults with 

serious mental disabilities in Mississippi,123 and 

children with disabilities in nursing facilities 

in Florida.124

The structure of CRT’s Olmstead settlement 

agreements has also varied. Prior to 2009, 

CRT structured some agreements between 

CRT and the public entity related to people 

with disabilities in institutions as a settlement 

agreement or a Memorandum of Understanding 

(MOU). In those matters, federal courts did 

not typically retain jurisdiction to enforce the 

settlement agreement or MOU. If problems 

with adherence to the agreement arose, CRT 

would need to enforce under contract law or 

by refiling the lawsuit. Also prior to 2009, CRT 

used a mix of external independent monitors 

and compliance monitoring by DOJ and its 

retained experts. The MOU sometimes would 

further typically end on a set date regardless of 

whether the public entity had complied with all 

of its obligations.125

Beginning in 2009, CRT Olmstead settlement 

agreements were often filed in federal court, 

with a request that the court retain jurisdiction 

for enforcement. The agreements included 

an external court monitor or independent 

reviewer to evaluate and report on the status of 

compliance. Settlement agreements would only 

terminate upon a court finding that the public 

entity was in substantial compliance with the 

terms of the agreement as opposed to expiring 

on a predetermined date regardless of the status 

of compliance.126 DOJ has now changed these 

policies.

Changes to DOJ’s use of 

consent decrees

On November 7, 2018, the Attorney General 

issued a memorandum with strict new 

limitations on DOJ’s use of consent decrees 

and settlement agreements involving state 

and local governments, the use of external 

court monitors or independent reviewers, 

and the duration of such agreements.127

The memo reverses a previous practice that 

many settlements were court-enforceable, 

and describes the limited circumstances in 

which DOJ will consider a consent decree that 

requires approval by the political leadership 

of the DOJ litigating division.128 The memo 

also addresses the need to keep the duration 

of settlements limited and provides a 

presumptive limit of no more than 3 years.129

Finally, the memo states that DOJ should 

monitor compliance itself absent unique 

circumstances, and that DOJ’s political 

leadership must approve any use of court 

monitors or independent reviewers, and whose 

work is to be significantly limited if used.130

The November 2018 memorandum is a particular 

concern for Olmstead enforcement since 

settlements in such cases often run longer than 

3 years and involve court monitors. Settlements 

with sufficient compliance time is usually necessary 

in Olmstead cases because of the need to develop 

new community infrastructure and recruit and train 

new providers before people with disabilities can 

move into the community with appropriate 

supports. Person-centered planning and informed 

choice also necessitate longer compliance periods 

38 National Council on Disability
as people being discharged may need to visit and try 

multiple community settings prior to successful 

placement. Lastly, Olmstead settlements usually 

demand data collection and long-range monitoring 

of people who move to the community in order to 

adjust for new services over time and prevent 

readmissions that diminish community participation 

and the exercise of choice. NCD recommends that 

DOJ consider the implications of the November 

2018 memorandum, which places restrictions on 

agreements involving state and local 

governments and excludes application of the 

memorandum in settlements to address any

Olmstead violations.

The CRT Housing and Civil Enforcement Section 

(HCES), along with 

HUD, plays a role in the 

enforcement of the FHA, 

and the ADA in regard to 

public accommodations 

in housing complexes. 

HCES also enforces 

the ADA in relation to 

group homes for people 

with disabilities, including the misuse of zoning 

ordinances in an attempt to prevent group homes 

from being placed in communities. In zoning or land 

use matters, HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity (FHEO) will refer the matter to HCES. 

When FHEO finds a violation in cases not involving 

zoning or land use matters, and either party “elects” 

to pursue the case in federal court, HCES represents 

the federal government in such cases. As discussed 

in Chapter 2, very few FHA cases investigated 

through HUD reach a federal court. Several recent 

cases brought by HCES, however, have dealt with 

service and emotional support animal issues in 

housing and this appears to be an ongoing issue as 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

Person-centered planning and 

informed choice also necessitate 

longer compliance periods as people 

being discharged may need to visit 

and try multiple community settings 

prior to successful placement.

The Criminal Section of CRT now enforces 

two criminal statutes that impact people with 

disabilities. In 2000, Congress passed the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) which 

enhanced the criminal penalties for forced labor 

and commercial sex trafficking, added provisions 

to protect victims, and expanded federal efforts 

to combat human trafficking.131 Since passage 

of the TVPA, the Human Trafficking Prosecution 

Unit of the CRT Criminal Section, in partnership 

with the USAOs, has prosecuted a number of 

perpetrators for both labor and sex trafficking 

who targeted people with disabilities.132 These 

cases have involved horrible exploitation and 

violence against people with developmental 

and mental health 

disabilities.133

In 2009, Congress 

passed the Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act, which 

created a federal crime if 

a perpetrator injures, or 

attempts to injure with a 

deadly weapon, any 

person because of a disability, as well as people 

with other characteristics.134 The Criminal Section 

has prosecuted five cases since 2009 involving 

people with disabilities who were targeted for 

human trafficking, hate crimes, or both. One 

case, U.S. v. Weston et al., involved crimes under 

both the TVPA and the Hate Crimes Prevention 

Act for the targeting of six people with disabilities 

who received Social Security benefits.135 The 

perpetrators locked the victims up in horrific 

conditions, and became the victims’ Social 

Security representative payee in order to steal 

their benefits. Two victims died of malnutrition, 

and two victims were forced into commercial 

sex trafficking.136 NCD recommends that DOJ 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 39
continue to work closely with disability 

advocates to address ways to prevent and 

react to hate crimes and the trafficking of 

people with disabilities.

NCD recommends that Congress commission 

a study on the problem of human trafficking of 

people with disabilities to better understand 

the scope of the problem, methods to prevent 

such trafficking, and ways to best support 

trafficking victims with disabilities.

The CRT Voting Section and DRS share the 

enforcement of voting rights laws which protect 

people with disabilities. Relevant to voters 

with disabilities, the Voting Section enforces 

the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965, the Voting 

Accessibility for the 

Elderly and Handicapped 

Act of 1984, Section 7 

of the National Voter 

Registration Act of 1993 

and Section 301 of the 

Help America Vote Act 

of 2002 which applies 

to federal elections. DRS enforces the ADA to 

ensure that people with disabilities have a full 

and equal opportunity to vote in all elections 

conducted by state and local government 

entities.

DRS has conducted compliance reviews 

of local governments through Project Civic 

Access focused on architectural accessibility 

and entered into settlement agreements with 

localities on access to polling places and other 

local government voting programs. DRS has 

also conducted compliance reviews focused on 

polling place accessibility and accessible voting 

technology and obtained settlement agreements 

The perpetrators locked the victims 

up in horrific conditions, and 

became the victims’ Social Security 

representative payee in order to steal 

their benefits. Two victims died of 

malnutrition, and two victims were 

forced into commercial sex trafficking.

where violations existed. An agreement with the 

Board of Elections of Chicago was particularly 

ambitious because its goal was to ensure every 

Chicago polling place was accessible for the 

2018 election.137 DRS recently entered into a 

settlement agreement to ensure that blind voters 

have access to accessible voting equipment in a 

city election in Concord, New Hampshire.138 DRS 

has also filed suit against several government 

entities that failed to voluntarily agree to provide 

accessible polling places after DRS issued a letter 

of findings.139

The Voting Section receives general training 

on ADA polling place accessibility requirements. 

The section monitors 

local polling places during 

elections, and may 

gather information about 

physical accessibility, 

including curbside voting 

during monitoring if 

related to a statute the 

Voting Section enforces. 

The shared responsibility 

between the DRS and the Voting Section 

regarding the accessibility of polling places and 

voting equipment could result in inefficiency 

in voting rights enforcement for people with 

disabilities. Despite the inefficiency, providing 

Voting Section monitors with more than just basic 

information about physical accessibility to voting 

places under the ADA would at least expand the 

potential for locating violations that prevent people 

with disabilities from voting. NCD recommends 

that DOJ provide expansive training to all 

personnel employed within the Voting Section 

on ADA requirements at polling locations and 

the authority to remedy such violations.

40 National Council on Disability
Timely Resolution of Complaints

CRT stated in response to requests for data on 

the timely resolution of complaints that it no 

longer releases information about the timeliness 

of processing disability complaints. The lack of 

such data prohibits a comparison between the 

average length of time to resolve ADA complaints 

discussed in Promises to Keep and today,140

and further prevents a full assessment of the 

disability rights enforcement efforts of DOJ. NCD 

recommends that Congress require DOJ to 

track and publish data on the timeliness of 

resolving disability rights complaints on an 

annual basis.

DOJ’s Olmstead enforcement activities can 

come from individual complaints, although there 

is no specific data for which to evaluate the 

timeliness of DOJ to resolve Olmstead concerns. 

Olmstead cases can also result from an 

evaluation of information and data, media reports, 

and/or engagement with interested constituents 

and advocates in the state or local jurisdiction 

of interest. Negotiating a complex, statewide 

settlement agreement takes numerous meetings 

involving a range of state officials and takes a 

significant amount of time, often 6 months to 

1 year. One Olmstead findings letter issued by 

CRT in 2016 has yet to be resolved, resulting in 

people with disabilities remaining unnecessarily 

institutionalized.141

Communication with Complainants 

and the Community

DOJ has improved communications with the 

disability community through more information 

on ADA.gov as recommended in Promises to 

Keep.

142 While the organization of the website 

could certainly be improved, it does provide 

more transparency on the outcomes of CRT 

enforcement activities, especially related to 

Olmstead. The website communicates the 

real-world impact of community integration in 

“Faces of Olmstead,” which highlights the stories 

of people who have been impacted by DOJ’s 

Olmstead enforcement.143 Critically, the website 

includes information on how to file a disability 

rights complaint with DOJ.

In addition to ADA.gov, CRT maintains a 

separate website with information on each CRT 

section. A person can file a complaint about 

disability or other rights violations online through 

the CRT website, the CRT complaint phone line, 

the DOJ ADA information line, or through mail or 

in some cases email. The CRT website includes 

prominent icons about how to contact CRT and 

how to file a complaint, contains information in 

10 common languages, provides phone numbers 

for how to contact CRT for interpreter assistance, 

and directs people to an online complaint process 

on ADA.gov. The website includes information 

about how to request an accommodation as part 

of the complaint process with the DRS, but the 

accessibility information is not prominent and 

is only on the DRS webpage. While the online 

complaint process is adequate, the website 

scores between a high school and college 

grade reading level—too high for a person with 

certain intellectual or cognitive disabilities.144

NCD recommends that DOJ simplify the 

language on its website to enable people with 

intellectual and other cognitive disabilities 

to effectively use the website and file a 

complaint.

NCD recommends that all DOJ websites 

that explain the filing of complaints 

prominently indicate how to request a 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 41
reasonable accommodation as part of 

the description.

The CRT complaint line contains useful 

information for people with disabilities such 

as how to request materials in alternative 

formats, how to request interpreter assistance, 

how to identify the appropriate CRT section in 

which to file a complaint, and other assistance 

in communicating with CRT. The complaint 

line, however, contains mostly prerecorded 

information, and it is difficult to access a live 

person to request assistance. Furthermore, 

based on tests of the system, when a caller 

selects the option for interpreter services or 

with a complaint-related 

inquiry, the caller is 

subject to waits of over 

an hour, is not informed 

of the wait time, and is 

frequently disconnected 

after long waits and 

before a CRT agent 

answers the line. The 

complaint line states the 

caller may need to leave 

a voicemail, but based 

on tests, the system does not provide an option 

for how to leave a message. In contrast, the ADA 

information phone line had much shorter wait 

times, with about 20 minutes based on tests to 

reach a live agent. NCD recommends that CRT 

improve the complaint phone line by reducing 

wait times, informing callers about the wait 

time, and allowing for easier access to an 

agent.

CRT has always had some level of 

communications and engagement with people 

who have an interest in Olmstead enforcement 

activities, which includes presentations at 

. . . when a caller selects the option 

for interpreter services or with a 

complaint-related inquiry, the caller 

is subject to waits of over an hour, 

is not informed of the wait time, 

and is frequently disconnected after 

long waits and before a CRT agent 

answers the line.

conferences with states, people with disabilities, 

and disability advocates. Transparency and 

sharing information about its work, however, 

could not be described as a priority during the 

first decade after the Olmstead decision.145 In a 

number of early OImstead cases, people with 

an interest in the case were surprised by, and 

in some cases even objected to, the settlement 

agreements reached after an investigation.146

Beginning in 2010, CRT increased engagement 

with interested constituents and the broader 

community in all stages of enforcement. In a 

2012 memo, CRT described the importance of 

such engagement in its litigation, the framing of 

settlement agreements, 

and the creation of 

remedies to ensure the 

sustainability of systemic 

changes.147

Strategic Litigation

DOJ’s litigation efforts 

involve filing cases 

directly in federal court, 

submitting a statement 

of interest or an amicus 

brief in a case filed by private parties, or seeking 

to intervene in cases filed by private parties. 

Promises to Keep recommended DOJ pursue 

a more aggressive litigation program; however, 

DOJ’s litigation efforts involving disability rights 

has been inconsistent, and the rollercoaster of 

such enforcement can result in a relapse of gains 

achieved or a failure to appropriately react to 

emerging areas of discrimination.

As shown in Chart 2, in FY 2008, DOJ filed 

a total of 3 statements of interest and amicus 

briefs in support of ADA private litigants, and a 

total of 6 in FY 2009.148 DOJ’s activity increased 

42 National Council on Disability
CHART 2: DOJ Statements of Interest and Amicus Briefs Filed in Disability Rights 

Cases by Fiscal Year

significantly to 31 statements of interest and 

amicus briefs in FY 2010. The numbers then 

declined in FY 2012 but remained stable for 

several years as DOJ filed around 20 to 25 such 

documents in support of private litigants each 

year. This effort slid back to FY 2009 levels 

with only 6 filings in FY 2017 and just 10 in 

FY 2018.

Between FY 2008 and FY 2018, as shown in 

Graph 1, DOJ only occasionally sought to join 

in ADA and Rehabilitation Act private cases in 

federal court,149 but as with other enforcement 

techniques, over time DOJ has been inconsistent 

in this practice. DOJ intervention peaked in FY 

2010 and FY 2011 with requests to join in 10 and 

9 cases respectively. Since that time, the number 

has steadily dropped to no more than 2 or 3 

requests a year.

Similarly, DOJ’s own disability rights litigation 

in federal court has been inconsistent over time. 

Between FY 2009 and FY 2018, DOJ filed on 

average 12 disability rights cases in federal court 

per year. DOJ cases filed under the ADA, the 

Rehabilitation Act, and CRIPA involving disability 

peaked at 22 cases in FY 2013 and 19 cases 

in FY 2016, and then declined to 8 cases filed 

in FY 2017 and 5 in FY 2018. One new CRIPA 

litigation involving disability has been filed since 

FY 2013. CRT indicated that since 2010, SPL has 

focused on systemic ADA violations, rather than 

conditions in specific facilities covered by CRIPA, 

which accounts for the drop in CRIPA disabilities 

cases. Nevertheless, the current trend is toward 

less DOJ involvement in disability rights litigation. 

NCD recommends that DOJ increase and 

maintain greater consistency in its litigation 

efforts involving disability rights.

In terms of the substance of DOJ litigation, 

DRS has relied heavily on strategic Olmstead

litigation for systemic change and to develop 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 43
GRAPH 1: DOJ Litigation Activity in Disability Rights Cases by Fiscal Year

federal court interpretations of the integration 

mandate.150 Of the 100 statements of interest 

or amicus briefs filed between 2009 and 2016, 

43 involved Olmstead cases based on a count 

by NCD researchers of 

the number of such 

documents posted to 

ADA.gov that involve 

Olmstead compliance. 

These filings covered 

a wide range of issues, 

including the legal 

standard to prove 

that a person is “at 

risk” of institutionalization, the application of 

Title II’s fundamental alteration defense, the 

requirements for Olmstead planning, and the 

ability of a private person to enforce Olmstead.

151

CRT has filed no Olmstead statements of 

interest since the end of FY 2016. NCD 

recommends that DOJ file statements of 

interest, where appropriate, in support of 

private Olmstead cases 

in federal court.

Starting in FY 2009, 

CRT began to shift its 

existing investigations 

and litigation to move 

away from a focus on 

improving institutional 

conditions and toward 

directly enforcing the 

right to community living. CRT made this shift in 

United States v. Georgia, when it began a CRIPA 

investigation in 2007 focused on the conditions 

in Georgia’s state hospitals for people with 

In terms of the substance of DOJ 

litigation, DRS has relied heavily 

on strategic Olmstead litigation for 

systemic change and to develop 

federal court interpretations of the 

integration mandate.

44 National Council on Disability
psychiatric or intellectual disabilities.152 The parties 

negotiated a settlement agreement in January 

2009 focused primarily on improving conditions 

at the state hospitals153 which was opposed 

by disability advocates and other interested 

people.154 On October 19, 2010, CRT and Georgia 

reached a new agreement primarily focused on 

expanding community services.155 The settlement 

required expansion of specific community 

services statewide within certain timeframes, 

including a range of crisis services, assertive 

community treatment (ACT) teams, supported 

housing, and community-based waivers slots 

for people with intellectual disabilities. It also 

contained obligations to prevent the admission 

of people to state hospitals (and the eventual 

prohibition of admission of any children or people 

with intellectual disabilities) and for helping 

transition people currently in state hospitals back 

to the community.

CRT also broadened CRIPA investigations 

of public institutions to focus on Olmstead

compliance. For example, in 2010 CRT 

expanded CRIPA investigations of conditions 

at state facilities to include an evaluation of 

the community service system for people with 

intellectual and developmental disabilities in 

Virginia, and with mental health disabilities in 

Delaware, and each state’s compliance with 

Olmstead.

156 These two investigations eventually 

led to Olmstead-focused letters of finding which 

sought not only improvement in treatment 

and discharge planning at the institutions at 

issue, but also statewide expansion of critical 

community-based services necessary to help 

people transition out of institutions and to 

prevent their admissions to the institution in 

the first place.157 These cases eventually led to 

some of CRT’s first comprehensive Olmstead

settlement agreements.158 The Delaware 

agreement has been fully implemented.159

CRT has also sought out opportunities to 

intervene in private Olmstead cases. CRT 

intervened in 2009 in a private Olmstead

challenge to New York’s segregation of people 

with mental health disabilities in institutional 

adult homes.160 CRT, the private plaintiffs, and the 

State eventually reached a systemic settlement 

to expand integrated housing and community 

supports for people residing in adult homes.161

Similarly, in 2011–2012, CRT intervened in private 

Olmstead litigation in New Hampshire regarding 

people with mental health disabilities in, or 

at risk of, entering the state’s public nursing 

facility and psychiatric hospital,162 and in private 

Olmstead litigation in Texas regarding people 

with intellectual and developmental disabilities 

in or at risk of entering nursing facilities.163 The 

New Hampshire case resulted in a settlement 

agreement,164 and the Texas case went to trial 

in November 2018 after an interim agreement165

ended without a final agreement.166

CRT has strategically used litigation to address 

the wide range of setting and circumstances in 

which people with disabilities are segregated. 

Prior to 2010, most Olmstead cases focused on 

people segregated in state-operated institutions, 

but since that time CRT has used its cases to 

expand the reach of Olmstead. CRT has brought 

Olmstead litigation to challenge the segregation 

of people in publicly funded, privately operated 

institutions like nursing facilities and board and 

care homes,167 and litigated or filed a statement 

of interest on behalf of people who are at serious 

risk of segregation, including due to long waitlists 

or service cuts.168 CRT has challenged the 

segregation of people not only in where they live, 

but in how they spend their days, including 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 45
segregation in sheltered workshops and day 

habilitation programs.169 CRT has expanded the 

reach of Olmstead to cover the segregation of 

students with disabilities in separate educational 

programs.170 Finally, CRT has included Olmstead

in some of its criminal justice work, such as in 

the segregation of prisoners with disabilities in 

solitary confinement171 and policing practices that 

lead to the unnecessary confinement of people 

with disabilities (particularly people experiencing 

mental health crises) in prisons and jails.172

CRT’s Olmstead settlement agreements 

overall have succeeded in making significant, 

systemic changes to states’ disability service 

systems to the benefit of tens of thousands of 

people with disabilities. 

Most of CRT’s settlement 

agreements contemplate 

implementation over 

a significant period of 

time—most between 

5 and 10 years—to make 

and sustain the systemwide changes required 

by the agreements.173 The vast majority of CRT’s 

Olmstead settlement agreements are in the 

middle of implementation, with the state meeting 

interim benchmarks to, for example, increase 

the capacity of community services, transition 

people into the community, or divert people 

from institutional placements.174 In these cases, 

there is ongoing monitoring and, in most cases, 

regular status reports to the court from external 

monitors or independent reviewers. In contrast 

to the fully implemented Delaware agreement,175

in several Olmstead settlements, states have 

not met significant interim requirements of the 

agreements. CRT has taken enforcement action 

to extend or amend the terms of some of those 

CRT has challenged the segregation 

of people not only in where they live, 

but in how they spend their days, 

including segregation in sheltered 

workshops and day habilitation 

programs.

agreements.176 NCD recommends that DOJ 

continue to emphasize community integration 

and community service delivery requirements 

under Olmstead in any investigation of the 

conditions for people with disabilities within 

a state mental health, nursing, or intellectual 

or developmental disabilities facility.

Interagency Collaboration and 

Coordination

CRT has improved its interagency collaboration 

and coordination since 2000. In 2005, the CRT 

entered into an MOU with the U.S. Department 

of Transportation’s (DOT) Federal Transit 

Administration to coordinate enforcement of 

Section 504 and the ADA 

to ensure accessible 

public transportation for 

people with disabilities.177

Also, under a change 

in the 2010 regulations, 

CRT has the discretion 

to respond directly to 

complaints it receives 

rather than referring to DOT. This permits CRT 

to enforce cases and obtain compensatory relief 

for aggrieved parties as well as civil penalties for 

egregious ADA violations.

The ADA requirements that fleets of bus 

companies Over-the-Road Buses (OTRBs)—buses 

with the passenger compartment over a baggage 

or luggage area—be wheelchair accessible 

increased over the years, first to 50 percent of 

large company fleets by 2006, and then to 100 

percent by 2012. Additionally, by 2012, small bus 

companies were required to provide equivalent 

accessible service with advance notice from 

a passenger. The DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier 

Administration undertook compliance reviews of 

46 National Council on Disability
bus companies and the CRT took enforcement 

action against a number of bus companies that 

did not comply with the ADA requirements. CRT 

has actively enforced the requirements for OTRB 

companies, both large and small.178 CRT entered 

into a nationwide consent decree in 2016 with 

Greyhound Lines, Inc., regarding a pattern and 

practice of ADA violations.179

Both CRT and HHS’s Office of Civil Rights 

(OCR) have jurisdiction over Olmstead

enforcement, although only CRT can bring 

litigation. Implementation of Olmstead involves, 

among other things, access to Medicaid-funded 

home and community-based services (overseen 

by HHS’s Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services [CMS]), affordable integrated housing 

(federal programs overseen by HUD), opportunities 

for competitive integrated employment (federal 

policies overseen by DOL and the Department 

of Education [ED]), and integrated educational 

opportunities (federal policies overseen by ED).

Beginning with the early Olmstead cases 

brought under CRIPA, DOJ has coordinated 

with HHS. For example, CRT worked with 

CMS, which oversees institutional licensing 

and compliance with federal regulations, when 

investigating and implementing violations around 

standards of treatment and discharge planning 

at particular facilities.180 Starting with the Year 

of Community Living initiative and the creation 

of a new Administration on Community Living 

(ACL) within HHS in 2012, the interagency 

collaboration between CRT and HHS deepened. 

CRT has coordinated with ACL, CMS, and HHS 

OCR during its Olmstead investigations, during 

negotiations and implementation of settlement 

agreements, and around litigation filings. CRT 

has also worked closely with HHS on policy and 

guidance related to community living.

One of HHS’s major policy initiatives around 

community living was the creation of the Home 

and Community-Based Services Settings Rule 

(HCBS Rule) finalized in January 2014.181 The 

HCBS Rule provides clear standards for all 

settings for entities receiving HCBS funding, 

including that such entities provide people 

access to the broader community, allow people 

to make decisions about their daily lives, and 

have opportunities for competitive integrated 

employment.182 A stated purpose of the HCBS 

Rule is to help states comply with their obligations 

under Olmstead, although CMS has made 

clear that compliance with the HCBS Settings 

Rule does not necessarily mean the state is in 

compliance with Olmstead.

183 CRT coordinates 

with CMS on implementation of the HCBS Rule 

by 2022. In addition, CRT has worked closely 

with CMS and other agencies within HHS related 

to health and safety in community placements, 

including providing technical assistance related to 

an HHS report on the topics.184

Access to affordable housing is key to 

Olmstead implementation. As a result of the Year 

of Community Living initiative, HUD increased its 

focus on Olmstead and its collaboration with DOJ. 

Working together with CRT, HUD issued a number 

of guidance documents around opportunities for 

states to use federal affordable housing programs 

to meet their Olmstead obligations.185 HUD has 

also assisted CRT in its Olmstead enforcement 

work, including helping identify federal housing 

resources that could be included as part of 

Olmstead settlement agreements.186

When CRT began to expand its Olmstead

enforcement to address segregation in 

employment settings, including sheltered 

workshops, CRT worked closely with the DOL 

Wage and Hour Division (WHD), which oversees 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 47
the subminimum wage provision under 

Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. A 

CRT Olmstead enforcement action against Rhode 

Island was “brought to light by an investigation 

by [WHD], regarding improper subminimum 

wages being paid to people with disabilities 

working at a large sheltered workshop 

provider.”187 When CRT announced an interim 

settlement, WHD revoked the ability of the 

workshop to pay subminimum wages.188 CRT 

also collaborated with WHD in 2015 around 

implementation of regulations relating to the 

wages of home care workers.189 CRT and HHS 

OCR worked in close consultation with WHD to 

develop the previously discussed guidance to 

states about Olmstead

obligations in light of 

the WHD regulations.190

Finally, as CRT has 

expanded its Olmstead

enforcement to look at 

educational segregation, 

it has worked with the 

Department of Education 

(ED), including its Office of Civil Rights and Office 

of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services 

(OSERS). For example, CRT worked with both 

OCR and OSERS during its investigation and 

attempt to resolve its investigation of Georgia’s 

segregated educational system for students with 

behavioral disabilities.191 CRT has also consulted 

with ED on policy issues and guidance that 

impact inclusion of students with disabilities, 

including its August 2016 guidance on in-school 

behavioral supports,192 which was subsequently 

rescinded in December 2018.193 NCD 

recommends that DOJ continue to include 

unnecessary educational segregation as part 

of its Olmstead enforcement work.

The number of recent cases filed by 

HCES regarding emotional support 

and service animals suggests a 

need for greater training on the 

standard applicable under the FHA 

and the differences with the ADA.

Training and Technical Assistance

CRT conducts presentations across the country on 

the requirements of the ADA and the Rehabilitation 

Act, as well as on other issues such as human 

trafficking and hate crimes involving people with 

disabilities. DRS operates the ADA information 

line, which provides technical assistance on federal 

disability rights laws.

The number of public trainings conducted by 

DRS varied each year between FY 2008 and FY 

2018 with no discernable pattern to suggest that 

DRS significantly increased or decreased the 

level of focus on such trainings over that period 

of time. Since FY 2008, DRS public trainings on 

disability rights have been as few as 31 in FY 

2014 to as many as 68 

trainings in FY 2011.

Training and technical 

assistance on the 

applicable housing 

accessible standards 

appears to require more 

resources and effort. 

HCES believes that 

residential building developers and professionals 

seem to misunderstand that the FHA accessibility 

requirements apply to multifamily construction 

and not the ADA. Similarly, HUD reports that 

property owners typically refer to the ADA, not 

the FHA, when assessing whether or not to 

provide a reasonable accommodation. According 

to HUD, this is especially the case concerning 

the applicable standards for emotional support 

and service animals. The number of recent cases 

filed by HCES regarding emotional support and 

service animals suggests a need for greater 

training on the standard applicable under the 

FHA and the differences with the ADA. NCD 

recommends that HCES work closely with 

48 National Council on Disability
HUD to create comprehensive training and 

technical assistance guidance outlining the 

applicability of the FHA and ADA to multifamily 

housing developers, property designers, 

property owners, and managers, and to 

develop methods for effective distribution of 

such assistance.

DRS maintains the ADA information and 

technical assistance line which provides good 

prerecorded information about the ADA. Callers 

can reach a live ADA specialist with little 

reported difficulty and also file a complaint. 

Though the ADA information line is displayed in 

the center of ada.gov, it is not as prominently 

displayed on the separate DRS webpage. The 

number of calls to the ADA information line has 

steadily declined from FY 2012, in which DRS 

received 60,000 calls, to 48,500 calls in FY 

2014 and 42,741 in FY 2018. There is no public 

reason offered for the drop, which is a concern 

if fewer people are learning about disability 

rights under federal law. DRS recently updated 

the operating system of the information line 

which will allow a more detailed assessment 

of the use of the line. NCD recommends that 

DRS conduct a study to better understand 

the steady decline in calls to the ADA 

information line.

Declining ADA information 

line calls

The number of calls to the ADA information 

line has steadily declined from FY 2012, in 

which DRS received 60,000 calls, to 48,500 

calls in FY 2014 and 42,741 in FY 2018.

NCD recommends that DRS prominently 

display information about the ADA information 

line to increase awareness of its benefits to the 

public.

Adequacy of Agency Resources

An analysis of the staffing and budget of the DRS, 

SPL, and other sections of the Civil Rights Division 

is not possible as CRT does not release such 

information at the individual section level. Looking 

solely at the entire CRT budget since FY 2008, in 

constant dollars the Division’s budget has averaged 

around $105 million a year ($140 million on average 

in real dollars).194 Congress enacted a 16 percent 

increase in the CRT budget in FY 2010, but the 

budget level has gradually dropped since that 

time with a large 7 percent drop in FY 2013 (see 

Table A, Appendix A). The CRT FY 2018 budget 

was $102 million in constant dollars ($148 million 

in real dollars). Overall, for most of the period of 

this study, the CRT budget remained within a fairly 

consistent window.

CRT staffing levels were more volatile than 

the budget between FY 2008 and FY 2018 based 

on the number of direct full-time equivalent (FTE) 

positions reported for the Division (see Table 

B, Appendix A). Overall, FTEs at CRT declined 

significantly by 24 percent over this 11-year 

period. While FTEs reported for CRT jumped 

from 715 in FY 2009 to 766 in FY 2010 and then 

to 817 in FY 2011, CRT lost 169 FTEs in FY 2012 

alone, and this decline continued with 540 FTEs 

reported in FY 2018. In only one year between 

FY 2012 and FY 2018 did the FTEs at the CRT 

increase from the prior fiscal year.

Since CRT does not release staffing data by 

section, the direct impact of the rapid staff loss 

in FY 2012 on disability enforcement cannot be 

assessed. CRT reports that the sudden increase 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 49
in resolution of disability rights cases in FY 2012 

(see Chart 1) may have been in part a result of 

the staffing increases the prior 2 years, with 

the resulting significant decrease in resolutions 

starting in FY 2013 a potential result of the staffing 

decline. Nevertheless, the overall CRT staffing 

decline of 175 FTEs since FY 2008, accelerated 

since FY 2012, can only have a negative impact 

on the ability of CRT to enforce federal disability 

rights laws. NCD recommends that Congress 

ensure that DOJ has the resources necessary 

to maintain stable staffing levels within the 

Civil Rights Division to ensure consistent 

disability rights enforcement efforts.

50 National Council on Disability
Chapter 2: U.S. Department of Housing an

Urban Development

Based on the analysis contained in this chapter, 

NCD recommends that HUD:

■ Develop regulations for the application of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act to 

homeownership projects with more than five units.

■ Retain, without change, the 2013 regulations on disparate impact litigation.

■ Make greater use of Secretary Initiated complaints and investigations in disability 

discrimination cases.

■ Maintain the current “affirmatively furthering fair housing” (AFFH) regulations and deadlines, 

and create a collection of data about housing accessibility, segregation or integration 

of people with disabilities, and any disparities to community services for people with 

disabilities.

■ Develop an in-depth training curriculum on disability rights for Fair Housing Assistance 

Program (FHAP) investigators.

■ Train a certain percentage of Fair Housing Equal Opportunity (FHEO) investigators on 

specific disability issues and require the same of the FHAP agencies.

■ Ensure that conciliation policies do not result in people with disabilities being pressured 

into an agreement that significantly dilutes their rights under the Fair Housing Act.

■ Prioritize conducting reviews for compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

■ Make efforts to resolve disability housing rights complaints within the statutory 100-day 

time period.

■ Simplify language on the FHEO website about how to file a complaint and provide 

lengthier time or an automatic saving function to accommodate people with disabilities 

who need more time to complete the online form.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 51
NCD recommends that Congress:

■ Budget the needed funds to adequately staff FHEO to ensure adequate and timely disability 

discrimination investigations and Section 504 reviews.

Overview

The Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) is responsible for the 

enforcement of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1968, more commonly known as the Fair Housing 

Act (FHA). HUD also enforces compliance with 

the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

as applicable to housing. Much of HUD’s work, 

such as supporting the development of affordable 

housing and community development, directly 

impacts the ability of people with disabilities to 

secure suitable, safe, and accessible housing 

within the community. This chapter, however, 

focuses on HUD’s efforts to enforce the FHA 

and to achieve compliance with the ADA and 

Section 504.

HUD program offices are located in 

Washington, D.C., and within 10 HUD regions. 

HUD’s responsibilities range from administering 

community development programs, housing 

mortgage finance, public housing support, 

and enforcement of federal housing and civil 

rights laws.195 The Office of Fair Housing and 

Equal Opportunity (FHEO) is charged with FHA 

enforcement. The FHA prohibits discrimination 

in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, 

other housing-related transactions, or practices 

which otherwise restrict housing availability on 

the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national 

origin,196 and since 1988, disability and familial 

status.197 FHEO investigates fair housing 

complaints, conducts reviews for compliance 

with Section 504 for entities that receive federal 

financial assistance through HUD, and enforces 

Title II of the ADA as it applies to housing-related 

problems.

Regulatory, Sub-Regulatory and 

Policy Guidance

HUD develops regulations and guidance 

documents for programs such as Public and 

Indian Housing, the Housing Choice Voucher 

Program, and the Section 811 Program that affect 

housing choices for people with disabilities. 

HUD promulgates regulations implementing 

Section 504 for recipients of HUD financial 

assistance and for HUD’s own programs, and for 

the FHA, and has issued interpretative guidance 

about these laws, some in conjunction with DOJ.

The Department issued final Fair Housing Act 

Amendments Act regulations related to disability 

within one year of those 1988 amendments to the 

FHA. The regulations included the prohibition on 

disability discrimination, and the obligation to make 

reasonable modifications and accommodations, 

and to establish requirements for accessibility and 

usability in new multifamily housing.198

Since the FHA disability regulations were first 

issued, HUD has revised the regulations to provide 

additional protections for people with disabilities. 

In 2013, HUD issued final regulations establishing 

FHA liability for practices with a discriminatory 

52 National Council on Disability
effect, known as disparate impact, even if the 

housing practice was not motivated by an intent to 

discriminate against a person with a disability.199

Under these rules, a housing provider’s policies 

and practices, or a local government’s zoning laws 

or land use policies, that may have been created to 

be neutral as to disability, yet have a discriminatory 

impact on housing opportunities for people with 

disabilities, are prohibited. In the 2015 case Texas 

Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. 

Inclusive Communities, the U.S. Supreme Court 

agreed that a housing provider may violate the 

FHA for disparate impact, without the need to 

prove an intent to discriminate.200 While 

the Supreme Court did not disturb the 2013 

HUD regulations on disparate impact, in August 

2019 HUD published 

proposed regulations to 

significantly change the 

disparate impact standard 

to place virtually all the 

burden on members of 

protected classes, 

including people with 

disabilities. The regulations, if adopted as 

proposed, would make it much more difficult, if 

not impossible, for persons with disabilities to 

overcome discriminatory effects in housing.201

NCD recommends that HUD retain the 2013 

regulations on disparate-impact discrimination.

In 2016, HUD issued a regulation to clarify 

the requirements under the FHA that housing 

providers “affirmatively further fair housing” 

(AFFH) by reducing barriers to achieve fair 

housing and equal opportunity.202 Under 

the AFFH duty, housing entities must take 

meaningful actions “to overcome the legacy of 

segregation, unequal treatment, and historic lack 

of access to opportunity in housing.”203 As part 

Under the AFFH duty, housing entities 

must take meaningful actions “to 

overcome the legacy of segregation, 

unequal treatment, and historic lack 

of access to opportunity in housing.”

of the AFFH regulations, HUD must collect 

and make publicly available data on patterns of 

integration and segregation, concentrations of 

poverty, disproportionate housing needs, and 

disparities in access to housing opportunities.204

In turn, state and local recipients of HUD funding 

must use this data to take significant actions 

to overcome historic patterns of segregation, 

achieve truly balanced and integrated living 

patterns, promote fair housing choice, and 

foster inclusive communities that are free from 

discrimination. As many people with disabilities 

are also people of color with low income, and 

have faced segregation and difficulties locating 

housing, the AFFH rule could reduce barriers 

and expand housing options for people with 

disabilities.

Under the AFFH 

regulations, entities 

which receive federal 

housing funds were 

required to complete 

an Assessment of Fair 

Housing in staggered 

phases depending on the entities’ funding cycle, 

with the first assessments originally due in 2016. 

HUD has extended the deadlines to comply with 

the AFFH regulation several times since, with the 

latest extension moved until after October 31, 

2020.205 Shortly after a federal court dismissed 

a challenge to the delay, in August 2018,206

HUD indicated it might further revise the AFFH 

process asserting, among several reasons, the 

need to minimize the regulatory burden while 

“more effectively aiding program participants 

to plan for fulfilling their obligation[s,]” focus 

on positive results “rather than on performing 

analysis of community characteristics,” and 

“provide greater local control and innovation.”207

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 53
NCD recommends that HUD maintain the 

current requirements of the AFFH regulations 

and reporting deadline, and issue new

Assessments of Fair Housing Templates which 

would require HUD program participants 

to gather data about housing accessibility, 

segregation or integration of people with 

disabilities, and any disparities in access 

to health care, transportation, education, 

employment, individualized services, and 

other social opportunities for people with 

disabilities.

In a positive move, in 2016 HUD revised 

regulations concerning harassment to better 

explain how harassment of a resident or 

housing applicant may violate the FHA terms 

and conditions of housing. HUD specifically 

added a prohibition on “quid pro quo and hostile 

environment harassment,”208 that applies to 

harassment based on all FHA protected classes. 

People with disabilities are thus protected 

from unwelcome requests or conduct which 

is sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to 

interfere with the availability of housing. For 

example, a housing manager’s persistent 

and abusive comments, using objectionable 

language about the hardships of providing a 

reasonable accommodation, might violate the 

harassment regulation.

For people with disabilities “housing is the 

single biggest barrier to community integration 

and to Olmstead implementation” and NCD 

has recommended that HUD “work to simplify 

other aspects of federal housing programs, 

and support focused advocacy and service 

brokerage for people with disabilities to access 

federally supported housing programs.”209 In 

June 2009, HUD issued a letter to Fair Housing 

Organizations (FHOs) detailing the new Money 

Follows the Person Demonstration Program 

from HHS and urging FHOs to adopt a local 

preference for people transitioning from 

institutions to the community.210 HUD issued 

further guidance on August 11, 2011 to provide 

strategies FHOs can use in their compliance 

and monitoring reviews to ensure public 

housing programs operate in a manner that 

supports the community integration mandate.211

On June 29, 2012, HUD sent a letter to Public 

Housing Authorities titled, “Assisted Housing 

for Persons with Disabilities under Olmstead

Implementation Efforts to Provide CommunityBased Options Rather than Institutional Settings” 

which discussed how to use a housing voucher 

program for people with disabilities who are not 

seniors to transition from institutions. The letter 

also discussed ways to leverage Section 811 

funding to develop and subsidize supportive 

community housing for people with disabilities, 

and to conduct outreach to people in institutions 

to inform them of vacancies on public housing 

waiting lists.212 The Section 811 program is one 

of the largest housing programs for people with 

disabilities who are not seniors.

In 2013, HUD issued a “statement on the 

Role of Housing in Accomplishing the Goals 

of Olmstead and Questions and Answers on 

Olmstead, Section 504 and the ADA Integration 

Mandate.”213 HUD clarified the obligations of 

programs that receive HUD funding assistance 

to comply with Olmstead, and pledged to 

explore how to fund additional scattered site 

integrated housing units and administer existing 

housing units in a manner that provides for more 

opportunities for autonomy, independence, 

and self-determination. The HUD Olmstead

statement and questions and answers document 

were a necessary first step to address how 

54 National Council on Disability
existing HUD programs can be used to provide 

housing in more integrated settings.

HUD guidance documents, however, do not 

offer any new options for accessible, affordable 

housing, and HUD has not sought to change 

existing regulations in a manner designed to 

stimulate new housing. As a result of some 

increased funding from Congress, HUD announced 

new funding for Section 811 Project Rental 

Assistance vouchers which may address some of 

the housing shortage for people with disabilities.214

NCD recommends that HUD continue to 

find ways to use various existing federal 

housing programs to increase the availability of 

community housing for people with disabilities.

While HUD regulations 

may not have been 

revised to stimulate 

new housing, HUD has 

revised some program 

regulations to better 

accommodate people 

with disabilities in existing 

HUD-funded programs. 

HUD now specifically allows the Section 8 

Housing Choice Voucher Program to be used to 

rent in housing settings often used by people 

with disabilities such as single room occupancy 

(SRO),215 congregate facilities,216 group homes,217

and shared housing.218 Gaps, however, still exist 

in HUD’s regulations. There is no requirement 

that multifamily homeownership units which 

receive HUD assistance meet accessibility 

standards to comply with Section 504. In the 

fall of 2002, HUD began the process to develop 

such regulations,219 but withdrew the proposed 

regulations in March 2005.220 No further regulatory 

action has occurred, leaving missing details of 

how multifamily homeownership units assisted 

The HUD Olmstead statement 

and questions and answers 

document were a necessary first 

step to address how existing HUD 

programs can be used to provide 

housing in more integrated settings.

through HUD need to be accessible to comply 

with the Rehabilitation Act. NCD recommends 

that HUD develop and finalize regulations for 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that apply 

to homeownership projects with more than 

five units.

Proactive and Reactive Strategies

The FHA authorizes the HUD Secretary to initiate 

an investigation and file a complaint without 

the need for a person alleging discrimination 

to first contact HUD.221 “Secretary-initiated” 

complaints based on disability are not common. 

HUD filed several complaints in 2011, two of 

which involved multifamily housing that was not 

fully accessible to people 

with disabilities.222

In 2018, HUD filed a 

charge against Epcon 

Communities based 

on a Secretary-initiated 

complaint filed in 2012.

In the case against 

Epcon, HUD asserted that 

the housing developer and its franchisees 

constructed inaccessible multifamily residential 

communities based on the developer’s inaccessible 

designs.223 The charge alleged that Epcon had 

constructed 11 inaccessible multifamily residential 

communities in Ohio, and had mandated the use of 

its inaccessible designs by its franchisees, which in 

turn constructed another 21 inaccessible residential 

communities. Among a wide range of design and 

construction violations, the housing communities 

lacked accessible pedestrian routes to common 

facilities and areas like mailboxes, parking lots, and 

gazebos. Many of the communities contained 

steps for entry into individual housing units; were 

designed with an inaccessible kitchen and 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 55
bathroom; and were built with inaccessible light 

switches, electric outlets, and environmental 

controls.

Design and construction violations continue 

to be ripe for Secretary-initiated complaints 

since people with disabilities may be less aware 

of the FHA’s requirements in this regard, nor have 

the ability to access design and construction 

plans without commencing litigation. HUD has 

continued to send design and construction cases 

to DOJ which has initiated or resolved over 10 

design and construction cases in the past 2 

years.224 NCD recommends that HUD make 

greater use of Secretary-initiated complaints 

and investigations, 

especially in areas 

of possible FHA 

violations of design 

and construction 

requirements, along 

with other disability 

discrimination cases.

Competent and Credible Investigative 

Process and Enforcement Action

FHEO is responsible for investigating complaints 

of housing discrimination based on disability and 

other protected classes covered under the FHA. 

Once a person with a disability files a complaint 

alleging housing discrimination, the complaint is 

handled by either FHEO or what is known as a 

Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) agency. 

The FHA mandates that FHEO refer complaints 

to certified FHAP state and local government 

fair housing enforcement agencies if the agency 

enforces and operates under a law substantially 

similar to the FHA. The FHAP investigates the 

complaint, and if a violation is uncovered, initiates 

enforcement activity.

HUD has continued to send design 

and construction cases to DOJ 

which has initiated or resolved over 

10 design and construction cases in 

the past 2 years.

FHEO has specific regulations concerning 

the initial and continued certification of FHAP 

agencies.225 Currently, FHEO works with 

84 FHAP agencies, of which 35 are statewide 

agencies and the remaining 47 cover a specific 

locality. Under cooperative agreements with 

each FHAP agency, FHEO pays the FHAP 

agency following completion of an investigation 

provided the agency follows all investigative 

procedures and other applicable requirements. 

FHEO may also make additional payments 

to the FHAP agency should the case require 

enforcement efforts after the investigation. 

In locations where no certified FHAP agency 

exists, FHEO conducts 

its own investigation.

Complaints about 

potential housing 

discrimination based 

on disability accounted 

for 44 percent of all 

complaints filed with 

FHEO and the FHAP agencies in FY 2008, 

and that number has increased significantly since 

that time. As indicated in Graph 2, the percentage 

of disability complaints compared to other bases 

of complaints increased to 52.6 percent in FY 

2013 and climbed to 60.3 percent in FY 2018.226 As 

shown in Graph 3, the total number of disability 

complaints fluctuated between FY 2008 and FY 

2018, ranging from a low of 4,371 in FY 2012, 

to a high of 4,949 in FY 2016. FHEO staff were 

unsure of the reason for the continued upward 

trend in disability complaints, but reported that 

within the disability complaints, allegations that 

a housing provider failed to make a reasonable 

accommodation represented the most common 

issue. Within these reasonable accommodation 

complaints, FHEO staff identified the failure 

56 National Council on Disability
GRAPH 2: Top Three FHA Complaints by Basis as Percentage of Total Complaints Filed 

with HUD & FHAP Agencies by Fiscal Year

to accommodate a service animal as the most 

frequent sub-issue.

Graph 3 also reflects the number of “inquiries” 

made to FHEO or FHAP agencies alleging a 

potential disability housing claim. Some, but not 

all, inquiries result in a formal complaint of housing 

discrimination. On average, about 65 percent 

of inquiries of housing discrimination based on 

disability were converted to a complaint filed for 

investigation. By way of a loose comparison, about 

half of all contacts with the EEOC to discuss 

employment discrimination result in an actual 

investigation.227

About 78 percent of the total disability 

housing discrimination cases closed between 

FY 2008 and FY 2018 were FHAP agency cases. 

The 2018 NCD Progress Report discussed how 

EEOC investigators are cross-trained on all laws 

enforced by the Commission and individual 

investigators have no specialization in disability 

issues.228 The same issue also exists with both 

FHEO and FHAP agency investigators who cover 

all seven of the potential bases of discrimination 

under the FHA.

The lack of any specialization in disability 

regulations by FHAP agency investigators is likely 

even more problematic than what may exist at 

FHEO and FHAP housing 

discrimination complaints

■ FY2008 - 44% of all complaints were 

disability discrimination

■ FY2013 - 52.6% of all complaints were 

disability discrimination

■ FY2018 - 60.3% of all complaints were 

disability discrimination

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 57
GRAPH 3: FHA Inquires and Complaints Based on Disability Filed with HUD & FHAP 

Agencies by Fiscal Year

the EEOC. Many FHAP agencies are general civil 

rights enforcement entities responsible for fair 

housing laws, equal employment laws, and in 

many cases other state civil rights law. Of the 35 

current statewide FHAP 

agencies, 27 are also Fair 

Employment Practice 

Agencies responsible 

for investigations of 

employment discrimination 

complaints as well as 

those involving housing 

discrimination. These 

agencies, in essence, 

simultaneously serve 

as the state’s equivalent 

of the FHEO and the 

EEOC, resulting in even 

more generalization in civil rights enforcement. 

People with disabilities who seek reasonable 

accommodations in housing have unique needs 

depending on the disability and manifestations. 

Fair housing rights investigators with a general 

knowledge of disability issues, for example, 

may miss the complexities and nuances 

necessary to understand the need for reasonable 

accommodations, made 

worse when investigators 

cover a multitude of civil 

rights statutes. NCD 

recommends that FHEO 

develop an in-depth 

training curriculum 

with routine training on 

disability rights issues 

in housing for FHAP 

agency investigators.

NCD recommends 

that FHEO train a certain 

percentage of FHEO 

investigators in disability-specific issues, 

especially around reasonable accommodations 

and various disabilities, and require the same 

of certified FHAP agencies.

These agencies, in essence, 

simultaneously serve as the 

state’s equivalent of the FHEO 

and the EEOC, resulting in even 

more generalization in civil 

rights enforcement. People with 

disabilities who seek reasonable 

accommodations in housing have 

unique needs depending on the 

disability and manifestations.

58 National Council on Disability
CHART 3: Outcome of FHEO and FHAP Cases as Percentage of Total Closed by Basis 

Fiscal Year 2008–2018 Combined

Chart 3 provides the outcomes of investigations 

between FY 2008 and FY 2018 for cases alleging 

housing discrimination based on disability, race, 

and family status which represent the largest 

number of complaints received by FHEO and 

the FHAP agencies. The outcomes of all cases 

are also represented in Chart 2. Over the past 11 

years, most housing discrimination investigations, 

49 percent, resulted in a determination that no 

violation occurred, known as a “no cause” finding. 

Slightly fewer disability cases, 45 percent, resulted 

in a no cause finding, which represents the largest 

outcome for disability complaints.

More disability complaints, 41 percent, 

are resolved through conciliation or other 

settlements than those based on race, 

26 percent, and all types of housing complaints 

combined, 36 percent. Only 3 percent of 

disability complaints went to an administrative 

adjudicative process or to court, with 10 percent 

closed for various administrative reasons. In 

terms of administrative hearings, FHAP agencies 

were involved in 94 hearings in disability 

cases between FY 2008 and FY 2018, with 62 

percent, or 59 hearings, resulting in a finding 

of discrimination. Over the same time period 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 59

FHAP disability cases, FY08-FY18

■ 94 hearings in disability cases

■ 62% (59 hearings) found discrimination

■ 39 HUD ALJ proceedings in disability cases 

with consent order resolution in all cases
39 HUD Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) 

proceedings occurred in disability cases, 

all of which resulted in a consent order 

resolving the case.

The FHA requires that FHEO seek to conciliate 

an agreement between the parties throughout 

the complaint investigation process. In 2005 

the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

reported concerns about the HUD intake and 

investigations process, including that in some 

cases complainants felt pressured into accepting 

a conciliation agreement.229 For complainants with 

disabilities in critical need of accommodations to 

obtain housing, the risk of accepting less than 

what FHA requires is of concern, especially with 

the high percentage of disability cases resolved 

through conciliation. NCD recommends that 

FHEO review policies related to the conciliation 

process to ensure people with disabilities are 

not pressured into accepting an agreement that 

significantly dilutes their rights under the FHA.

GRAPH 4: Number of FHEO-Intiated Section 504 Compliance Reviews by Fiscal Year

FHEO also administers the Fair Housing 

Initiative Program (FHIP), a hybrid program 

which provides funding for private enforcement 

of the FHA and education and outreach. In 

terms of enforcement, FHIP provides grants 

through a competitive process under the Private 

Enforcement Initiative to nonprofit organizations 

to enforce the FHA through the use of tester and 

other private mechanisms including investigations, 

mediation, and litigation. FHEO oversees the 

entities participating in FHIP through grant 

management practices and does not approve 

investigations as with the FHAP agencies.

FHEO conducts reviews of housing providers’ 

compliance with Section 504. As shown in 

Graph 4, the number of Section 504 reviews 

initiated by FHEO has dropped significantly since 

FY 2008. FHEO reports that prioritizing a large 

backlog of FHA cases, and prioritizing other 

compliance reviews, accounts for the decline. 

A reduction in FHEO staff may also account 

60 National Council on Disability
for the decline in the number of reviews. NCD 

recommends that FHEO prioritize Section 504 

compliance reviews.

Timely Resolution of Complaints

The FHA provides that both FHEO and FHAP 

agencies complete investigations within 100 days, 

“unless it is impracticable to do so.”230 Based on 

the average time required to complete a case 

overall, the 100-day requirement seems more the 

exception than the rule. Between FY 2008 and 

FY 2018, FHEO took an average of 283 days to 

complete a case.231 FHAP agencies did better in 

attempting to meet the 

100-day mark, on average 

taking 150 days to 

complete a case. FHEO 

does not break down the 

case completion time 

by basis, and therefore 

it is not possible to 

determine if disability 

cases take more or less 

time to complete than 

the overall average time. 

In 2005, FHEO informed 

the GAO that tensions 

exist between the 100-day requirement and “the 

need to conduct a thorough investigation, . . . at 

times one goal cannot be achieved without some 

cost to the other.”232 A continued decline in FHEO 

staffing also likely accounts for difficulties in 

meeting the statutory 100-day benchmark.

For people with disabilities needing a 

reasonable accommodation in housing, delays 

in investigations can result in significant 

difficulties.233 A property owner refusing to allow 

a reasonable modification to a housing unit which 

requires a lengthy investigation can result in 

A property owner refusing to 

allow a reasonable modification 

to a housing unit which requires 

a lengthy investigation can result 

in the person with a disability 

taking more time to find alternative 

housing, experiencing a delay 

in discharge from an institution, 

or encountering a barrier to full 

enjoyment of life in the community.

the person with a disability taking more time to 

find alternative housing, experiencing a delay in 

discharge from an institution, or encountering a 

barrier to full enjoyment of life in the community. 

NCD recommends that HUD and the FHAP 

agencies make efforts to reach a resolution 

in cases within the 100-day time period.

Communication with Complainants 

and the Community

FHEO provides a number of options for filing a 

housing discrimination complaint, including by 

phone, email, and mail.234 The online information 

on how to file a 

complaint is accessible 

and generally easy to 

understand. Information 

on how to file a complaint 

with FHEO is a single 

level down on the FHEO 

homepage and labels lead 

to various information 

about filing a complaint 

intuitive. The information 

on how to file a complaint 

is written in a simple, 

short format and rated 

at an eighth-grade reading level, still high for 

certain people with intellectual and cognitive 

disabilities, but very good in comparison with 

other government websites. The website also 

contains examples of the types of discrimination 

FHEO investigates.

The online complaint form questions are not 

complicated, and it is easy to locate information in 

different languages. The complaint website clearly 

indicates where a person with a disability can call if 

an interpreter or disability-related services or 

accommodations are needed. The online complaint 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 61
form, however, needs to be completed in 45 

minutes, which creates difficulties for people with 

certain physical, cognitive, or intellectual disabilities 

who may require more than 45 minutes to 

complete the form. Unlike the complaint website, 

the online form does not clearly indicate how to 

request an accommodation in completing the form. 

NCD recommends that FHEO further simplify 

the language on the website for how to file a 

complaint to accommodate people with 

intellectual and other cognitive disabilities.

NCD recommends that FHEO lengthen the 

time for filling out the online complaint form 

to accommodate people with disabilities who 

need more time to 

complete the form and 

include a statement 

that “persons who have 

difficulty completing 

the form for any reason 

may contact a HUD 

representative for 

assistance.”

Training and 

Technical Assistance

FHEO funds several training and educational 

programs through FHIP, the Education and 

Outreach Initiative (EOI), the Fair Housing 

and Organizations Initiative (FHOI), and most 

relevant for people with disabilities, developers, 

architects, and builders of new multifamily 

housing, the Fair Housing and Accessibility FIRST 

program. The acronym FIRST describes the 

services offered by the program: Fair Housing 

Information, Resources, Support, and Technical 

Guidance.

The FIRST program website offers 

resource materials and operates a Design and 

Multifamily housing continues 

to be constructed that does not 

comply with the modest FHA 

accessibility requirements for design 

and construction requirements over 

30 years after they were 

established . . .

Construction Resource Center with technical 

staff available to answer questions.235 FIRST also 

conducts both online remote and in-person full 

day trainings in venues throughout the country 

focused on complying with the FHA design and 

construction requirements. The FIRST trainings 

include modules more applicable to housing 

managers and disability advocates and people 

with disabilities on the issues of reasonable 

accommodations and modifications.236 Though 

available online as well as in person, the FIRST 

trainings reach only a very small percentage of 

the developer, architect, and builder community. 

Multifamily housing continues to be constructed 

that does not comply 

with the modest 

FHA accessibility 

requirements for 

design and construction 

requirements over 30 

years after they were 

established,237 resulting 

in fewer housing units 

available to people with 

disabilities and the need 

to seek enforcement action. NCD recommends 

that HUD increase resources to FIRST focused 

on reaching housing developers, architects, 

and builders.

The EOI component of FHIP provides funds 

on a competitive basis to various organizations 

to develop education and outreach materials to 

inform the public about rights under the FHA. 

Most notable for this program, FHEO provides 

funds to develop and run a national media 

and Internet campaign on all FHA rights.238

The National Fair Housing Alliance has been 

the grantee for a number of years to run the 

national campaign. FHEO uses FHOI funds 

62 National Council on Disability
to assist in developing the capacity of new 

private fair housing enforcement organizations, 

especially in areas currently underserved by 

such organizations.239

Interagency Collaboration and 

Coordination

The DOJ Housing and Civil Enforcement section 

is required to handle FHA cases in which either 

the complainant or the defending housing 

provider elects to take the case to federal 

court instead of utilizing the HUD ALJ process. 

Coordination between HUD and DOJ is thus built 

directly into the FHA, and HUD and DOJ’s HCES 

staff meet monthly and 

have entered into an 

MOU.

Over the years, 

HUD has collaborated 

with DOJ to develop 

more user-friendly 

documents in the form of 

questions and answers 

on different aspects 

of fair housing. These 

documents explain both the rights of people 

with disabilities, and the obligations of housing 

providers and state and local governments to 

provide people with disabilities equal access to 

housing. In 2004, HUD and DOJ collaborated 

to issue a “Joint Statement on Reasonable 

Accommodations” under the FHA.240 Among 

other topics, it noted that housing providers might 

need to incur some costs to provide reasonable 

accommodations, and that surcharges were 

impermissible. The Joint Statement further 

discussed the interactive process for providing a 

reasonable accommodation and the direct threat 

defense against providing an accommodation. In 

These two joint statements are 

widely relied on by disability 

advocates and housing providers 

because they are written in a 

useable question and answer 

format and address some of the 

most common issues of concern 

by both sides.

2008, HUD and DOJ issued a Joint Statement 

on Reasonable Modifications under the 

FHA,241 explaining the differences between 

accommodations and modifications, and providing 

examples of modifications that would or would 

not need to be restored to original condition 

when a tenant with a disability vacates a housing 

unit. These two joint statements are widely relied 

on by disability advocates and housing providers 

because they are written in a useable question 

and answer format and address some of the 

most common issues of concern by both sides.

HUD and DOJ again collaborated in 

2013 to issue the “Joint Statement on 

Accessibility (Design 

and Construction) 

Requirements for 

Covered Multifamily 

Dwellings Under the 

FHA.”242 The statement 

has a number of 

questions and answers 

regarding different kinds 

of dwellings covered 

by the design and 

construction requirements which include condos, 

timeshares, assisted living facilities, single 

room occupancy units, shelters designed as a 

residence for the homeless, and extended stay 

or residential hotels, and more. It also clarifies 

the exemptions for multistory townhouses 

without elevators and about alterations or 

conversions of buildings constructed prior to the 

effective date of the 1988 FHA amendments. 

Most recently, on November 10, 2016, HUD and 

DOJ issued a statement on “State and Local 

Laws and Practices and the Application of the 

Fair Housing Act” as discussed in Chapter 1. 

This guidance piece provides helpful information 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 63
about zoning protections for housing people 

with disabilities.

In 2010, DOJ’s DRS issued new ADA 

regulations which generally narrowed the 

definition of service animals to dogs and 

excluded emotional support animals from the 

definition. In response to the DOJ service animal 

regulations, on April 25, 2013, HUD issued a 

statement on “Service Animals and Assistance 

Animals in Housing” and in HUD-funded 

programs under Section 504 and the FHA.243

HUD clarified that the ADA definitions, which are 

applicable to public accommodations, do not 

limit housing providers’ obligations to make 

reasonable 

accommodations for 

assistance animals under 

the FHA or Section 504 

in housing. The guidance 

states, and according to 

FHEO staff, that housing 

providers often confuse 

the FHA with the ADA, 

and simply use the DOJ 

ADA service animal 

definition. This results in housing providers 

wrongfully denying accommodations to people 

with disabilities who use assistance animals not 

included in the DOJ regulations. People with 

disabilities may also not understand the 

differences between the two laws.

FHEO and HUD Office of General Council 

staff expressed concern over the manner in 

which DOJ developed the ADA regulations 

around service animals, which HUD refers 

to as assistance animals. According to HUD 

staff, differences required between public and 

private settings, along with confusion among 

housing providers between the FHA and ADA, 

According to HUD staff, differences 

required between public and private 

settings, along with confusion 

among housing providers between 

the FHA and ADA, have created 

numerous difficulties involving 

the requirements for assistance 

animals.

have created numerous difficulties involving 

the requirements for assistance animals. For 

example, HUD staff stated that important 

differences exist in the need of a person with 

a disability for an assistance animal at home 

than when out in public. HUD staff expressed 

that DRS was too focused on developing a 

consistent definition for a service animal at the 

expense of important contextual differences.244

NCD recommends that HUD and DOJ provide 

additional guidance to covered entities and 

the general public to clarify the difference 

between service animals and emotional 

support animals in housing versus public 

accommodations.

Recent natural 

disasters due to 

hurricanes, wildfires, 

and widespread flooding 

in California, North 

Carolina, Texas, Puerto 

Rico, the Virgin Islands, 

and across the Midwest 

point to greater need for 

interagency collaboration 

and coordination between HUD, DOJ, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and 

the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

(CMS) to better address the housing needs 

of people with disabilities. Specifically, these 

agencies need to collaborate to plan for natural 

and man-made national disasters that result in 

widespread evacuation and relocation of people 

receiving Medicaid and living in community 

settings.

During recent emergencies people with 

disabilities were relocated from communitybased living arrangements to segregated longterm care facilities. Such long-term care facilities 

64 National Council on Disability
are often easier to locate, space is usually 

available, and Medicaid reimbursement is largely 

assured.245 Nonetheless, this common practice 

is inconsistent with the Olmstead integration 

mandate and other federal laws which favor 

the provision of Medicaid and governmental 

emergency services in the most integrated 

settings appropriate. NCD recommends that 

DOJ and HUD monitor and enforce compliance 

with obligations for emergency sheltering in a 

disaster consistent with emergency sheltering 

requirements under the FHA, emphasizing the 

fact that compliance 

is required in both 

transient and long-term 

disaster shelters.

Adequacy of 

Agency Resources

Congressional funding 

for FHEO operations and 

for FHAP has declined slightly in both real and 

constant dollars between FY 2008 and FY 2018 

(see Table D, Appendix A). In the FY 2009 and FY 

2010 period both the FHEO operations and FHAP 

funds increased, but the FY 2018 funding remains 

below those peak years. The FHEO operations 

budget is down just shy of $700,000 over the 

same period.

In terms of staffing issues, FHEO staff cited 

a lack of resources, and the increasing rate of 

retirement of knowledgeable enforcement staff as 

the biggest challenge to fair housing enforcement 

efforts. Since the FHAP and the FHEO are 

Specifically, these agencies need to 

collaborate to plan for natural and 

man-made national disasters that 

result in widespread evacuation and 

relocation of people receiving Medicaid 

and living in community settings.

the HUD programs most directly tied to FHA 

enforcement, budget and staffing cuts directly 

impact enforcement of laws which protect people 

with disabilities from housing discrimination. 

The GAO reported that approved staff levels fell 

quickly from 744 Full-Time Equivalent (FTEs) in 

FY 2003 to 640 in FY 2004, and that the agency 

had challenges meeting the approved ceiling.246

Between FY 2008 and FY 2018, FHEO staff 

levels based on FTEs fell even further, from 582 

to 479 FTEs, a significant 17.7 percent reduction 

(see Table E, Appendix A). NCD recommends 

that Congress budget 

the needed funds to 

adequately staff FHEO 

to ensure adequate 

and timely disability 

discrimination 

investigations and 

Section 504 reviews.

Funding for FHIP, 

in contrast, was 4.5 percent higher in FY 2018 

than in FY 2008 in constant dollars. In FY 2009 

Congress raised FHIP funding by 15 percent over 

FY 2008 and increased the FHIP budget again by 

50 percent in FY 2009 (both in constant dollars). 

While the FHIP program budget has declined in 

more recent years, the program remains about 

$9 million higher than in FY 2008 funding based 

on constant dollars. As noted previously, while 

the Private Enforcement Initiative under FHIP 

does fund some housing rights enforcement 

mechanisms, the overall FHIP program is funded 

higher than FHAP.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 65
66 National Council on Disability
Chapter 3: Federal Communications Commission

Based on the analysis in this chapter, 

NCD recommends that the FCC:

■ Ensure that the AccessInfo announcements about important regulation and proposed 

regulations impacting people with disabilities are accompanied with an ASL version.

■ Develop regulations to ensure telecommunications devices have multimodal alert methods 

to notify a person with a sensory disability of incoming audio and video calls.

■ Ensure relay services are available for web conferencing, resolve interoperability for video 

conferencing, and make accessible virtual and augmented reality technologies.

■ Move quickly to develop standards to allow for the accessibility and interconnection across 

videoconference systems and services for people with disabilities.

■ Address concerns and develop regulations to ensure ease of use of accessibility features 

on telecommunication devices.

■ Work with FEMA to ensure all EAS and WEA alerts are accessible to people with disabilities 

and all deficiencies are addressed within 12 months.

■ Work closely with DOJ to complete consistent Next Generation 9-1-1 standards for 

PSAPs, with the FCC addressing the text standards for wireless carriers and DOJ 

addressing the technical requirements of the PSAPs to accept and communicate through 

text to 9-1-1.

■ Ensure reliable and interoperable access to Next Generation 9-1-1 services by people with 

disabilities, specifically media communication line services to allow a direct connection to 

9-1-1 through video.

(continued)

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 67
Based on the analysis in this chapter, 

NCD recommends that the FCC: continued

■ Explore solutions to ensure timely, accurate, and reliable descriptions of images and video 

displayed as part of emergency information over both existing legacy and developing 

broadcasting systems.

■ Ensure reliable and interoperable access to Next Generation 9-1-1 services by people with 

disabilities, specifically media communication line services to allow a direct connection to 

9-1-1 through video, text, and voice calls.

■ Explore solutions to ensure timely, accurate, and reliable descriptions of images and video 

displayed as part of emergency information over both existing legacy and developing 

broadcasting systems.

■ Establish measurable quality metrics for captioning with the consumer experience in mind 

and refuse to allow any technology which fails to meet these quality metrics.

■ Require that “set-top box” and other video device providers include auditory commands as 

a mandatory universal design function for all such equipment.

■ Develop regulations to ensure that people who are blind and visually impaired are able to 

obtain set-top boxes with easily accessible controls without incurring a surcharge through 

the purchase of more expensive equipment.

■ Consider the expansion of new regulations to increase access to audio-described 

programming at a level greater than 1 hour per day on each covered network and revise 

the strategic plan performance goal accordingly.

■ Evaluate the minimum standards for broadband in the Lifeline program and determine 

whether it meets the accessibility needs of Deaf and Hard of Hearing low-income 

customers.

■ Revert back to its Open Internet policies.

■ Ensure the IP Relay and VRS provider rate is sufficient to ensure quick response answer 

times, an adequate number of providers, and quality services.

■ Reconsider the pay rate for the trials for skills-based routing and certified Deaf interpreters 

and apply the emergent rate to any VRS providers that participate in the skills-based 

routing trial and renew the trial period.

■ Take concrete steps to develop and implement performance measures and service quality 

metrics for VRS and IP CTS.

(continued)

68 National Council on Disability
Based on the analysis in this chapter, 

NCD recommends that the FCC: continued

■ Work with Congress to develop a mechanism to allow for the reporting of resolution of 

RDAs to increase the transparency of the RDA program.

■ Increase its accountability and transparency on how it spends the amount set aside for 

outreach and education.

■ NCD echoes its recommendation from the 2000 report and recommends that the FCC 

establish a TRS Technical Assistance Clearinghouse to provide information to consumers 

and relay providers.

Overview

The Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) is an independent federal agency created 

by the Communications Act of 1934.247 The 

FCC’s role and duties changed through the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996,248 and is now 

responsible to "make 

available so far as 

possible, to all the people 

of the United States, 

without discrimination 

on the basis of race, 

color, religion, national 

origin, or sex, rapid, 

efficient, nationwide, 

and world-wide wire and 

radio communication 

services with adequate 

facilities at reasonable charges."249 The FCC adopts 

and enforces the rules on telecommunications 

relay services for people with hearing and 

speech disabilities under Title IV of the ADA,250

access to telecommunications services and 

equipment, and video programming under the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996,251 and access 

By 2016, at least 79 percent of 

homes owned a computer and 

approximately 75 percent had an 

Internet subscription.254 Social media 

and applications on smartphones 

have emerged as accessible ways 

for people with disabilities to 

connect with the world.

to the Internet, emergency services, and video 

programing and other communications for people 

with disabilities under the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video Accessibility Act 

of 2010 (CVAA).252 The FCC is responsible for 

regulations for radio, television, wire, wireless, 

satellite, cable, and the Internet.

Substantial changes in 

telecommunications 

technology since 

Promises to Keep has 

added many 

responsibilities for the 

FCC to oversee in regard 

to access for people with 

disabilities. Voice 

recognition software was 

still new in 2000, and 

only about half of 

American homes had a computer and an Internet 

subscription at that time.253 By 2016, at least 

79 percent of homes owned a computer and 

approximately 75 percent had an Internet 

subscription.254 Social media and applications on 

smartphones have emerged as accessible ways 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 69
for people with disabilities to connect with the 

world. Telecommunications and technology are 

changing so rapidly, and it has proven difficult for 

the FCC to make certain there is access for 

people with disabilities.

The FCC has five commissioners, all appointed 

by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 

5-year terms, except when one is appointed to 

fill an unexpired term. The President appoints the 

Chair. No more than three commissioners may 

be from the same political party. The FCC has a 

headquarters office in Washington, DC, a satellite 

office in Pennsylvania, three regional offices, and 

12 field offices around the country. The FCC has 

seven operating bureaus.255

The Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau (CGB) develops 

and oversees the FCC 

consumer policies. 

The CGB also handles 

outreach, education, and 

consumer complaints. The 

Disability Rights Office 

(DRO) is a part of the CGB, and is responsible for 

advising and implementing policies with respect 

to disability access issues including: (1) access 

to telecommunications services and equipment; 

(2) hearing aid compatibility; (3) access to advanced 

communications services and equipment; 

(4) access to Internet built into mobile phones; 

(5) telecommunications relay services; (6) access 

to emergency communications; (7) the National 

Deaf-Blind Equipment Distribution Program; and 

(8) accessible video programming and video 

programming devices.256 The Enforcement 

Bureau is responsible for enforcement of the 

Communications Act and the FCC’s regulations. 

Due to the FCC’s important regulatory 

responsibilities, this chapter focuses on current 

FCC regulations and policies, new and future 

regulatory issues, and the role of the DRO.257

Enactment of the CVAA was the most 

important legislative development to impact the 

FCC on disability rights since Promises to Keep.

The CVAA updated the Communications Act258 to 

make modern communications more accessible 

for people with disabilities.259 The FCC is required 

under Section 255 of the Communications Act, 

as amended, to make available to the extent 

possible and in the most efficient matter, 

telecommunications services that enable Deaf or 

Hard of Hearing users, Deaf-Blind persons, and 

users with speech disabilities to communicate in 

a manner that is functionally equivalent to that of 

other telephone system 

users.260 The law requires 

telecommunication 

service providers 

and manufacturers of 

telecommunications 

technology to ensure that 

people with disabilities can use their services 

and devices, if readily achievable.261 “Readily 

achievable” is defined as “easily accomplishable 

and able to be carried out without much difficulty 

or expense.”262 The FCC decides what is “readily 

achievable” on a case-by-case basis.

Section 717 of the Communications Act, as 

amended, requires advanced communications 

services (ACS) providers and equipment 

manufacturers to ensure that their services and 

equipment can be used by people with 

disabilities, unless doing so is not achievable.263

ACS includes interconnected Voiceover Internet 

Protocol (VoIP) service, noninterconnected VoIP 

service, electronic messaging service, and 

Enactment of the CVAA was the most 

important legislative development 

to impact the FCC on disability rights 

since Promises to Keep.

70 National Council on Disability
interoperable video conferencing service.264

Section 718 of the Communications Act now 

requires that Internet browsers built into mobile 

phones must be accessible to and usable by 

people who are blind or visually impaired, unless 

doing so is not achievable.265 These rules apply to 

Internet browsers built into mobile phones that 

have been introduced into the mobile phone 

market since October 8, 2013.266

Since 2010, the FCC has worked on several 

technical and service issues that affect how 

people with disabilities can access broadcasts 

and telecommunications. These issues include 

accessibility and hearing aid compatibility (HAC) 

of devices used with advanced communications 

services, such as 

VoIP services; closed 

captioning, including the 

captioning quality; video 

description services; 

Telecommunications 

Relay Services (TRS); 

and a number of other 

issues.

Much of the FCC’s work involves the 

development of specific regulatory standards 

to ensure accessibility, oversight of the TRS 

funds, and resolution of complaints filed about 

accessibility issues; thus, not all of the 11 

assessment elements from Promises to Keep

are equally applicable to the FCC today. Most 

of this chapter focuses on the FCC’s interaction 

with the disability community and the creation 

of regulatory standards since, as discussed, 

almost every complaint filed with the FCC is 

resolved through an alternative dispute process 

which has thus far eliminated the need for 

enforcement action.

Communications with the 

Community

In Promises to Keep, the NCD recommended 

that the FCC establish an advisory committee 

on disability issues. The FCC first established a 

Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) in 2014.267

Since then, the DRO has convened two DACs 

for 2-year terms, and has recently appointed a 

third DAC which has been active since February 

2019.268 Membership to the DAC is through 

appointment by the Chair of the FCC “in 

consultation with appropriate Commission staff,” 

with a membership expected to be 35 to 40 

members, and include “a wide variety of entities 

with interests in disability access issues that 

are within the purview” 

of the FCC.269 The DAC 

provides advice and 

recommendations to the 

Commission on several 

disability issues.

The DAC provides 

input to the FCC on 

disability issues, while the FCC also seeks input 

directly from the disability community, and other 

organizations and industry representatives with 

an interest in accessibility issues. The FCC, 

however, has not always been responsive to 

recommendations from either the disability 

community or the DAC. For example, on 

October 28, 2015, the FCC held a summit on 

the communications needs of people with 

cognitive disabilities to learn more about how 

this group uses information and communication 

technology (ICT).270 Following this summit, the 

DAC found ways to improve the use of, and 

access to, ICT products and services.271 While 

the FCC issued a white paper and included 

Since 2010, the FCC has worked 

on several technical and service 

issues that affect how people with 

disabilities can access broadcasts 

and telecommunications.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 71
people with cognitive disabilities in an annual 

reminder about access to televised emergency 

information, to date the FCC has not announced 

how it will proceed to use the recommended 

best practices.

The FCC communicates and shares 

announcements about disability-related regulations 

through an email listserv called AccessInfo.272 The 

FCC has an American Sign Language (ASL) video 

library273 about some topics, but the AccessInfo 

announcements about regulations that affect 

people with disabilities do not have ASL version 

videos. NCD recommends that the FCC ensure 

that the AccessInfo announcements about 

important regulation and proposed regulations 

impacting people with disabilities are 

accompanied with an ASL version.

72 National Council on Disability

Proactive and Reactive Strategies

The CVAA requires that ACS and ACS products 

be accessible to, and usable by, people with 

disabilities.274 The FCC is required to submit a 

report to Congress on the CVAA every other 

year,275 and the Commission’s most recent 

report discusses successes in “1) the emerging 

availability of enterprise interconnected VoIP 

telephones with built-in accessibility features 

for people who are blind or visually impaired; 

2) improved access to the telecommunications 

and ACS features of smartphones and other 

devices for people with a wide range of disabilities; 

and 3) an increased percentage of . . . [HAC] 

wireless handsets.”276 The FCC determined that 

“a variety of smartphones are available to deliver 

accessible telecommunications and ACS features 
to a wide range of [people] with disabilities, 

including people who are blind or visually impaired, 

Deaf-Blind, Deaf or Hard of Hearing, or have 

physical, mobility or dexterity limitations, or 

cognitive disabilities.”277

The FCC states in the recent report that areas 

still exist where technology is not accessible.278

Specifically, the FCC found that accessibility 

gaps continue to exist with respect to (1) mobile 

phones other than smartphones, (2) accessible 

alerts on video calls, and (3) accessible devices for 

people who are Deaf-Blind.279 The FCC has found 

that over the past 2 years little has improved in the 

availability of accessible mobile phones other than 

smartphones, particularly for people who are blind 

or visually impaired.280

According to a consumer 

group, many people 

who are Deaf-Blind 

“have no knowledge of 

Braille and communicate 

exclusively through tactile 

[ASL], and are unable to 

independently make and 

receive calls on any communications device.”281

Several Deaf and Hard of Hearing consumer 

advocacy organizations, commonly called 

“consumer groups,” noted that the FCC report 

fails to mention accessible alerting for video 

calls. Video conferencing services, especially 

on smartphones, often fail to include vibration 

or flashing lights that can notify people who are 

Deaf and Hard of Hearing of incoming calls.282

Consumer groups also commented that non 

interconnected VoIP services provided in video 

games are still inaccessible to people who are 

Deaf or Hard of Hearing.283 NCD recommends 

that the FCC develop regulations to ensure 

telecommunications devices have multimodal 

In its report, the FCC stated that new 

communications technologies can 

improve life for many consumers 

with disabilities, but that many 

consumers complain that such 

technologies are still not accessible.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 73

alert methods to notify a person with a sensory 

disability of incoming audio and video calls.

The CVAA requires the FCC to evaluate and 

report on the accessibility barriers that still exist 

with new communications technologies.284 In its 

report, the FCC stated that new communications 

technologies can improve life for many consumers 

with disabilities, but that many consumers complain 

that such technologies are still not accessible.285

According to the report, commenters generally 

agree that communications will be more accessible 

with “continued development in, and the rollout of, 

technologies such as 5G, real-time-text (RTT), textto-911, high definition (HD) voice, and Bluetooth.”286

NCD recommends that the FCC ensure relay 

services are available 

for web conferencing, 

resolve interoperability 

for video conferencing, 

and make accessible 

virtual and augmented 

reality technologies.

The CVAA 

requires accessible 

videoconferencing systems, but the various 

video services do not interact with each other. 

Unlike telephone users who call each other 

even if their telephone service providers are 

different (e.g., AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, 

etc.), videoconferencing services—which 

are growing ever more popular—lack such 

interconnection. For example, FaceTime users 

can videoconference only with other FaceTime 

users and cannot videoconference with Skype 

users. The FCC is considering how to ensure 

videoconferencing programs can connect to each 

other and also be accessible for people with 

disabilities. A new working group has been set 

up to address this problem.287 NCD recommends 
the FCC move quickly to develop standards to 

allow for the accessibility and interconnection 

across videoconference systems and services 

for people with disabilities.

Virtually all landline telephones used in 

the United States, including VoIP telephones, 

must meet HAC standards after February 28, 

2020.288 The FCC also requires wireless service 

providers and wireless phone manufacturers to 

offer wireless phones that are compatible with 

hearing aids and cochlear implants.289 Those 

wireless phones must reduce unwanted noise 

and interference with hearing aids and cochlear 

implants.290 HAC phones must provide volume 

control that limits loudness levels.291

In 2016, the FCC changed the HAC regulations 

to require modified standards for the provision of 

HAC phones by wireless phone manufacturers and 

service providers.292 The revised HAC regulations 

asked manufacturers and service providers to 

participate in a task force with Hard of Hearing 

persons to determine if all wireless phones can 

be made hearing aid compatible. This task force 

continues to meet to address the issue.293

In October 2017, the FCC changed the 

volume control standards for landline phones 

so such phones provide a better measurement 

of volume.294 The FCC also applied standards 

to landline telephones used with advanced 

communications services (such as phones used 

with VoIP services) beginning after February 

28, 2020.295 By March 2021, all wireless phones 

that are marked as hearing aid compatible must 

include volume control for consumers with 

hearing loss.296

While the FCC regulation on volume control 

is an improvement, research suggests that 

consumers may have difficulties trying to find 

information about a phone’s accessibility features 

necessary to compare models.297 According to 

these researchers, people with disabilities are 

not always able to turn on a phone’s accessibility 

features without assistance from others.298 A 

Deaf-Blind advocacy organization has said that “[u]

ser guides and other documentation continue to 

be inaccessible to those who are Deaf-Blind[,]” 

and such customers often have difficulties trying 

to communicate their needs for mobile technology 

in person at retail stores.299 NCD recommends 

that the FCC address concerns and develop 

regulations to ensure ease of use of accessibility 

features on telecommunication devices.

Emergency alert and communications 

systems are critical for the safety of all people 

and must be fully accessible to allow people with 

disabilities to have full and equal access to these 

systems. While new technology offers the ability 

to improve accessibility, problems remain.

The FCC has partial responsibility for the 

Emergency Alert System (EAS),300 and when used 

to make weather and other alerts by state and 

local agencies, the FCC “requires broadcasters, 

cable operators and satellite TV providers to make 

local emergency information accessible” both 

through sound and vision.301 While EAS alerts are 

usually sent via radio and television, government 

agencies can use the Wireless Emergency Alert 

(WEA) system to send Presidential, Imminent 

Threat, and AMBER Alerts to WEA-capable mobile 

devices based on where users are located.302 In 

June 2015, the DAC endorsed a 2014 report from 

a subgroup of the Communications Security, 

Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) 

which the DAC amplified in June 2016.303 The 

recommendations supported increasing the WEA 

character limit to 360 characters; adding websites 

74 National Council on Disability
into WEA messages (such as links to ASL videos); 

improving how WEA messages are sent to people 

in certain areas; adopting state and local WEA 

testing and training for emergency managers; 

and increasing consumer awareness.304 The DAC 

supported “consideration of new rules to further 

enable people with disabilities to have better 

access to information.”305

The FCC adopted in 2015 accessibility 

requirements for televised Presidential EAS alerts 

and EAS test alerts.306 In 2016, the FCC sought 

public comment about accessibility issues for 

the EAS and WEA systems. The FCC specifically 

requested comments on whether access to 

public service announcements regarding EAS 

could be enhanced 

by transmitting such 

announcements via 

the Internet or other 

methods besides 

television, and by making 

the announcements 

available in ASL.307 The 

FCC also asked people to comment on the 

potential to use new technologies to make EAS 

alerts more accessible, including whether the 

use of certain cellphone-based services could 

make such alerts more accessible to people with 

sensory disabilities.308 Other than the request for 

comments, the FCC has taken no action in regard 

to increasing the accessibility of the EAS and 

WEA systems.

In September 2016, the FCC increased the 

maximum length of WEA messages from 90 to 

360 characters and required wireless providers to 

support the inclusion of Internet links and phone 

number in all WEA alerts.309 The FCC considered 

this change “an important first step” in the 

The EAS alerts had poor color 

contrast, poor caption placement, 

delayed alerts, and lack of full visible 

texts to match the information that 

was shared by sound.

use of multimedia WEA, and requested public 

comment on whether alert messages could 

be made available through ASL.310 In January 

2018, the FCC required improvements in WEA 

to enable more accurate targeting of alerts to 

specific areas of the country,311 and to ensure 

that WEA-capable mobile devices keep the alerts 

for at least 24 hours in an accessible format for 

people with disabilities.312 These changes are 

important to provide people with disabilities more 

time to access and understand the emergency 

information.313

An FCC performance goal is to assist with 

making EAS and WEA alerts effective and 

reliable, especially with new technologies.314 In 

October 2018, FEMA 

and the FCC conducted 

a nationwide test of EAS 

and the WEA system.315

This nationwide test 

showed accessibility 

problems. The EAS alerts 

had poor color contrast, 

poor caption placement, delayed alerts, and 

lack of full visible texts to match the information 

that was shared by sound. Such deficiencies 

represent a serious shortcoming for Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing and people who are blind or 

have visual impairments. NCD recommends 

the FCC work with FEMA to ensure all EAS 

and WEA alerts are accessible to people with 

disabilities and all deficiencies addressed 

within 12 months.

Under the CVAA, the FCC must make sure 

people with disabilities have access to Next 

Generation 9-1-1 services where achievable 

and technically feasible.316 In 2014, the FCC 

established regulations to require all wireless 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 75
carriers and other providers of text messaging 

applications to deliver emergency texts to 

PSAPs.317 A PSAP is a call center which 

receives 9-1-1 emergency calls for police, fire, 

and ambulance services. The FCC requires 

that covered text messaging providers allow 

text messages to be sent to 9-1-1, and for 

PSAPs to receive such 9-1-1 texts if the PSAP 

has upgraded to text to 9-1-1 service, and 

otherwise provide a “bounce-back” message.318

The FCC maintains a master registry of PSAPs 

that accept text to 9-1-1.319 Within 6 months of 

a PSAP informing a wireless carrier that it can 

receive text to 9-1-1, covered text messaging 

providers must be able to send such texts to 

the PSAP. The FCC can encourage PSAPs to 

upgrade their technology 

to text to 9-1-1 services, 

but the FCC lacks the 

authority to require 

PSAPs to upgrade their 

services. As mentioned 

in Chapter 1, DOJ is 

responsible for the development of accessibility 

standards for PSAPs. In October 2017, the DAC 

recommended that the FCC take a number of 

steps to encourage PSAP operators to upgrade 

to accept real-time text—an improved form 

of text to 9-1-1.320 Processing of real-time text 

is critical for people with disabilities to obtain 

equal access to emergency services. NCD 

recommends that the FCC work closely 

with DOJ to complete consistent Next 

Generation 9-1-1 standards for PSAPs, 

with the FCC addressing the text standards 

for wireless carriers and DOJ addressing 

the technical requirements of the PSAPs 

to accept and communicate through text 

to 9-1-1.

NCD recommends that the FCC ensure 

reliable and interoperable access to Next 

Generation 9-1-1 services by people with 

disabilities, specifically media communication 

line services to allow a direct connection to 

9-1-1 through video, text, and voice calls.

Concerns also exist about the availability of 

audio descriptions of visual emergency information 

shown on TV, such as weather radar maps, 

emergency exit routes, and other graphic displays. 

The FCC has concluded that “no solutions” exist to 

include audio description of such visual information 

during emergency announcements on television.321

In February 2018, the DAC recommended that the 

FCC call on industry and consumer groups to find 

workable solutions for such audio descriptions.322

NCD recommends the 

FCC explore solutions to 

ensure timely, accurate, 

and reliable descriptions 

of images and video 

displayed as part of 

emergency information 

over both existing legacy and developing 

broadcasting systems.

Regulatory, Policy, and 

Sub-Regulatory Guidance

The FCC regulates closed captioning and 

audio descriptions for television programming. 

Congress amended the Communications Act 

through the Telecommunications Act of 1996 

to require that video programming be closed 

captioned for Deaf and Hard of Hearing people.323

In 1997 the FCC created the first regulations for 

closed captioning on television.324

The FCC’s captioning regulations require that 

all television programs be captioned unless the 

programming falls within an exemption.325

The FCC’s captioning regulations 

require that all television programs be 

captioned unless the programming 

falls within an exemption.

76 National Council on Disability
“Economically burdensome” exemptions may be 

granted by the FCC for television programs upon 

an application to the FCC which proves the cost 

of captioning is more than they can afford. 

“Self-implementing exemptions,” in contrast, do 

not require the FCC’s affirmative permission. Selfimplementing exemptions include, among other 

things, (1) public service or promotional 

announcements shorter than 10 minutes; 

(2) television programs shown between 2 a.m. 

and 6 a.m.; (3) any television program that 

displays mostly texts;326 and (4) locally produced 

non-news programming that is only for a local 

station and will not be repeated.327

FCC regulations generally require that 

captioned TV programs must also be captioned 

when shown over the 

Internet.328 In 2014, the 

FCC also stated that a 

TV program must be 

captioned when shown 

on the internet, and 

certain video clips must 

also be captioned when 

available online.329 Also in 2014, 10 years after 

a request from the Deaf and Hard of Hearing 

community, the FCC established four quality 

standards for closed captioning.330 These quality 

standards apply to video programs that are 

shown on TV, and when captioning is shown on 

the Internet.331 There are concerns, however, 

that these regulations fail to explain how to 

achieve those quality standards of captioning. 

For instance, in fall 2018 several stations stopped 

using real-time captioning and began using 

Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) to provide 

captioning.332 ASR captioning technology is totally 

automated without human intervention to correct 

errors and ensure accuracy, and ASR often fails to 

In 2014, the FCC also stated that 

a TV program must be captioned 

when shown on the internet, and 

certain video clips must also be 

captioned when available online.

provide entirely accurate and complete captioning. 

For example, in March 2019, ASR technology 

used during a local newscast produced 

the caption “God hates Muslims,” a totally 

incorrect interpretation of what was stated.333

NCD recommends that the FCC establish 

measurable quality metrics for captioning with 

the consumer experience in mind and refuse 

to allow any technology that fails to meet 

these quality metrics.

The FCC also allows television stations to use 

the Electronic Newsroom Technique (ENT), a less 

than ideal captioning quality, particularly for live 

news broadcasts in areas outside of the top 25 

largest city markets. ENT enables a television 

station to use the teleprompter script used by the 

newscaster to capture 

the captioning during a 

news broadcast. During 

a live news program, 

however, anchors and 

reporters do not always 

follow the teleprompter 

script, such as for 

breaking news, weather alerts, sports updates, 

or ad lib comments.334 As a result, ENT does not 

caption all of the verbal information conveyed 

during a live news program. In 2014, the FCC 

said it was “concerned about the ability of 

ENT . . . to provide full and equal access to news 

programming for all Americans,”335 but allowed 

the continued use of ENT at the request of the 

National Association of Broadcasters. The FCC 

stated that ENT is a way for live news programs 

in areas outside the 25 largest cities to be able to 

afford captioning. The FCC developed stronger 

rules for use of ENT,336 and stated it would check 

on the quality of captioning on live TV news 

programs under the new ENT rules within 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 77
1 year.337 The FCC hosted an Enhanced ENT 

Forum on May 10, 2019, but as of early July 2019 

no updates have been made publicly available.

The CVAA requires that any equipment which 

can show videos must be able to display closed 

captioning on devices with screens smaller than 

13 inches (such as portable televisions, tablets, 

laptops, and smartphones).338 These devices 

must also be able to show video descriptions and 

emergency information that can be understood 

by people who are blind or visually impaired if the 

technology makes it possible and achievable.339

The CVAA also requires that devices which can 

record TV programs must be able to display 

closed captions, 

video description, and 

emergency information, 

and users must be able 

to turn such accessibility 

features on or off.340

FCC regulations 

also require that “settop boxes” and other 

video devices which 

provide on-screen text 

menus and guides must provide an auditory way 

for people who are blind or visually impaired 

to choose the menu options, if achievable.341

The FCC allows providers of set-top boxes and 

other video devices to create separate boxes 

and devices that have such auditory options. 

According to the DRO, blind and visually impaired 

consumers “may have to specifically request an 

accessible box because not all the boxes have to 

be accessible for the visually impaired, as long 

as the provider can give an accessible box upon 

request.”342 Such an additional step required 

only of people with disabilities fails to provide 

equal access. NCD recommends that the FCC 

Furthermore, customers with 

disabilities sometimes pay more 

for a set-top box with features that 

they do not need, because the 

more expensive boxes have better 

controls that they can use, in effect 

creating a surcharge for people with 

disabilities.

require “set-top box” and other video device 

providers include auditory commands as a 

mandatory universal design function for all 

such equipment.

Producers of video devices that have the 

ability to display closed captioning must include 

a method such as a button, key, or icon to turn 

the closed captioning on and off.343 Disability 

advocates expressed concerns to the FCC 

that the option to turn captioning on and off 

on both TV and Internet are more difficult than 

necessary.344 If a Deaf or Hard of Hearing person 

or person with a disability cannot easily find 

and use controls to change the font, size, color, 

background, and location 

of closed captioning text, 

then closed captioning 

is not readily accessible. 

People who are unable 

to find and use closed 

captioning controls 

may give up trying to 

use the captioning or 

even stop using the TV 

or watching videos on 

the Internet.345 Furthermore, customers with 

disabilities sometimes pay more for a set-top 

box with features that they do not need, because 

the more expensive boxes have better controls 

that they can use, in effect creating a surcharge 

for people with disabilities.346 A customer with 

a disability should not be required to pay a 

surcharge on an item solely for accessibility 

purposes. The FCC has yet to address creating 

regulations to improve the ease of accessing 

captioning controls on TV and video device 

menus.347 NCD recommends that FCC develop 

regulations to ensure people who are blind 

and visually impaired are able to obtain 

78 National Council on Disability
set-top boxes with easily accessible controls 

without incurring a surcharge through the 

purchase of more expensive equipment.

In July 2017, the FCC established new 

regulations to make it easier for people who 

are blind or visually impaired to access audiodescribed programming—which allows a user 

to hear a description of on-screen activity in 

between the dialogue. Starting in July 2018, 

broadcasters and pay-tv providers carrying one 

of the top networks must have 87.5 hours of 

described programming every 3 months. Before 

2018, these providers were required to have 

50 hours of audio description every 3 months. 

Eighty-seven and a half hours of described 

programming over 3 months equates to 

approximately 1 hour per day of video description 

on each covered network. The FCC’s FY 2018–

2022 Strategic Plan includes a performance 

goal to implement action to ensure that people 

with disabilities can access video programming. 

NCD recommends the FCC consider the 

expansion of new regulations to increase 

access to audio-described programming at 

a level greater than 1 hour per day on each 

covered network and revise the strategic plan 

performance goal accordingly.

Video Relay Service (VRS) allows Deaf or 

Hard of Hearing people to make calls over the 

Internet using ASL and a videophone or other 

communications device with a communication 

assistant interpreting the call between the 

videophone user and the voice telephone user.348

In 2017, the FCC answered calls for VRS reforms. 

These reforms included allowing trials for skillsbased routing which would route VRS calls to 

interpreters specifically trained to handle certain 

types of calls such as medical or legal calls. Other 

reforms included a trial to use Deaf interpreters 

to work with hearing interpreters to make sure 

callers understand what is being said, a pilot 

program allowing VRS interpreters to work from 

home as long as they follow confidentiality rules 

and other requirements, and allowing hearing 

persons who know ASL to make videophone 

calls with other ASL users.349

Consumers have also shared concerns 

about the quality of VRS with the FCC. The FCC 

sought comment on performance measures 

and service quality metrics for VRS.350 The DAC 

also discussed this issue but did not make a 

recommendation to the FCC. Several groups 

of Deaf-Blind consumers shared their concerns 

about the lack of access to telecommunications 

involving VRS. The DAC recommended that the 

FCC require that VRS providers add video mail-totext services for calls that are made to Deaf-Blind 

consumers.351 The FCC has not responded yet to 

this recommendation.

In 2018, the FCC found that 

telecommunications services, ACS, and devices 

have improved and become more accessible 

over the prior 2 years because smartphones and 

other devices helped give people with disabilities 

a way to use telecommunications services.352

While changes in telecommunications equipment 

and services may improve accessibility, these 

better services are more expensive, putting them 

out of reach of many people with disabilities. In 

addition, Deaf and Hard of Hearing users use 

more data than other users because they require 

more data usage for communications, such as for 

VRS. The cost of smartphone plans is a concern 

for Deaf and Hard of Hearing people as they need 

higher data limits or unlimited data plans in order 

to participate in basic communications.353 Deaf 

and Hard of Hearing users are forced to choose 

between more expensive smartphone plans 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 79
with unlimited data, or less expensive, affordable 

smartphone plans with limited data that may not 

be enough for their communications needs.354

The FCC does operate a Lifeline program355

and expanded the program to include Internet 

services in 2016.356 Disability advocates informed 

the FCC that the minimum standards for Internet 

as part of Lifeline were not equal to the unlimited 

voice minutes provided under Lifeline. It noted 

that “Lifeline’s Internet services would only give 

a Deaf or Hard of Hearing consumer about an 

hour’s worth of videophone and VRS use.”357

NCD recommends the FCC evaluate the 

minimum standards for broadband in the 

Lifeline program and determine whether it 

meets the accessibility 

needs of Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing lowincome customers.

On December 15, 2016, 

the FCC updated its 

regulations to allow 

wireless carriers 

providing service over 

Internet-protocol (IP) to provide support for 

real-time text (RTT) instead of continuing support 

for TTY, which is quickly declining.358 RTT allows 

users to see letters, characters, and words as 

they are being typed in real time. In October 2015 

and February 2016, the DAC sent the FCC two 

recommendations concerning RTT. The first asked 

the FCC to begin making a regulation to accept 

RTT as a text replacement in an IP environment.359

The second requested that the FCC require that 

RTT include a minimum level of technology and 

features.360 The DAC also asked that the FCC 

study best practices for RTT and host a meeting 

with people who are developing RTT and DeafBlind people to make sure RTT can work with 

FCC updated its regulations to allow 

wireless carriers providing service 

over Internet-protocol (IP) to provide 

support for real-time text (RTT) 

instead of continuing support for 

TTY, which is quickly declining.

refreshable Braille displays and similar assistive 

technologies. The FCC held a meeting on April 9, 

2018, with Deaf-Blind people, who explained their 

challenges to RTT service providers. Participants 

discussed possible solutions during the 

meeting,361 which further helped the DAC develop 

a set of best practices for RTT.362

All telecommunications technologies that use 

Internet will only be as good as the availability of 

and quality of the Internet services. In 2005, the 

FCC set up four factors for better Internet service: 

“choice of content, choice of applications and 

services, and choice of devices, and competition 

among providers.”363 In December 2010, the 

FCC changed these four factors and adopted the 

Open Internet Order 

which has three rules 

for Internet services: 

transparency, no blocking, 

and no unreasonable 

discrimination.364 On 

February 26, 2015, 

the FCC decided that 

broadband Internet access 

is a telecommunications service, so that Title II 

of the ADA would control,365 but then reversed 

this decision by a 3-2 vote on December 14, 2017, 

which became effective on June 11, 2018.366 At 

the same time, the FCC shared a Notice of Inquiry 

under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act 

to open a discussion about whether all Americans 

have access to Internet services in a reasonable 

and timely way.367 NCD recommends the FCC 

revert to its Open Internet policies.

Adequacy of Resources

Title IV of the ADA requires interstate 

telecommunications relay services to make it 

possible for Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and people 

80 National Council on Disability
with speech disabilities to make and receive 

telephone calls. Title IV also added Section 225 

to the Communications Act, which requires the 

FCC to establish regulations to make it possible 

for interstate telecommunications relay services. 

The FCC must ensure that telecommunications 

relay services (TRS) “are available to the extent 

possible and in the most efficient manner” to the 

Deaf, Hard of Hearing, and people with a speech 

disability.368

The Telecommunications Act amended the 

Communications Act to make sure that everyone 

in the country has access to telecommunication 

service.369 To create this system, the FCC 

requires telecommunications service providers to 

contribute to the Universal Service Fund (USF) and 

the FCC decides how the fund is spent.370 The 

USF includes the interstate Telecommunications 

Relay Services (TRS) Fund, established under 

Section 225.371 The TRS Fund is operated by an 

administrator, currently Rolka Loube, LLC under 

the direction of the FCC. The administrator is 

advised by the TRS Fund Advisory Council,372

made up of TRS users, state relay administrators, 

interstate service providers, and contributors.373

The TRS Fund pays TRS providers for the 

reasonable costs of providing interstate and 

Internet-based telephone services that enable 

a Deaf and Hard of Hearing person, deaf-blind 

person, or a person with a speech disability 

to communicate with others.374 The costs of 

providing interstate TRS are funded by interstate 

telecommunications carriers and VoIP service 

providers.375 The TRS fund administrator 

estimated there will be a 7.5 percent reduction in 

the contribution base, a reduction of $53,467,000 

for the program year beginning July 1, 2018.376

At the same time, it estimated that the fund 

will need $1.622 billion for the 2018–2019 fiscal 

year,”377 creating a significant shortfall for the 

iTRS Fund.

In 2015, the DAC advised the FCC that a 

requirement of “80 percent of [VRS] calls answered 

in 45 seconds,” proposed by VRS providers does 

not make telephone services equivalent for Deaf 

and Hard of Hearing callers.378 The DAC requested 

that the FCC and VRS providers “work together 

to make changes to the VRS [compensation] rate 

methodology so that the speed of answer for VRS 

can continue to improve.”379 In 2017, the FCC set up 

a 4-year plan for paying VRS providers.380 The iTRS 

Fund Advisory Council asked the FCC to adopt 

this plan to make sure the quality of VRS services 

does not decline with lower rates.381 The iTRS Fund 

Advisory Council wanted to avoid problems that 

occurred with IP Relay services.

When the FCC set the current rate for IP 

Relay services in 2016,382 there were seven IP 

Relay service providers.383 The FCC investigated 

several IP Relay providers and took appropriate 

enforcement action, and the providers then 

ceased providing the service. Further, after the 

FCC cut the payment rate, only one provider, 

Sprint, still offers IP Relay services.384 The rate 

has been so low that Sprint petitioned the FCC 

to adopt “a new approach to setting the rates 

for IP Relay services,”385 stating it “can only 

commit to providing [the] service through June 

30, 2019”386 unless the FCC changes how much 

it pays for IP Relay services. Deaf and Hard 

of Hearing advocates have told the FCC they 

are concerned that since the low pay rates for 

IP Relay services resulted in six out of seven 

providers leaving the market, that if the FCC 

fails to set an adequate rate for VRS service, 

the result will also be a lack of VRS providers. In 

2015, the U.S. Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) found that the FCC should do a better job 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 81
of managing the TRS program.387 Many Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing groups argued that if the rate is 

not increased, Deaf and Hard of Hearing people 

will have limited and poor options when placing 

calls.388 NCD recommends that the FCC 

ensure the IP Relay and VRS provider rate is 

sufficient to ensure quick response answer 

times, an adequate number of providers, and 

quality services.

In November 2009, DOJ indicted 26 people 

for fraud for allegedly perpetrating and billing 

the iTRS fund for fake VRS calls. Most of the 

26 perpetrators of the scheme pled guilty or 

were convicted.389 Since the discovery of the 

fraud390 the FCC has been concerned about 

the problem. The FY 2018–2022 FCC Strategic 

Plan calls on the Commission to reduce the 

potential for “fraud, waste, and abuse in the 

USF programs,”391 and to “improve the quality of 

telecommunications relay services” so that Deaf 

and Hard of Hearing people can make calls in the 

same way as hearing people.392

As part of the new VRS rates, a tier was 

established for emergent providers to encourage 

competition. As of September 2017, however, 

no providers participated in the trials for skillsbased routing and certified Deaf interpreters 

mentioned earlier because of the cost. The 

iTRS Fund Advisory Council asked the FCC to 

increase the rates paid to any VRS providers that 

participated in the skills-based routing trial and 

to extend the trial period.393 The FCC has not yet 

responded to this request. NCD recommends 

the FCC reconsider the pay rate for the 

trials for skills-based routing and certified 

Deaf interpreters, apply the emergent rate 

to any VRS providers that participate in the 

skills-based routing trial, and renew the 

trial period.

Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone 

Service (IP CTS) is another form of TRS, which 

allows Hard of Hearing persons with sufficient 

residual hearing who want to use their own 

voice to speak directly to the called party and 

listen while at the same time reading captions of 

what the other person is saying.394 When placing 

a call, the IP CTS user turns on the captioning 

option on a caption telephone, which alerts a 

Communications Assistant to join the call.395 Hard 

of Hearing users of IP CTS also have the same 

problems with choice, competition, and quality as 

other TRS users.396 In December 2018, the iTRS 

Fund Advisory Council found that the FCC's plan 

to reduce the rate by $1.58 per minute397 does 

not cover all providers' costs and may result in 

providers dropping IP CTS services.398 IP CTS is 

also one of only two disability-related issues on 

which the FCC's actions have been reversed in 

litigation.399 On June 20, 2014, the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

halted400 FCC interim rules on IP CTS. The interim 

rule required, among other things, that new IP CTS 

users pay a minimum of $75 per equipment.401

On June 7, 2018, the FCC issued a rule to 

allow the use of, and compensation for, full ASR 

to make captions for IP CTS calls.402 There is, 

however, no quality measure to ensure users 

of IP CTS can understand telephone calls in the 

same way as others when the IP CTS uses only 

ASR without human assistance.403 One FCC 

Commissioner and a group of disability advocates 

have told the FCC it should not allow ASR for IP 

CTS without first setting quality standards and 

setting a proper payment rate.404 In September 

2016, the DAC recommended that the FCC 

“establish rules and standards for IP CTS quality 

of service,”405 and followed up in October 2018, 

asking that there be a measurement of IP CTS 

82 National Council on Disability
captioning quality to set the minimum quality 

level before allowing ASR to be used.406 To date, 

the FCC has not developed minimum quality level 

measurements.407 NCD recommends the FCC 

take concrete steps to develop and implement 

performance measures and service quality 

metrics for VRS and IP CTS.

Competent and Credible 

Investigative Process and 

Enforcement Action

The FCC is mandated to report on complaints 

about CVAA violations involving Section 255 

which covers accessibility of telecommunications 

services and equipment, Section 716 which deals 

with accessibility of advanced communications 

services and equipment, and Section 718 which 

concerns the accessibility of Internet browsers on 

mobile phones.408 FCC regulations for complaints 

related to these CVAA provisions require that a 

consumer must submit a Request for Dispute 

Assistance (RDA) to the DRO.409 The RDA 

process seeks to resolve a complaint by bringing 

together the person making the complaint, the 

business covered under the Communications 

Act about which the person has complained, and 

the FCC to find a solution.410 If the parties do not 

agree on how to resolve the complaint within 30 

days after the filing of the RDA, the parties may 

agree to ask for a 30-day extension. The parties 

to the dispute may continue to request additional 

30-day extensions until there is a resolution or 

the complainant decides to move to the next step 

of the enforcement process and file an informal 

complaint. The informal complaint is handled by 

the FCC Enforcement Bureau.411

When an informal complaint is filed, the 

FCC must send the complaint to the business 

covered under the Act for which the consumer 

complains.412 That business must respond to 

the complaint and any FCC questions within 

20 days.413 Within these 20 days, the business 

must also provide a summary of an answer to 

the complainant and the FCC.414 Within 180 days 

after receipt of the complaint, the FCC must 

finish an investigation and a written order stating 

whether or not a violation has occurred.415 The 

FCC can order the business to fix the problem of 

the complaint and take other appropriate action.416

The FCC states that the RDA process resolved 

virtually all complaints about accessibility without 

the need to file an informal complaint and without 

further FCC action.417 The FCC also believes “this 

process has encouraged service providers and 

equipment manufacturers to comply with the 

accessibility rules.”418

From January 1, 2016, to December 31, 

2017, consumers filed 24 RDAs for violations of 

the CVAA.419 Of these 24 RDAs, 9 (37 percent) 

Summary of FCC Requests for 

Dispute Assistance, 1/1/16 - 12/31/17

■ 24 RDAs for violations of CVAA

■ 9 of 24 RDAs that business equipment not 

accessible or usable

■ 15 of 24 RDAs that business services not 

accessible or usable

■ 22 of 24 RDAs that business didn’t follow 

Sec. 255

■ 2 of 24 RDAs that business didn’t follow 

Sec. 716

■ 1 of 24 RDAs that company didn’t follow 

both Secs. 255 and 718

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 83
complained that the business’s equipment was 

not accessible or usable and 15 (63 percent) 

complained that the business’s services were 

not accessible or usable.420 Twenty-two (92 

percent) of the 24 RDAs complained that 

businesses did not follow Section 255, and 

2 (8 percent) complained companies did not 

follow Section 716.421 One RDA complained that 

a company did not follow both Sections 255 

and 718.422 Several RDAs complained about 

the accessibility of communication services.423

For example, the CVAA requires access to 

web browsers on mobile devices for people 

who are blind or visually impaired,424 but some 

complained that certain services were not 

accessible to them.425 Additional complaints 

were about handsets that had (1) poor sound 

quality and (2) hard to read or use video screens, 

keyboards, or dial pads.426

In other RDAs, consumers complained that 

service providers did not give them a way 

to apply for service, purchase a phone, learn 

how to use their phones or services, report 

service or equipment problems, get general 

customer service, pay their bills, cancel 

service, or obtain directory assistance.427

Some consumers with sight, dexterity, or 

cognitive disabilities complained that they did 

not have accessible ways to apply for service. 

Some consumers with speech, hearing, or 

cognitive disabilities complained that customer 

service was not accessible because the only 

way to get it was through direct voice calls 

or voice interactive menus.428 For example, a 

consumer with a cognitive disability required 

more time to get through a voice menu but got 

disconnected. Some people with hearing and 

speech limitations complained that they could 

not use relay services to get through voiceactivated menus at all and requested the ability 

to contact customer service through chat or 

email.429

The DRO helped resolve 23 of the 24 RDAs 

filed during this time.430 DRO noted that no 

consumer asked to change his or her RDA to 

an informal complaint for investigation by the 

Enforcement Bureau. Also, no consumer filed 

a formal complaint against a company for not 

providing accessible services or products. The 

FCC did not impose a fine on any company for 

accessibility-related violations.431 While the FCC 

can report on the general nature of RDAs, it cannot 

reveal the resolution of the complaint because of 

confidentiality provisions. Without transparency 

in the resolution of complaints, there is no clear 

understanding about the true nature of the problem, 

the number of people with disabilities who might 

be impacted by the practice of a business, and the 

ability of the FCC to achieve systemic solutions. 

NCD recommends that the FCC work with 

Congress to develop a mechanism to allow for 

the reporting of resolution of RDAs to increase 

the transparency of the RDA program.

The FCC has a compliance ladder for closed 

captioning quality complaints which provides 

industry an opportunity to correct the problem 

prior to enforcement action by the Commission. 

Once a pattern of noncompliance is identified, the 

entity in question will have 30 days to take 

corrective action. If the issue is not remedied 

after 30 days, the FCC will ask the entity for a 

written action plan for how they will achieve 

compliance. Over 180 days, the entity will need 

to update the FCC on the results of the action 

plan. If a pattern of noncompliance is still present, 

the FCC will take appropriate enforcement action. 

The goal of the compliance ladder is to increase 

pressure on companies against whom there are 

84 National Council on Disability
more consumers complaining of repeated failures 

to provide access.432 The FCC noted that they 

would like to see more complaints.433

Training and Technical Assistance

Promises to Keep recommended that the FCC 

change the required 

minimum standards 

to increase its public 

information sharing and 

outreach to the disability 

community. The iTRS 

Advisory Group has 

questioned the reporting 

details about how the 

$2 million set aside for 

outreach and education is spent.434 Only a small 

percentage of the estimated 48 million people 

who are Deaf and Hard of Hearing know about 

TRS services, and much more can be done 

to educate people about TRS and the FCC. 

NCD recommends that the FCC increase its 

The goal of the compliance ladder is 

to increase pressure on companies 

against whom there are more 

consumers complaining of repeated 

failures to provide access.432 The 

FCC noted that they would like to 

see more complaints.

accountability and transparency on how it 

spends the set aside amount for outreach 

and education.

Promises to Keep also recommended 

that Congress should fund a TRS technical 

assistance clearinghouse to provide information 

to consumers and relay 

providers, but there has 

been no funding for such 

a program. The FCC 

maintains an Accessibility 

Clearinghouse435 which 

only provides information 

on accessible devices, 

closed captioning 

contacts, and HAC 

reports. No information is provided regarding 

TRS. NCD echoes its recommendation from 

the 2000 report and recommends that the 

FCC establish a TRS Technical Assistance 

Clearinghouse to provide information to 

consumers and relay providers.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 85
86 National Council on Disability
Conclusion: Has the Promise Been Kept?

T

his report asked the question, has the 

promise of federal disability rights laws been 

kept? As with other civil rights laws, the 

attempt to achieve the promise is a difficult and 

ongoing process. As this report demonstrates, 

DOJ, HUD, and the FCC have a long and critical list 

of responsibilities to uphold the rights of people 

with disabilities to access the community on an 

equal basis with all other citizens. It is therefore 

fitting that these agencies are considered on the 

20th anniversary of the 

most important U.S. 

Supreme Court decision 

to advance the integration 

of people with disabilities 

in the community,

Olmstead v. L.C.

Since the release 

of Promises to Keep in 

2000, DOJ, HUD, and 

the FCC have expanded the scope, and in some 

cases the sophistication, of their regulations and 

guidance in response to many technological and 

social changes of the past two decades. DOJ 

enforcement work has advanced beyond simply 

addressing the type of entities covered by the 

ADA, toward outlining the specific details of 

the rights contained within the ADA. DOJ has 

further improved the availability of enforcement 

documents. The CVAA provides greater 

authority to the FCC to advance accessibility 

requirements in the vastly expanded world of 

telecommunications, while HUD has created 

useful guidance on disability rights under the 

FHA and established additional protections 

through its regulations. FHEO within HUD has 

further faced a steady and significant increase in 

disability rights complaints in the past decade.

Despite some positive developments in 

regulations and guidance, the efforts of these 

agencies to enforce 

federal laws has been 

inconsistent. The number 

of Section 504 

compliance reviews 

conducted by HUD has 

dropped precipitously 

since FY 2009 as the 

agency faces a decline 

in staff and a backlog of 

housing investigations. DOJ’s litigation efforts have 

swung up and down using various data measures 

over the past decade, while the successful Project 

Civic Action reviews have declined. Resource 

issues and significantly declining staff levels 

at both CRT and FHEO since FY 2008 likely 

account for some of the downturn in enforcement 

efforts. Agency decisions on enforcement 

priorities must also be factored into some of 

the trends. NCD recommends that Congress 

Since the release of Promises to Keep

in 2000, DOJ, HUD, and the FCC have 

expanded the scope, and in some 

cases the sophistication, of their 

regulations and guidance in response 

to many technological and social 

changes of the past two decades.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 87
and the President increase resources to allow 

sufficient staffing for DOJ, HUD, and the FCC to 

maintain a consistent level of enforcement and 

compliance activities.

NCD recommends Congress, the President, 

and the leadership of DOJ, HUD, and the FCC 

make policy choices that maintain consistent 

enforcement of federal disability rights.

The availability of data by which to assess the 

enforcement of federal disability rights laws is 

further inconsistent across the federal agencies. 

The EEOC and DOL’s Office of Federal Contract 

Compliance Programs (OFCCP), considered last 

year in Has the Promise 

Been Keep? (Part 1), 

and the HUD’s FHEO in 

this report, all provided 

comprehensive data 

on their enforcement 

outcomes, from initial 

receipt to closure of the 

discrimination case. The 

FCC, however, appears 

hamstrung by the results 

of their Disability Rights 

Office’s Request for Dispute Assistance program. 

While this dispute resolution program may more 

quickly resolve telecommunications complaints, 

and perhaps result in resolutions that impact the 

broader disability community, the confidential 

nature of the resolutions achieved from the 

program precludes any independent assessment of 

its effectiveness and impact, harming transparency 

of the FCC’s enforcement effort. Of greater 

concern in terms of transparency, however, is the 

lack of comprehensive statistical data available 

from DOJ by which to assess its overall disability 

rights enforcement efforts. DOJ released less data 

Recent decisions by DOJ to 

withdraw guidance documents on 

Olmstead, the delays and reversals 

on development of web accessibility 

standards, and changes in DOJ 

settlement policies put at risk the 

ultimate goal of equality for persons 

with disabilities.

on receipt and handling of disability complaints for 

this report than it did for Promises to Keep—an 

unfortunate step backwards.

Swings in regulatory development and 

enforcement policies are also a threat to efforts to 

achieve consistent protection of federal disability 

rights laws. Recent decisions by DOJ to withdraw 

guidance documents on Olmstead, the delays and 

reversals on development of web accessibility 

standards, and changes in DOJ settlement policies 

put at risk the ultimate goal of equality for persons 

with disabilities. HUD’s continued delays in 

affirmatively furthering fair housing data collection, 

and the need for the FCC 

to address accessibility 

compliance issues 

concerning emergency 

alerts directly impact the 

realization of the promises 

of equal access for people 

with disabilities.

The first report in this 

series concluded that 

“the nation cannot be 

content for full integration 

and equal rights for all people with disabilities to 

remain simply aspirational,” but requires “constant 

vigilance and diligent enforcement by the Federal 

Government.”436 The nation has taken important 

steps since Promises to Keep to address legal 

gaps, changes in society, and other challenges to 

the dignity and equality for people with disabilities, 

but without a fully supported, consistent, and 

transparent federal enforcement system, the 

promise will always remain aspirational. As a 

nation we must commit to surge past aspirations 

to meet the promise and the right of equality for 

people with disabilities.

88 National Council on Disability
Appendix A: Agency Budget and Staffing Charts

Table A: DOJ Civil Rights Division Budget 2008–2018437

Fiscal Year CRT Enacted CRT Constant 

2000 Dollars

Yearly % Change 

(Constant $)

2008 $114,450,000 $92,069,038

2009 $123,151,000 $99,422,259 7.99

2010 $145,449,000 $115,528,886 16.20

2011 $144,495,000 $111,259,204 −3.70

2012 $144,500,000 $109,007,204 −2.02

2013 $136,341,000 $101,367,468 −7.01

2014 $144,173,000 $105,479,368 4.06

2015 $147,239,000 $107,594,792 2.01

2016 $148,239,000 $106,976,025 −0.58

2017 $148,239,000 $104,744,594 −2.09

2018 $148,239,000 $102,247,228 −2.38

Annual Average $140,410,455 $105,063,279 1.13

% Change since 2008 11.05

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 89
Table B: DOJ Civil Rights Division Staffing 2008–2018

Fiscal Year FTE End of Year* Yearly FTE Change Yearly % Change

2008 715

2009 715 0 0.00

2010 766 51 7.13

2011 817 51 6.66

2012 648 −169 −20.69

2013 607 −41 −6.33

2014 605 −2 −0.33

2015 607 2 0.33

2016 618 11 1.81

2017 699 81 13.11

2018 686 −13 −1.86

Annual Average 680 −0.02

% Change since 2008 −35 −4.06

*Full-time equivalent as reported in the U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Performance Budget for CRT.438 NCD 

used the most recent FTE reported. For example, in the 2014 Fiscal Year Annual Performance Budget Report, DOJ 

reported an enacted FTE number for FY 2012 as 648.

90 National Council on Disability
Table C: HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and Fair Housing 

Initiative Program (FHIP) Budgets 2008 to FY 2018

Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP)

Fiscal Year FHAP Enacted FHAP Constant 

2000 Dollars

Yearly % Change 

Constant $

2008 $25,620,000 $20,609,950

2009 $25,500,000 $20,586,659 −0.11

2010 $28,710,000 $22,804,105 10.77

2011 $28,652,580 $22,062,101 −3.25

2012 $28,047,000 $21,157,959 −4.10

2013 $26,579,974 $19,761,808 −6.60

2014 $25,600,000 $18,729,386 −5.22

2015 $23,300,000 $17,026,458 −9.09

2016 $24,300,000 $17,535,989 2.99

2017 $24,300,000 $17,170,202 −2.09

2018 $23,900,000 $16,484,925 −3.99

Annual Average $23,691,778 $19,448,140

% Change since 2008 −20.01

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 91
Table C: HUD Fair Housing Assistance Program (FHAP) and Fair Housing 

Initiative Program (FHIP) Budgets 2008 to FY 2018, continued

Fair Housing Initiative Program (FHIP)

Fiscal Year FHIP Enacted FHIP Constant 

2000 Dollars

Yearly % Change 

Constant $

2008* $24,000,000 $19,306,744

2009* $27,500,000 $22,201,299 14.99

2010* $42,075,000 $33,419,810 50.53

2011 $41,990,850 $32,332,389 −3.25

2012 $43,020,000 $32,453,217 0.37

2013 $40,276,995 $29,945,336 −7.73

2014 $40,100,000 $29,337,828 −2.03

2015 $40,100,000 $29,303,046 −0.12

2016 $39,200,000 $28,288,508 −3.46

2017 $39,200,000 $27,698,433 −2.09

2018 $39,600,000 $27,313,934 −1.39

Annual Average $34,314,804 $28,327,322

% Change since 2008 41.47

*The FHIP Technical Assistance (FIRST) program was a separate line item between FY 2008 and FY 2010. It has 

been combined with the FHIP amount in this chart for consistency. As broken down by HUD for those fiscal years: 

FY 2008: FHIP $23,200,000 FHIP TA FIRST $800,000; FY 2009: FHIP $26,700,000 FHIP TA FIRST $800,000; FY 

2010: FHIP $41,555,000; FHIP TA FIRST $520,000.

92 National Council on Disability
Table D: HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Budget 2008–2018

Office Salary and Expenses

Fiscal Year Enacted Constant 2000 

Dollars

Yearly % Change 

(Constant $)

2008 $66,734,000 $53,684,012

2009 $70,323,000 $56,773,161 5.75

2010 $71,800,000 $57,030,121 0.45

2011 $71,800,000 $55,285,033 −3.06

2012 $72,600,000 $54,767,633 −0.94

2013 $73,044,000 $54,307,107 −0.84

2014 $69,000,000 $50,481,549 −7.04

2015 $68,000,000 $49,690,950 −1.57

2016 $72,000,000 $51,958,485 4.56

2017 $72,000,000 $50,874,674 −2.09

2018 $69,808,000 $48,149,775 −5.36

Annual Average $70,646,273 $53,000,227

% Change since 2008 −10.31

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 93
Table E: HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Staffing 2008–2018

Staffing

Fiscal Year Reported FTE Yearly FTE Change Yearly % Change

2008 582

2009 596 14 2.41

2010 576 −20 −3.36

2011 572 −4 −0.69

2012 583 11 1.92

2013 543 −40 −6.86

2014 527 −16 −2.95

2015 490 −37 −7.02

2016 484 −6 −1.22

2017 496 12 2.48

2018 479 −17 −3.43

Annual Average 539 −1.87

% Change since 2008 −103 −17.70

94 National Council on Disability
Appendix B: Federal Disability Civil Rights 

Laws Considered

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as Amended

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)439 of 1990 is heralded as the nation's first comprehensive civil 

rights law addressing the needs of people with disabilities, prohibiting discrimination in employment, 

public services, public accommodations, and telecommunications. Modeled on the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, the ADA gives recognition that discrimination based on disability is a violation of civil rights. The 

ADA affords protections to people with disabilities similar to those provided to people on the basis 

of race, color, sex, national origin, age, and religion, guaranteeing nondiscrimination on the basis of 

disability and equal opportunity in employment, state and local government services, transportation, 

public accommodations, and telecommunications.

Title I of the ADA 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, including state and 

local governments. The EEOC is charged with enforcement of Title I of the ADA.

Title II of the ADA protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination on the basis 

of disability in services, programs, and activities provided by state and local government entities. 

Title II extends the prohibition on discrimination established by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 

of 1973, as amended440 to all activities of state and local governments regardless of whether these 

entities receive federal financial assistance. Except for matters involving public transportation services, 

DOJ is responsible for enforcement activities related to Title II, generally through DOJ’s Civil Rights 

Division, Disability Rights Section. Compliance and enforcement of Title II provisions covering public 

transportation services, such as city buses and public rail transit (e.g., subways, and commuter rail) are 

directed to the Federal Transit Administration, Department of Transportation, Office of Civil Rights.

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the activities of places of public 

accommodations, defined as businesses that are generally open to the public and that fall into one of 

12 categories listed in the ADA, such as restaurants, movie theaters, schools, day care facilities, recreation 

facilities, and doctors' offices. Public accommodations must comply with basic nondiscrimination 

requirements that prohibit exclusion, segregation, and unequal treatment. Places of public accommodation 

also must comply with specific requirements related to architectural standards for new and altered buildings; 

reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures; effective communication with people with 

hearing, vision, or speech disabilities; and other access requirements. Additionally, public accommodations 

must remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense, given 

the public accommodation's resources. The Department of Justice is charged with enforcement of Title III.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 95
Title VI of the ADA—Section 225—requires the FCC to issue regulations to ensure interstate 

communications carriers provide telecommunications relay services “to the extent possible and in the 

most efficient manner, to hearing-impaired and speech-impaired individuals.”

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008441 (ADAAA), removed a number of unintended barriers and 

roadblocks to coverage under the original ADA and nullified judicial misinterpretations of Congressional 

intent. As described by the EEOC, the ADAAA:

emphasizes that the definition of disability should be construed in favor of broad coverage of 

individuals to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA and generally shall not require 

extensive analysis. The Act makes important changes to the definition of the term “disability” 

by rejecting the holdings in several U.S. Supreme Court decisions and portions of EEOC’s ADA 

regulations. The effect of these changes is to make it easier for an individual seeking protection 

under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.442

Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act

The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA)443 was passed in1980 to allow the Department of 

Justice to review “conditions and practices within institutions run by, or for, state and local government.”444

The Act covers public institutions such as prisons and correctional facilities, juvenile detention facilities, 

nursing homes, and intermediate or long-term care or residential facilities.445 CRIPA only allows DOJ to 

address systemic patterns or practices which result in “egregious or flagrant conditions” which deprive 

persons a right, privilege, or immunity protected under the Constitution of federal law and causes grievous 

harm.446

The Act allows, but does not require, DOJ to bring a lawsuit against the public facility if the pattern 

and practice is not resolved through agreement. The Act also allows DOJ to intervene in federal court 

cases brought by other parties to address the issues covered in CRIPA.447 In either case, before DOJ 

can bring suit or seek to intervene in another suit, the Act lays out a number of specific prerequisites.448

Fair Housing Act of 1968, as Amended

The Fair Housing Act (FHA) was enacted as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 to prohibit 

discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, color, or national origin in housing.449 The Act 

was amended in 1988 to include disability and family status as additional prohibited bases for 

discrimination.450

The current Act prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of a dwelling, in the advertisement 

for a dwelling, and in any terms, conditions, or privileges of service or facilities connected to 

the dwelling, or otherwise making unavailable or denying use of the dwelling. Both a renter or a 

purchaser with a disability, and person with a disability residing or intending to reside in the dwelling, 

plus a person associated with the person renting or purchasing are covered by the Act. The refusal to 

allow a person with a disability to pay for reasonable modifications to a dwelling if necessary to live 

in such dwelling is included as prohibited discrimination. Also prohibited is the refusal of an entity 

96 National Council on Disability
covered under the Act to make reasonable modifications to rules, policies, practices, or services for a 

person with a disability.

As part of the 1988 FHA amendments, new multifamily housing construction to be ready for occupancy 

on or after March 13, 1991 is required to meet certain standards for accessibility. The FHA further prohibits 

discrimination in providing residential property real estate transactions and brokerage services.

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973,451 was one of the first federal laws with wide applicability to prohibit 

discrimination on the basis of disability. Title V of the Act prohibits discrimination based on disability by 

federal agencies, in programs receiving federal financial assistance, in federal employment, and in the 

employment practices of federal contractors. Several important sections of the Act include the following.

Section 501 prohibits federal agencies from discriminating in the hiring and employment of people with 

disabilities and requires the agencies to take affirmative action to hire, place and advance employees with 

disabilities.452

Section 503 prohibits federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating in employment 

against people with disabilities and requires these employers to take affirmative action to recruit, hire, 

promote, and retain employees with disabilities.

Section 504 mandates that no qualified individual with a disability shall be “excluded from the 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity” 

receiving federal financial assistance or conducted by a federal agency. Each federal agency establishes 

its own 504 regulations that apply to its programs and each federal agency is responsible for enforcing 

its own regulations. Requirements common to these regulations include reasonable accommodation for 

employees with disabilities; program accessibility; effective communication with people who have hearing 

or vision disabilities; and accessible new construction and alterations.

Section 508 establishes requirements for electronic and information technology developed, maintained, 

procured, or used by the Federal Government. Section 508 requires federal electronic and information 

technology to be accessible to people with disabilities, including employees and members of the public.

Section 508 was enacted to eliminate barriers in information technology, to make available new 

opportunities for people with disabilities and to encourage development of technologies that will help 

achieve these goals. Section 508 requires that when federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or 

use electronic and information technology, federal employees with disabilities have access to and use 

of information and data that is comparable to the access and use by federal employees who are not 

individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the agency. Section 508 

also requires that individuals with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or 

services from a federal agency, have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to 

that provided to the public who are not individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be 

imposed on the agency.453

Similar to Section 504, each federal agency is charged with establishing and enforcing its 508 criteria.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 97
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act

The Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) of 2010 was passed “to increase the 

access of persons with disabilities to modern communications.”454 Title I of the CVAA requires 

that advanced communications services, such as Internet voice services, electronic messaging, 

and video communications, including mobile devices that work with such services, for example 

smartphones, be fully accessible to people with disabilities.455 Title II further updated the definition 

of telecommunications relay services, and applies hearing aid compatibility mandates to telephonelike equipment.456

Title II of the CVAA requires that the captioning of video programming shows on television be captioned 

over the Internet, that on-screen text menus and guides shown through a TV set-top box be accessible to 

people who are blind and visually impaired, and contains other provisions to ensure easier access to closed 

captioning.

98 National Council on Disability
Appendix C: Overview of Promises to Keep and 

Methodology Used for the 2019 Progress Report

Overview of Promises to Keep

Promises to Keep took an in-depth look at the EEOC, DOJ, DOT, FCC, and to a degree the Access 

Board, all of which have a role in the enforcement or implementation of the ADA. For that report, NCD 

developed and used the following 11 elements to assess the ADA enforcement by those agencies.457

Element 1: Proactive and reactive strategies. Proactive measures address compliance through 

efforts to educate, monitor, and prevent civil rights violations, and reactive measures aim to resolve 

and remedy complaints of civil rights violations after the fact.

Element 2: Communication with consumers and complainants. Communication must ensure that 

persons protected by the statute know where and how to file complaints of discrimination, how 

the enforcement agency operates, what to expect as possible outcomes, and the aims and limits 

of the enforcement mandate. Complainants should hear promptly from the agency following the 

initial filing and be regularly updated on the status of the complaint.

Element 3: Policy and sub-regulatory guidance. Enforcement is advanced where agencies issue 

policy and sub-regulatory guidance on issues of confusion or controversy as a means of providing 

advice to covered entities about actions for compliance and to assist the courts in the interpretation 

of the statute.

Element 4: Enforcement actions. Where violations of the statute are present, effective enforcement 

involves measures to obtain corrective action or mediated settlement, followed by more punitive 

measures such as fines or litigation where violations are not easily or promptly resolved.

Element 5: Strategic litigation. Agency-initiated strategic litigation or amicus participation in litigation 

to implement enforcement is used where other measures have failed or to develop case law.

Element 6: Timely resolution of complaints. Effective resolution of complaints involves their timely 

processing. There should be expeditious internal processing where complaints must be referred 

to other agencies for investigation.

Element 7: Competent and credible investigative processes. Effective enforcement includes 

investigative processes and outcomes that are thorough, well-documented, and competent and 

thus credible to complainants and covered entities alike.

Element 8: Technical assistance for protected persons and covered entities. Technical assistance, 

offered in a variety of modes and formats, assists covered entities and informs those protected by 

the statute of their rights.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 99
Element 9: Adequate agency resources. Resources include agency staff (investigators, attorneys, 

and others) adequate in number to the size of the compliance and complaint caseload; ongoing staff 

training provided on a regular basis; and data management systems and other support systems to 

enable efficient implementation of enforcement activities.

Element 10: Interagency collaboration and coordination. Appropriate collaboration and coordination 

affects enforcement where responsibilities are spread across different agencies or organizations, or 

where there are related activities or areas of jurisdiction.

Element 11: Outreach and consultation with the community. Regular outreach and consultation with 

the communities of persons protected by the statutes provide information about the key issues and 

problem areas of enforcement, how effectiveness is judged by consumers, and potential methods 

for improvement.

Promises to Keep concluded that “the federal agencies charged with enforcement and policy 

development under the ADA, to varying degrees, have been overly cautious, reactive, and lacking any 

coherent and unifying national strategy,”458 and that there existed “variation in the degree to which the 

federal agencies [had] shown leadership, engaged in policy development, and sought to clarify ‘frontier 

issues.’”459 Promises to Keep went on to state that in some cases differences in agency leadership 

“appear to be related to the culture of the agency itself and how it has traditionally framed its mission 

and defined its constituency. In other cases, resource and administrative constraints, turf conflicts, and 

other forces within the agency appear to suppress or mute the rigor of civil rights enforcement.”460

Promises to Keep included 20 recommendations related to DOJ,461 and 5 recommendations related 

to the FCC.462

Methodology Used for the 2019 Progress Report

NCD looked back at the methods and recommendations contained in Promises to Keep, while broadening 

the scope of the analysis to include disability rights enforcement beyond the ADA. The primary question 

considered for the 2019 Progress Report was how effective have the efforts of DOJ, HUD, and the 

FCC been in the enforcement and implementation of federal disability rights laws within each agency’s 

responsibility? To focus the analysis, the 11 assessment elements developed in Promises to Keep were 

rephrased into 11 questions to guide the research.

NCD reviewed agency reports, strategic plans, regulations, and sub-regulatory guidance; evaluated 

agency budget and staffing data; analyzed enforcement statistics when available and relevant; examined 

agency involvement in federal litigation, as relevant; and considered reports from other entities such as 

the Government Accountability Office. Though data and information were considered back to 2000, the 

analysis considered mainly the period of 2008 to 2018.

The budgets of CRT within DOJ, and FHEO within HUD were analyzed to determine changes and 

the potential impact on the enforcement of disability rights and programs. Data on full-time equivalent 

(FTE) staff was also provided by CRT and assessed for significant changes. Since the FCC has not taken 

100 National Council on Disability
enforcement action because of the outcomes of Request for Dispute Assistance program discussed 

within the report, budget and staffing of the FCC Disability Rights Office or Enforcement Bureau was 

not considered.

FHEO provided comprehensive data on HUD housing complaints, investigations, compliance reviews, 

and other enforcement information which NCD analyzed and included as part of the report. CRT provided 

NCD with data on the outcome of DOJ disability rights cases which resulted in a letter of finding, settlement 

agreement, or consent decree; involvement in federal litigation, either directly, or through submission of a 

statement of interest or amicus curie brief; the number of reviews conducted under Project Civic Action; 

and the number of ADA information calls and DRS public trainings. As discussed in the report, CRT did not 

provide other disability rights complaint information requested by NCD.

Specific questions for each agency, covering a range of issues, were developed based on the broad 

11 research questions. NCD submitted questions to CRT for which the relevant CRT sections provided 

a written response. NCD conducted an in-person interview of a staff member each from CRT and DRS, 

and submitted follow-up questions for which CRT replied in writing. A number of the interview questions 

for DOJ related to the recommendations contained in Promises to Keep. NCD interviewed in-person 

staff from HUD’s FHEO and Office of General Counsel. FHEO also responded in writing to follow-up 

questions. NCD conducted two separate interviews with staff at the FCC Disability Rights Office.

In addition to an analysis of important regulations and sub-regulatory guidance on disability rights 

from each agency, NCD analyzed a sample of federal court cases which involved DOJ, and analyzed a 

sample of letters of finding, settlement agreements, and consent decrees made available by DOJ on 

ada.gov. Since DOJ handles housing rights in federal court, no analysis was required of HUD in this 

regard.

To guide the research, a project advisory group of 16 experts in disability rights, disability research, 

and disability and self-advocacy was established which provided advice on specific research questions, 

research methods, ideas for recommendations, and the accuracy of the analysis in the report. Several 

members of the advisory group were also interviewed individually about DOJ or HUD enforcement 

efforts.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 101
102 National Council on Disability
Endnotes

1 National Council on Disability. 2018. Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights 

Law. Washington, DC: NCD. https://www.ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Federal-Enforcement_508.pdf.

2 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (1990); 42 U.S.C. § 12101, 

et seq. (2008).

3 National Council on Disability. 2000. Promises to Keep: A Decade of Federal Enforcement of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: NCD, 20. https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/497e788f_1ab2_4ae2_

b240_4aefa363230c.pdf.

4 Ibid., 1.

5 Ibid., 2.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., 5–6.

8 ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553; 154 Cong. Rec. H8,286–8,398 (2008), 

Cong. Rec., S8,342–8,356 (2008).

9 Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010); 

Pub. L. No. 111-265, 124 Stat. 2795 (2010) (making technical corrections to the CVAA); 47 U.S.C. § 618(b).

10 Dart, Justin. February 6, 1992. “Related Quotes by Justin Dart.” Speech given in Toronto Canada. http://mn.gov/

mnddc/ada-legacy/pdf/related-quotes-by-justin-dart.pdf. (Accessed June 24, 2018).

11 National Council on Disability. Has the Promise Been Kept? 41–42.

12 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. December 13, 2018. “About the Division.” https://www.justice.

gov/crt/about-division. (Accessed July 8, 2019). The 11 sections of the Civil Rights Division are the Appellate, 

Disability Rights, Criminal, Educational Opportunities, Employment Litigation, Federal Coordination and Compliance, 

Housing and Civil Enforcement, Immigrant and Employee Rights, Policy and Strategy, Special Litigation, and Voting.

13 42 U.S.C. § 12134; 42 U.S.C. § 12186.

14 On August 11, 2016, DOJ published a Final Rule revising the Titles II and III regulations to implement the 

requirements of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. Congress enacted the ADA Amendments Act to clarify 

the meaning and interpretation of the ADA definition of “disability” to ensure that the definition of disability 

would be broadly construed and applied without extensive analysis.

15 National Council on Disability. Promises to Keep, A-2. For a larger discussion of the role of the Access Board, 

see National Council on Disability, Has the Promise Been Kept? (Part 1), 79–90.

16 56 Fed. Reg. 35,455 (July 26, 1991).

17 56 Fed. Reg. 35,453 (Access Board), 56 Fed. Reg. 35,605 (Department of Justice) (July 26, 1991).

18 67 Fed. Reg. 15,509 (April 2, 2002).

19 69 Fed. Reg. 44,083 (July 23, 2004).

20 63 Fed. Reg. 2,000 (January 13, 1998).

21 63 Fed. Reg. 2,060 (January 13, 1998).

22 65 Fed. Reg. 62,497 (October 18, 2000).

23 67 Fed. Reg. 56,352 (September 3, 2002).

24 73 Fed. Reg. 34,466; 73 Fed. Reg. 34,508 (June 17, 2008).

25 75 Fed. Reg. 43,452 (July 26, 2010).

26 75 Fed. Reg. 43,446 (July 26, 2010).

27 75 Fed. Reg. 43,460 (July 26, 2010).

28 75 Fed. Reg. 43,467 (July 26, 2010).

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 103
29 75 Fed. Reg. 56,164 (September 15, 2010).

30 75 Fed. Reg. 56,236 (September 15, 2010).

31 DOJ included a revised definition of what is an existing facility, revisions in wheelchair and companion seating 

requirements for assembly areas, and a new definition for “other” power-driven mobility devices and wheelchairs.

32 28 C.F.R. § 26.104, Appx. A

33 75 Fed. Reg. 56,191–56,195 (Title II), 75 Fed. Reg. 56,265–56,269 (Title III), (September 15, 2010).

34 81 Fed. Reg. 87,348 (December 2, 2016).

35 81 Fed. Reg. 87,832 (December 2, 2016).

36 The Department has not substantially amended its section 504 federally assisted regulation since its original 

publication in 1980, other than in 1988 to incorporate the reference to the Uniform Federal Accessibility 

Standards as an applicable accessibility standard. 53 Fed. Reg. 3,203 (February 4, 1988). The Department 

made another change in 2003 to add a definition of “program or activity” under Section 504 to implement the 

provisions of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. 68 Fed. Reg. 51,334 (August 26, 2003).

37 U.S. Department of Justice. “Fall 2015 Statement of Regulatory Priorities.” https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/

eAgenda/StaticContent/201510/Statement_1100.html. (Accessed July 8, 2019).

38 81 Fed. Reg. 28,658 (May 9, 2016) (Supplemental ANPRM).

39 U.S. Department of Justice. “Fall 2017 Statement of Regulatory Priorities.” https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/

eAgenda/StaticContent/201710/Statement_1100.html. (Accessed July 8, 2019).

40 82 Fed. Reg. 60,932 (December 26, 2017).

41 National Retail Federation. August 29, 2018. ADA Website Lawsuits a Growing Problem for Retailers. https://nrf.

com/blog/ada-website-lawsuits-growing-problem-retailers. (Accessed July 8, 2019). Lumpkin, Carol, and Stephanie 

Moot. July 26, 2018. Hotels Fight Recurring Website Accessibility Lawsuits. Framingham, MA: Hotel Management. 

https://www.hotelmanagement.net/legal/hotel-websites-still-open-to-accessibility-lawsuits. (Accessed July 8, 2019).

42 One hundred and three members of the House of Representatives joined a letter urging DOJ to publicly 

state “that private legal action under the ADA with respect to websites is unfair and violates basic due 

process principles in the absence of clear statutory authority and issuance by the department of a final rule 

establishing website accessibility standards,” and to “provide guidance and clarity with regard to website 

accessibility under the  . . . ADA.” Members of the Congress of the United States. June 20, 2018. “Letter 

to the Honorable Jeff Sessions.” https://www.adatitleiii.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/121/2018/06/ADAFinal-003.pdf. (Accessed July 8, 2019). Senators Grassly and Rounds also sent a similar letter. Launey, Kristina. 

September 13, 2018. “Senators Send AG Sessions Letter Seeking Clarity on Website Accessibility Under 

ADA.” ADA Title I News and Insights. Seyfarth Shaw. https://www.adatitleiii.com/2018/09/senators-send-agsessions-letter-seeking-clarity-on-website-accessibility-under-ada/. (Accessed July 8, 2019).

43 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs. September 25, 2018. Letter to the Honorable Ted 

Bunt from Stephen E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General. https://www.adatitleiii.com/wp-content/uploads/

sites/121/2018/10/DOJ-letter-to-congress.pdf. (Accessed July 8, 2019).

44 Carparts Distribution Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s Ass’n of New Eng., Inc., 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994) 

(Court finds no need for brick and mortar facility in order to impose web accessibility requirements); Robles v. 

Domino‘s Pizza, 913 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2019) (Court requires a brick and mortar facility to impose web accessibility 

requirements), cert. denied, ___U.S.___, 2019 WL 4921438 (Oct. 7, 2019). Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 

121 F.3d 1006, 1010 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (Full panel of the Circuit Court requires brick and mortar facility to 

impose web accessibility requirements and rejects the 9th Circuit’s decision in Carparts).

45 Jess, Steve. June 16, 2018. Suit Paves Way for Arizonans to Text 911. Arizona Public Media. https://www.

azpm.org/s/58237-text-to-9-1-1-coming-to-arizona/. (Accessed July 8, 2019).

46 Iezonni, Lisa I., and Elizabeth Pendo. “Perspective, Accessibility of Medical Diagnostic Equipment—Implications 

for People with Disability,” New England Journal of Medicine, 378 (April 12, 2018): 1371–73. https://www.nejm.

org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1800606. (Accessed July 9, 2019). Romano, Neil. August 13, 2018. “NCD Letter to 

U.S. Attorney General Sessions Regarding Necessity and Appropriateness of Accessible Medical Equipment 

104 National Council on Disability
Regulations.” https://www.ncd.gov/publications/2018/letter-us-attorney-general-sessions-accessible-medical.

(Accessed July 9, 2019).

47 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Dr. Robila Ashfaq, Complaint No. DJ 202-12 C-264, 

OCR 04-15674 (December 29, 2005). https://www.ada.gov/drashfaq.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). (Regarding 

accessible medical examination table for people with mobility disabilities.) Settlement Agreement Between 

the United States and Exodus Women’s Health Center, Complaint No. DJ 202-17M-214 (April 26, 2015). https://

www.ada.gov/exodus.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). (Regarding accessible medical examination table for 

people with mobility disabilities.) Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Valley Radiologists 

Medical Group, Complaint No. DJ 202-11-136 (November 2, 2005). https://www.ada.gov/vri.htmee. (Accessed 

July 9, 2019). (Regarding accessible radiologic imaging medical equipment for people with mobility disabilities.) 

Settlement Agreement Between the United States and the Washington Hospital Center, Complaint No. DJ 

202-16-120 (November 2, 2005). https://www.ada.gov/whc.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). (Regarding a broad 

range of medical services, including accessible inpatient hospital rooms, barrier removal throughout the 

hospital, accessible medical policies and training.) Settlement Agreement Between the United States and 

Marin Magnetic Imaging, Complaint No. DJ 202-11-142 (July 21, 2006). https://ada.gov/marinmagim.htm.

(Accessed July 9, 2019).

48 U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. July 2010. ADA Access to 

Medical Care for Individuals with Mobility Disabilities. https://www.ada.gov/medcare_mobility_ta/medcare_

ta.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

49 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Medical Specialists of the Palm Beaches, Complaint 

No. DJ 202-18-283 (September 28, 2012). https://www.ada.gov/mspb-settlement.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). 

Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Medical Specialists of the Palm Beaches, Complaint 

No. DJ 202-55-148 (July 24, 2018). https://www.ada.gov/charlotte_radiology_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019). 

Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Complaint 

No. DJ 202-62-458 (April 18, 2019). https://www.ada.gov/TJ_univ_hosp_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

50 Affordable Care Act, § 4230. Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010, which added amending Section 794f 

to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973).

51 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).

52 The 2008 ADA Amendments Act did not directly address the integration mandate.

53 U.S. Department of Justice. June, 2012. Statement of the Department of Justice on Enforcement of the 

Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. https://www.ada.

gov/olmstead/q&a_olmstead.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

54 Ibid.

55 U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights. 

December 15, 2014. “Dear Colleague Letter Regarding States’ Olmstead Obligations When Implementing the 

New FLSA Rule Regarding Home Care Workers.” https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/doj_hhs_letter.

pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

56 Ibid.

57 U.S. Department of Justice. October 31, 2016. Statement of the Department of Justice on Application 

of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C. to 

State and Local Governments' Employment Service Systems for Individuals with Disabilities. https://

centerforpublicrep.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/olmstead_guidance_employment-10.16.pdf.

(Accessed July 9, 2019).

58 U.S. Department of Justice. December 21, 2017. Withdrawal of the Statement of the Department of Justice 

on Application of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. 

L.C. to State and Local Governments' Employment Service Systems for Individuals with Disabilities. https://

www.ada.gov/withdrawn_olmstead.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

59 Ibid.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 105
60 Letter to Acting Assistant Attorney General Gore. January 8, 2018. http://www.c-c-d.org/fichiers/CCD-DOJGuidance-Withdrawal-Letter-01-05-18-FINAL.pdf. (Accessed July 26, 2019). The letter states “The undersigned 

members and allies of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) and the Collaboration to Promote 

Self Determination (CPSD) write to express concern about the Justice Department’s recent withdrawal of 

a number of guidance and technical assistance documents concerning the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA).”

61 U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. November 10, 2016. 

Joint Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice: State 

and Local Land Use Laws and Practices and the Application of the Fair Housing Act. https://www.justice.gov/

opa/file/912366/download. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

62 Ibid., 11–12.

63 U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. August 18, 1999. 

Joint Statement on Group Homes, Local Land Use and the Fair Housing Act. https://www.lifairhousing.org/

wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DOJ-HUD-Joint-Statement-group-homes-land-use-zoning.compressed.pdf.

(Accessed July 9, 2019).

64 U.S. Department of Justice. January 11, 2017. Examples and Resources to Support Criminal Justice Entities 

in Compliance with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. https://www.ada.gov/cjta.html. (Accessed 

July 9, 2019).

65 Ibid., 4.

66 Ibid., 7–9.

67 U.S. Department of Justice. ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual. https://www.ada.gov/taman2.html. 

(Accessed July 9, 2019). U.S. Department of Justice. ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual. https://www.

ada.gov/taman3.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

68 U.S. Department of Justice. November 2013. ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual Update. https://www.

ada.gov/taman2up.html.

69 U.S. Department of Justice. November 2013. ADA Title III Technical Assistance Manual Update. https://www.

ada.gov/taman3up.html.

70 U.S. Department of Justice. July 20, 2015. Frequently Asked Questions About Service Animals and the ADA. 

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

71 U.S. Department of Justice. March 2011. ADA Update: A Primer for Small Business. https://www.ada.gov/

regs2010/smallbusiness/smallbusprimer2010.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

72 U.S. Department of Justice. October, 2016. Questions and Answers: The Americans with Disabilities Act and 

Persons with HIV/AIDS. https://www.ada.gov/hiv/ada_q&a_hiv.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

73 U.S. Department of Justice. February 5, 2014. “Letter of Findings in United States’ Investigation of the 

Louisiana Attorney Licensure System Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.” https://www.ada.gov/

louisiana-bar-lof.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

74 National Federation of the Blind and United States of America v. HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group, Inc., 

Consent Decree, No. 1:13-cv-10799 (D. Mass, March 25, 2014). https://www.ada.gov/hrb-cd.htm. (Accessed 

July 9, 2019).

75 National Federation of the Blind, and the United States v. HRB Digital LLC and HRB Tax Group, Inc., Motion to 

Intervene, No. 1:13-cv-10799 (D. Mass, filed November 25, 2013). https://www.ada.gov/hrb-cd.htm. (Accessed 

July 9, 2019).

76 The consent decree set the standard for accessibility as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level A 

and AA Success Criteria (WCAG 2.0 AA).

77 Settlement Agreement between the United States and Arizona State University (January 8, 2010). https://

www.ada.gov/arizona_state_university.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

78 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Lesley University, Complaint No. DJ 202-36-231 

(December 20, 2012). https://www.ada.gov/lesley_university_sa.htm (Accessed July 9, 2019). Settlement 

106 National Council on Disability
Agreement Between the United States and Rider University, Complaint No. DJ 202-48-32 (February 21, 2019). 

https://www.ada.gov/rider_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

79 National Council on Disability. Promises to Keep, A-9.

80 U.S. Department of Justice. Fiscal Years 2014–2018 Strategic Plan, 34–37. https://www.justice.gov/sites/

default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/02/28/doj-fy-2014-2018-strategic-plan.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

81 U.S. Department of Justice. Fiscal Years 2007–2012 Strategic Plan, 56–59. https://www.justice.gov/archive/

mps/strategic2007-2012/strategic_plan20072012.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

82 U.S. Department of Justice. Fiscal Years 2018–2022 Strategic Plan, 1. https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/

file/1071066/download. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

83 National Council on Disability. Promises to Keep, A-6.

84 The White House. July 27, 2007. “Fact Sheet: Six Years of Progress Under the President's New Freedom Initiative.” 

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070727-2.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

85 Exec. Order No. 13217 (June 18, 2001). 66 Fed. Reg. 33,155 (June 18, 2001).

86 Holland and Knight, LLP. September 21, 2011. “More Than 50 of Manhattan's Most Popular Restaurants Are 

First on the Investigation List—Will Other Cities/States Follow New York's Example?” https://www.lexology.

com/library/detail.aspx?g=a7a8172a-8f83-4fd3-be11-3fd4f30128a5. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

87 U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York. January 13, 2009. “U.S. Sues Five Manhattan Hotels for Violations of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act.” https://www.ada.gov/hoteladacivilcomplaintspr.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

88 National Council on Disability. Promises to Keep, A-9.

89 Birdsong v. Perdue. No. 1:03-cv-00288-JEC (N.D. Ga. filed January 2003).

90 Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, Pub L. No. 96-247, 94 Stat. 349 (1980); 42 U.S.C. § 1997.

91 U.S. v. Texas, Settlement Agreement (W.D. Tex. signed June 26, 2009). https://www.justice.gov/sites/

default/files/CRT/legacy/2010/12/15/TexasStateSchools_settle_06-26-09.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019). 

Settlement Agreement Between the United States and the State of Connecticut (January 20, 2009). 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/CRT/legacy/2010/12/15/CVH_settle_01-20-09.pdf. (Accessed 

July 9, 2019). United States v. District of Columbia, Settlement Agreement No. 1:07-cv-00889 (D. D.C. 

filed June 25, 2007). https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/CRT/legacy/2011/04/19/st_elizabeths_

settle_5-11-07.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

92 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. “Olmstead: Community Integration for Everyone.” https://

www.ada.gov/olmstead/. (Accessed July 9, 2019). Centers for Medicaid and Medicare. “Community Living 

Initiative.” https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/ltss/community-living/index.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

93 Perez, Thomas. April 20, 2010. “Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee.” https://www.justice.gov/

opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-civil-rights-division-thomas-e-perez-testifies-senate. (Accessed July 

9, 2019). Stating that “the Administration’s first year proved to be a landmark for federal enforcement of the 

Supreme Court decision in Olmstead.”

94 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Justice. April, 2018. Health Care 

Fraud and Abuse Control Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017, 81–87. https://oig.hhs.gov/publications/

docs/hcfac/FY2017-hcfac.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

95 National Council on Disability. Promises to Keep, 77–78, A-5.

96 Settlement Agreement between the United States and the Office of the Sheriff, County of Fairfax, Virginia, 

Complaint No. 204-9-18 https://www.ada.gov/fairfax.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

97 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and the Arlington County Sheriff, Complaint No. DJ 204-79-325 

(November 17, 2016). https://www.ada.gov/arlington_co_sheriff_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

98 Gillespie & United States v. Dimensions Health Care d/b/a Laurel Regional Hospital, Consent Decree, No. 05-cv-73 

(D. Md.). https://www.ada.gov/laurelco.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). (Paragraph C of Section V concerns Qualified 

Interpreters.)

99 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Methodist LeBonheur Healthcare (September 24, 

2007), ¶ 35(d). https://www.ada.gov/methhosp.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 107
100 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Spotsylvania Medical Center, Complaint No. DJ 202-79-329 

(December 1, 2017), ¶ 27. https://www.ada.gov/spotsylvania_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

101 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Pine Hills Kiddie Garden, Complaint No. DJ 202-26-62 

(October 19, 2009). https://www.ada.gov/pinehillsccare.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). Settlement Agreement 

Between the United States and Bumblebee Palace Infant and Toddler Care Center (September 22, 2006). 

https://www.ada.gov/bumlebee.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

102 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Leslie University, Complaint No. DJ 202-36-231 (December 

20, 2012). https://www.ada.gov/lesley_university_sa.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). Settlement Agreement Between 

the United States and Camp Bravo, Complaint No. DJ 202-35-304 (June 24, 2015). https://www.ada.gov/camp_

bravo_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019). Settlement Agreement Between the United States and YMCA Metro 

Chicago Association (January 27, 2017). https://www.ada.gov/ymca_chicago.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

103 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Camp Bravo (June 24, 2015).

104 United States v. Nobel Learning Center, Settlement Agreement, No. 09-cv-1818 (E.D. Penn signed January 14, 

2011). https://www.ada.gov/nobel_learning.htm; https://www.ada.gov/kinder_care_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

105 Deanna Jones v. National Conference of Bar Examiners, Statement of Interest of the United States, No. 11-cv174 (D. Vt. filed July 20, 2011). https://www.ada.gov/briefs/jones_interest.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

106 Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Law School Admissions Council, Complaint in Intervention, No. CV 

12-1830 (N.D. Cal. filed October 19, 2012). https://www.ada.gov/briefs/lsac_complaint.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

107 Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Law School Admission Council, No. CV 12-1830, Consent 

Decree (N.D. Cal. signed May 29, 2014). https://www.ada.gov/dfeh_v_lsac/lsac_consentdecree.htm. 

(Accessed July 26, 2019).

108 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Wells Fargo Settlement, Complaint No. DJ 202-11-239 

(May 31, 2011). https://www.ada.gov/wells_fargo/wells_fargo_settle.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

109 Dudley & U.S. v. Miami University, et al., U.S. Motion to Intervene, No. 14-cv-38 (S.D. Ohio). https://www.ada.

gov/miami_university/motion_intervene.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019). National Federation of the Blind v. HRB 

Digital, Complaint of Intervention of the United States, No. 1:13-cv-10799 (D. Mass filed December 11, 2013). 

https://www.ada.gov/hrb-complaint.htm. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

110 Dudley & U.S. v. Miami University, et al., U.S. Motion to Intervene, No. 14-cv-38 (S.D. Ohio).

111 Dudley and United States v. Miami University, et al., No. 1:14-cv-38, Consent Decree (S.D. Ohio signed 

October 13, 2016). https://www.ada.gov/miami_university_cd.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

112 National Association of the Deaf v. Netflix, Statement of Interest of the United States, No. 11-cv-30168 (D. 

Mass. filed May 15, 2012). https://www.ada.gov/briefs/netflix_SOI.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

113 U.S. Department of Justice. June 28, 2011. “Letter of Findings in United States Investigation of the North Carolina 

Mental Health System Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,” 3. https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/

documents/nc_findings_letter.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019). United States Department of Justice. December 22, 

2011. “Letter of Finding in United States’ Investigation of the State of Mississippi’s Service System for Persons 

with Mental Illness and Developmental Disabilities,” 5–6. https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/miss_

findings_letter.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

114 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d-1, 12133; 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a).

115 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 (incorporated by 42 U.S.C. § 12133).

116 United States v. Louisiana, 3:18-cv-608 (M.D. LA filed June 6, 2018). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/

documents/louisiana_complaint.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019). In the case, both a complaint and settlement 

agreement were filed simultaneously. https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

117 United States v. Louisiana, Agreement to Resolve Department of Justice Investigation, No. 3:18-cv-608 (M.D. 

LA filed June 6, 2018). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/louisiana_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

118 U.S. Department of Justice. 2016. “Letter of Findings in United States’ Investigation of the West Virginia 

Children’s Mental Health System Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.” https://www.ada.gov/

olmstead/documents/west_va_findings_ltr.docx. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

108 National Council on Disability
119 U.S. Department of Justice. “Letter of Findings in United States Investigation of the North Carolina Mental 

Health System.”

120 United States v. New York, Supplement to Second Amended Settlement Agreement, No. 1:13-cv-4165 (E.D. N.Y. 

2018). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/141-1%20SUPPLEMENT%20(002).pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

121 Center for Public Representation. January 18, 2019. “CPR Concludes Month-Long Trial. https://

centerforpublicrep.org/news/cpr-concludes-month-long-trial/. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

122 United States v. Georgia, Complaint No. 1:17-cv-03999 (N.D. Ga. 2016). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/

documents/gnets_complaint.html. (Accessed July 10, 2010).

123 United States v. Mississippi, 3:16-CV-00622-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss. filed Aug. 11, 2016).

124 AR v. Secretary, Florida Agency for Healthcare, Brief of United States, No. 17-13595-BB (11th Cir. filed 

October 18, 2017). https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/ar-v-secretary-florida-agency-health-careadministration-brief-appellant. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

125 Memorandum of Agreement, U.S. v. South Carolina and the C.M. Tucker Care Nursing Facility (2009). https://

www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/15/KCCF_MoA_01-14-09.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019); 

and Memorandum of Understanding Between the United States Department of Justice and King County, 

Washington Concerning the King County Correctional facility (2009). https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/

files/crt/legacy/2010/12/15/KCCF_MoA_01-14-09.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

126 United States v. Delaware, Settlement Agreement, No. 11-CV-591 (D. Del. filed July 6, 2011). https://www.ada.gov/

delaware.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). United States v. Virginia, Settlement Agreement 3:12-cv-059 (D. Va. August 

23, 2012). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/virginia_consent_order.htm; https://www.ada.gov/virginia.

htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). United States v. Rhode Island, Settlement Agreement, No. 5:12-cv-557 (D. R.I. filed 

November 1, 2017). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/nc_order_motion_enforce.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 

2019).

127 Office of the Attorney General. November 7, 2018. “Principles and Procedures for Civil Consent Decrees and 

Settlement Agreements with State and Local Governmental Entities.” https://www.justice.gov/opa/pressrelease/file/1109681/download. (Accessed July 9, 2019). The memo relied on principles of state sovereignty 

and the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding court-enforceable decrees and settlements. Ibid., 2.

128 Ibid., 3–4.

129 Ibid., 5.

130 Ibid., 6–7.

131 Trafficking Victims Protection Act Pub. L. 106-386; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589–95; https://www.justice.gov/

humantrafficking/key-legislation. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

132 United States v. Kaufman, 546 F.3d 1242 (10th. Cir. 2008); United States v. Bagley No. 10-cr-00244 (W.D. Mo.). 

United States v. Callahan, Nos. 14–3771/3772 (6th Cir. September 8, 2015).

133 Ibid. United States v. Kaufmann involved the forced labor of people with mental health disabilities while 

United States v. Callahan involved the forced labor of a woman with a developmental disability.

134 18 U.S.C. § 249.

135 United States v. Weston, No. 13-025-1 (E.D. Pa. January 22, 2013). U.S. Department of Justice. November 5, 

2015. Woman Who Held Disabled Adults Captive in Subhuman Conditions Sentenced to Life Plus 80 Years 

in Prison. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/woman-who-held-disabled-adults-captive-subhuman-conditionssentenced-life-plus-80-years. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

136 Ibid.

137 Settlement Agreement Between United States and the Board of Elections for the City of Chicago, Complaint 

No. DJ 204-23-255 (April 11, 2017). https://www.ada.gov/chicago_boe_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

138 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and the City of Concord, Complaint No. DJ 204-47-62 

(February 26, 2019). https://www.ada.gov/concord_nh_sa.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

139 Letter of Findings of Harris County Regarding Polling Place Accessibility, Complaint No. DJ 204-74-351 

(September 29, 2014). https://www.ada.gov/harris_co/harris_county_lof.htm. (Accessed July 9, 2019). United 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 109
States v. Harris County Settlement Agreement, Complaint No. DJ 204-74-351 (March 12, 2019). https://www.

ada.gov/harris_co_sa.html. (Accessed July 10, 2019). Letter of Findings of Augusta County Regarding Polling 

Place Accessibility, Complaint No. DJ-204-90 (May 13, 2015). https://www.ada.gov/briefs/augusta_lof.html. 

(Accessed July 9, 2019). United States v. Augusta County, Consent Decree, No. 5:15-cv-77 (W.D. Va., filed 

January 20, 2016). https://www.ada.gov/augusta_county/augusta_cd.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

140 National Council on Disability. Promises to Keep, 66–67.

141 United States v. Georgia, No. 1:17-cv-03999 (N.D. Ga. 2016). https://centerforpublicrep.org/court_case/gao-vgeorgia/. (Accessed July 10, 2019). United States v. Mississippi, No. 3:16-cv-622 (S.D. Miss. 2016). https://www.

justice.gov/crt/case-document/united-states-v-mississippi-complaint; and South Dakota, U.S. DOJ Letter of 

Findings. https://www.justice.gov/crt/file/847861/download. (All citations accessed July 10, 2019).

142 National Council on Disability. Promises to Keep, 107, A-8.

143 https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/faces_of_olmstead.htm.

144 Researchers used the Flesch-Kincaid Grade-Level test. For additional information on the test see U.S. Government 

Accountability Office. September 2016. Equal Employment Opportunity: Strengthening Oversight Could Improve 

Federal Contractor Nondiscrimination Compliance. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office, 4, n. 9.

145 For a discussion about the need for greater involvement with the community involving Olmstead, see the report 

National Council on Disability. August 8, 2005. The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act: Has It Fulfilled 

Its Promise? Washington, DC: National Council on Disability, 8, 22. https://ncd.gov/publications/2005/08082005. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019).

146 Objections to the Proposed Settlement Agreement filed by Cynthia Wainscott, Carter Center, et al., United States v. 

Georgia, 1:09-cv-0119 (N.D. Ga. filed March 2, 2009). http://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GeorgiaObjections-to-Proposed. . . .pdf. (Accessed July 26, 2019).

147 Perez, Thomas. July 10, 2012. “Memo: Outreach and Community Engagement.” https://www.justice.gov/CRT/

page/file/962201/download. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

148 28 U.S.C. § 517 permits the Attorney General to send an officer of the Department of Justice to any district 

in the United States “to attend to the interests of the United States in a suit pending in a court of the United 

States.” Statements of interest are an important way for CRT to develop the case law interpreting Olmstead

because the United States’ legal interpretations of the ADA are given deference by courts. M.R. v. Dreyfus, 

663 F.3d 1100, 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that DOJ interpretation of ADA, as stated in an amicus brief, 

warrants deference), reh’g en banc denied, 697 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2012), https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/

documents/mrvdreyfus_soi.doc; Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 3022 (4th Cir. 2013), (recognizing that DOJ 

interpretation of ADA, as stated in Statement of the Department of Justice on the Integration Mandate of 

Title II of the ADA and Olmstead v. L.C., warrants respect).

149 National Federation of the Blind v. HRB Digital, Complaint of Intervention of the United States, No. 1:13-cv10799 (D. Mass filed December 11, 2013). https://www.ada.gov/hrb-complaint.htm. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

150 Of the 43 Statements of Interest filed by the United States Department of Justice related to Olmstead, only 2 

have been on behalf of a single Plaintiff, including, Boyd v. Mullins, No. 2:10-cv-688 (M.D. Ala. 2010), https://www.

ada.gov/olmstead/documents/boyd_soi.docx and Haddad v. Arnold, 3:10 cv-414 (M.D. Fla. 2010), https://www.

ada.gov/briefs/interest_Haddad_br.doc. The Haddad case could fall in the “strategic litigation” category because 

it is closely related to a class complaint in Jones v. Arnold, No. 09-cv-1170 (M.D. Fla. 2009) and a separate action 

was only necessary because of time constraints.

151 Ball v. Kasich, U.S. Department of Justice Statement of Interest, No. 2:16-cv-282 (S.D. Ohio filed August 22, 

2016) (clarifying the legal standard for proving that an individual is at risk in violation of the integration mandate). 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ball_kasich_soi.docx. Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Velez, 

U.S. Department of Justice Amicus Curie Brief, No. 05-cv-4723 (D. N.J. 2010) (clarifying the relevance of 

state budgets when asserting a fundamental alteration defense). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/

drnj_amicusbrief.pdf. Lee v. Dudek, U.S. Department of Justice Statement of Interest, No. 4:08-cv-26 (N.D. Fla. 

December 20, 2010) (clarifying the required elements of an effectively working Olmstead plan). https://www.

110 National Council on Disability
ada.gov/olmstead/documents/lee_soi.docx. Long v. Bensen, U.S. Department of Justice Amicus Curie Brief, 

No. 08 16261-AA (11th Cir. filed April 2, 2009) (clarifying the ability of individuals to privately enforce Olmstead). 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/longbenson.pdf.

152 U.S. Department of Justice Letter of Findings in CRIPA Investigation of the Northwest Georgia Regional 

Hospital in Rome, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/15/NWGRH_findlet_01-15-09.

pdf. U.S. Department of Justice Letter of Findings: CRIPA Investigation of the Georgia Regional Hospital in 

Atlanta, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/04/13/ga_hosp_findlet_5-30-08.pdf.

153 United States v. Georgia, Settlement Agreement, No. 1:09-cv-0119 (N.D. Ga. filed January 15, 2009). https://

www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/01/10/US_v_Georgia_CRIPAsettle_01-18-09.pdf.

154 United States v. Georgia, Objections to the Proposed Settlement Agreement Filed by the Georgia Advocacy 

Office, No. 1:09-cv-0119 (N.D. Ga. filed March 3, 2009). http://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/

Georgia-Objections-Filed. . . .pdf; and Objections to the Proposed Settlement Agreement Filed by Cynthia 

Wainscott, Carter Center, et al. http://www.bazelon.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Georgia-Objections-toProposed. . . .pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

155 United States v. Georgia, Settlement Agreement, No. 1:10-cv-249 (N.D. Ga filed October 19, 2010). https://

www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/01/10/US_v_Georgia_ADAsettle_10-19-10.pdf. (Accessed 

July 10, 2019).

156 Perez, Thomas. February 10, 2011. Letter to Governor Bob McDonnell Re: Investigation of the Commonwealth of 

Virginia’s Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and of Central Virginia Training Center, 1. https://

www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/virginia_findings.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019). Perez, Thomas. November 9, 

2019. Letter to Governor Jack Markell Re: Investigation of the Delaware Psychiatric Center, 1. https://www.ada.

gov/olmstead/documents/dpc_lof_olmstead.pdf.

157 Ibid.

158 United States v. Delaware, Settlement Agreement, No. 11-cv-591 (D. Del. filed July 6, 2011). https://www.ada.

gov/delaware.htm. United States v. Virginia, Consent Decree, 3:12-cv-059 (E.D. Va. August 23, 2012). https://

www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/virginia_consent_order.htm.

159 United States v. Delaware, Joint Brief in Support of Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss.

160 Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson, 653 F. Supp. 2d 184 (E.D. N.Y. 2009).

161 Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Patterson, United States v. New York, Stipulation and Order of Settlement No. CV13-4165 (E.D. N.Y. July 23, 2013). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/new-york-sa-olmstead.pdf.

162 Lynne E. v. Lynch, United States v. New Hampshire, Complaint in Intervention, 12-cv-00053-LM (D. N.H. filed 

March 27, 2012). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/USComplaintinIntervention-327.pdf.

163 Steward v. Perry, United States v. Texas, Complaint in Intervention (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2011). https://www.

ada.gov/olmstead/documents/steward_complaint.pdf.

164 Lynne E. v. Lynch, United States v. New Hampshire ̧ Settlement Agreement (February 12, 2014), https://www.

ada.gov/olmstead/documents/nh-final-settlement.pdf.

165 Steward v. Perry, United States v. Texas, Interim Settlement Agreement (August 19, 2013). https://www.ada.

gov/olmstead/documents/steward-settlement.pdf.

166 https://centerforpublicrep.org/news/cpr-concludes-month-long-trial/.

167 United States v. Florida, 1:13-cv-61576 (S.D. Fla. 2013) (nursing facilities for kids); United States v. North Carolina, 

5:12-cv-557 (E.D. N.C. 2012) (board and care homes); Steward v. Perry, 5:10-CV-1025 (W.D. Tex. 2011) (nursing 

facilities).

168 Oster v. Lightbourne, 09-CV-4668 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (formerly Oster v. Wagner) U.S. Department of Justice 

Statement of Interest (asserting that cuts to community mental health centers would put individuals at risk 

of institutionalization and violate Olmstead), Darling v. Douglas, 09-CV-3798 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (formerly Cota v. 

Maxwell-Jolly) (asserting that cuts to adult day health care would put individuals at risk of institutionalization 

and violate Olmstead); M.R. v. Dreyfus, 10-CV-2052 (W.D. Wash. 2011) (cuts to personal assistance services 

would put individuals at risk of institutionalization); United States v. Virginia, Settlement Agreement (E.D. 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 111
Va. 2012) (eliminates long waiting lists for community services which were putting individuals at risk of 

institutionalization).

169 United States v. Georgia, Settlement Agreement (N.D. Ga. October 19, 2010) (expanding access to competitive, 

integrated employment for people in sheltered workshops); United States v. Rhode Island, Settlement Agreement 

(D. R.I. 2014) (ending the transition of students with disabilities into sheltered workshops).

170 Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support (GNETS) / U.S. v. Georgia, 1:16-cv-03088 (N.D. 

Ga. 2016) (State unnecessarily segregates students by placing them in separate schools in order to receive 

mental health services); Civil Rights Div., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Statement of Interest, S.S. ex rel. S.Y. v. City 

of Springfield, 146 F. Supp. 3d 414 (D. Mass. 2015).

171 U.S. Department of Justice, Letter of Findings: Investigation of the State Correctional Institution at Cresson, 

PA and Notice of Expanded Investigation (May 13, 2013), 32–37. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/

legacy/2013/06/03/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf. (Accessed July 26, 2019).

172 U.S. Department of Justice, Letter of Findings: Investigation of the Portland, Oregon Police Bureau 

(September 12, 2012). https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2012/09/17/ppb_findings_9-12-12.

pdf. United States v. City of Portland, Settlement Agreement, 3: 12-cv-02265-SI (D. Or. December 17, 2012), 

32–41. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/11/13/ppb_proposedsettle_12-17-12.pdf

(requiring enhanced mental health services and supports in Portland, Oregon correctional system).

173 United States v. Delaware, Settlement Agreement. No. 11-CV-591 (D. Del. July 6, 2011) (implementation over 5 

years). United States v. Virginia, Settlement Agreement No. 3:12-cv-059 (E.D. Va. July 26, 2012) (implementation 

over 9 years). United States v. Rhode Island, Settlement Agreement (D. R.I. 2014) (implementation over 8 years).

174 United States. v. North Carolina, Order Granting Modification of Settlement Agreement (2017). https://www.ada.

gov/olmstead/documents/nc_modification_sa.doc. United States v. Virginia. Eighth Independent Reviewer Report 

(2016). https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/united-states-v-virginia-eighth-independent-reviewer-report.

175 United States v. Delaware, Order to Dismiss, No. 11-cv-591 (D. Del. filed October 11, 2016). https://www.ada.

gov/olmstead/documents/de_order_to_dismiss.pdf.

176 United States v. Georgia, Order Entering Extension of Settlement Agreement (N.D. Ga. filed May 27, 2016). 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-document/united-states-v-georgia-consent-order-entering-extension-settlementagreement. (Accessed July 10, 2019). United States v. North Carolina, Memorandum in Support of Motion to 

Enforce, Np. 12-cv-557 (E.D. N.C. filed January 9, 2017). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/nc_iso_

motion.docx. (Accessed July 29, 2019). United States v. New York, Second Amended Stipulation and Order of 

Settlement, No. 13-cv-4165 (E.D. N.Y., May 2, 2017). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/ny_amended_

sa.html. (Accessed July 29, 2019).

177 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit 

Administration. July 27, 2005. Memorandum of Understanding. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/

files/docs/DOJ_FTA_ADA_MOU_0.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

178 Settlement Agreement Between the United States and Claudio’s Trips, Inc. (December 6, 2011). https://www.

ada.gov/bus-settlements/cladios-trip.htm. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

179 United States v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. 16-cv-67 (D. Del. filed February 10, 2016). https://www.ada.gov/

greyhound/greyhound_cd.html. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

180 U.S. Department of Justice. Letter of Findings in United States’ Investigation of the State of Florida’s Service 

System for Children with Disabilities Who Have Medically Complex Conditions, Complaint No. D.J. 204-18-

212, 5. https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/florida_findings_letter.doc. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

181 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service. January 16, 2014. “Medicaid Program; State Plan Home 

and Community-Based Services, 5-Year Period for Waivers, Provider Payment Reassignment, and Home 

and Community-Based Setting Requirements for Community First Choice and Home and CommunityBased Services (HCBS) Waivers.” https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/01/16/2014-00487/

medicaid:program-state-plan-home-and-community-based-services-5-year-period-for-waivers-provider. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019).

112 National Council on Disability
182 42 C.F.R. § 441.301(c)(4).

183 Ibid., 2951.

184 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, Administration on Community 

Living, and Office of Civil Rights, Ensuring Beneficiary Health and Safety in Group Homes Through State 

Implementation of Community Compliance Oversight (January 2018). https://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/

featured-topics/group-homes/group-homes-joint-report.pdf.

185 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development on the Role of Housing in Accomplishing the Goal of Olmstead.” https://www.hud.gov/sites/

documents/OLMSTEADGUIDNC060413.PDF. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

186 United States v. North Carolina, Settlement Agreement, No. 5:12-cv-557-d (E.D. N.C. filed August 23, 2012). 

https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/nc-factsheet-olmstead.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

187 U.S. Department of Labor. June 13, 2013. “U.S. Department Moves to Protect Workers with Disabilities 

in Crackdown on Rhode Island Employer.” https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20130613. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019).

188 U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Rhode Island. June 13, 2013. “Department of Justice Reaches Landmark 

Settlement Agreement with Rhode Island and City of Providence Under the ADA.” https://www.justice.gov/

usao-ri/pr/department-justice-reaches-landmark-settlement-agreement-rhode-island-and-city-providence. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019).

189 U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division. September 2013. “Fact Sheet: Application of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act to Domestic Service, Final Rule.” https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfsFinalRule.pdf. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019).

190 United States’ Investigation of the Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Support, Complaint No. D.J. 

169-19-71 (July 15, 2015). https://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_cases_list2.htm. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

191 Georgia Advocacy Office v. Georgia (N.D. Ga. 2017).

192 “U.S. Department of Education Releases Guidance to Schools on Ensuring Equity and Providing Behavioral 

Supports to Students with Disabilities,” Department of Education Guidance, August 4, 2016. https://www.

ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-releases-guidance-schools-ensuring-equity-and-providingbehavioral-supports-students-disabilities. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

193 U.S. Department of Justice. December 21, 2017. “Attorney General Jeff Sessions Rescinds 25 Guidance 

Documents.” https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/attorney-general-jeff-sessions-rescinds-25-guidance-documents. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019). 

194 NCD used the Department of Justice, Annual Performance Budget reports for the Civil Rights Division 

for budget and staffing data. NCD converted the budgets to constant dollars. U.S. Department of Justice, 

“FY 2009 Performance Budget: Civil Rights Division,” 6 https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/

legacy/2014/03/12/fy09-crt.pdf; U.S. Department of Justice, “FY 2010 Performance Budget: Civil Rights 

Division,” 6 https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/09/22/fy10-crt.pdf; U.S. Department 

of Justice, “FY 2011 Performance Budget: Civil Rights Division,” 6 https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/

jmd/legacy/2014/08/08/fy11-crt-justification.pdf; U.S. Department of Justice, “FY 2012 Performance Budget: 

Civil Rights Division,” 6 https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/01/08/fy12-crt-justification.

pdf; U.S. Department of Justice, “FY 2013 Performance Budget: Civil Rights Division,” 5 https://www.justice.

gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/07/19/fy13-crt-justification.pdf; U.S. Department of Justice, “FY 2014 

Performance Budget: Civil Rights Division,” 6 https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/11/

crt-justification.pdf; U.S. Department of Justice, “FY 2015 Performance Budget: Civil Rights Division,” 7 https://

www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2013/09/28/crt-justification.pdf; U.S. Department of Justice, 

“FY 2016 Performance Budget: Civil Rights Division, Exhibits,” 2 https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/

jmd/pages/attachments/2015/02/02/14._crt_exhibits.pdf; U.S. Department of Justice, “FY 2017 Performance 

Budget: Civil Rights Division, Exhibits,” 2 https://www.justice.gov/jmd/file/820986/download; U.S. Department 

of Justice, “FY 2018 Performance Budget: Civil Rights Division, Exhibits,” 2.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 113
195 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2018, Programs of HUD. https://www.hud.gov/sites/

dfiles/Main/documents/HUDPrograms2018.pdf.

196 Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et. seq.

197 Fair Housing Amendments Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et. seq.

198 54 Fed. Reg. 3,283 (January 23, 1989).

199 78 Fed. Reg. 11,482 (February 15, 2013).

200 Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities, U.S., 135 S.Ct. 2507 (2015) 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-1371_8m58.pdf.

201 42 U.S.C. § 3608; 84 Fed. Reg. 42,854 (August 19, 2019).

202 80 Fed. Reg. 42,272 (July 16, 2016).

203 Ibid.

204 Ibid.

205 83 Fed. Reg. 683 (January 5, 2018).

206 Lane, Ben, August 20, 2018, “Housing Wire Judge Tosses Civil Rights’ Groups Suit over Delaying Obama Fair 

Housing Effort.” https://www.housingwire.com/articles/46520-judge-tosses-civil-rights-groups-suit-against-hudover-delaying-obama-fair-housing-effort. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

207 83 Fed. Reg. 40,713 (August 16, 2018).

208 81 Fed. Reg. 63,075 (September 14, 2016).

209 Rosen, Jeff. “NCD Urges HUD to Issue Olmstead Guidance.” https://www.ncd.gov/

publications/2013/05212013. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

210 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. August 11, 

2011. Memorandum on Guidance for FHEO Staffing in Assisting Persons with Disabilities. https://www.hud.gov/

sites/documents/TRANSITIONINGDISABLEDMEMO.PDF. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

211 Ibid.

212 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. June 29, 2012. Assisted Housing for Persons 

with Disabilities under Olmstead Implementation Efforts to Provide Community-Based Options Rather 

Than Institutional Settings. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/PIH2012-31.PDF. (Accessed July 10, 

2019).

213 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Statement of the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development on the Role of Housing in Accomplishing the Goals of Olmstead. https://www.hud.gov/sites/

documents/OLMSTEADGUIDNC060413.PDF. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

214 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. September 4, 2018. “HUD Awards $99 Million to 

Provide Affordable Housing to People with Disabilities.” https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_

advisories/HUD_No_18_094. (Access July 10, 2019).

215 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.602–982.605.

216 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.606–982.609.

217 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.610–982.614.

218 24 C.F.R. §§ 982.615–982.618.

219 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. November 2002. Notice of Proposed Rule on 

Nondiscrimination Based on Disability; Multifamily Homeownership Projects. https://www.reginfo.gov/

public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=200210&RIN=2501-AC87. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

220 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. March 1, 2005. Nondiscrimination Based on Disability; 

Multifamily Homeownership Projects. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=200504&

RIN=2501-AC87.

221 42 U.S.C.A. § 3610(a)(1)(A)(iii).

222 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Annual Report on Fair Housing, Fiscal Year 2011, 38. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/

FY2011_ANNUAL_RPT_FINAL.PDF. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

114 National Council on Disability
223 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. May 17, 2018. “HUD Charges Two Ohio Companies 

with Discriminating Against Residents with Disabilities.” https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_

advisories/HUD_No_18_042. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

224 U.S. Department of Justice, Housing and Civil Enforcement Section. July 1, 2019. “Recent Accomplishments.” 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/recent-accomplishments-housing-and-civil-enforcement-section. (Accessed 

July 10, 2019).

225 24 C.F.R. Part 115.

226 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Annual 

Report to Congress FY 2017, 15, Chart 2.2. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/images/FHEO_Annual_

Report_2017-508c.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

227 National Council on Disability. Has the Promise Been Kept? 34.

228 National Council on Disability. Has the Promise Been Kept? 37.

229 U.S. Government Accountability Office. October 2005. Fair Housing: HUD Needs Better Assurance that Intake 

and Investigation Processes Are Consistently Thorough. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability 

Office. https://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248340.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

230 42 U.S.C. § 3610.

231 Based on FHEO-provided data. There is no frequency information available to determine if the average 

represents the most typical time, or is influenced by several very lengthy cases.

232 Government Accountability Office. Fair Housing, 56.

233 Government Accountability Office. Fair Housing, 3.

234 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. “File a 

Complaint.” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/online-complaint#_How_to_File. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019).

235 Fair Housing Accessibility First. “Home page.” https://www.fairhousingfirst.org/. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

236 Fair Housing Accessibility First. “Training.” https://www.fairhousingfirst.org/training.asp. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

237 Schwem, Robert. “Barriers to Accessible Housing: Enforcement Issues in ‘Design and Construction’ Cases 

Under the Fair Housing Act.” University of Richmond Law Review, 40 (2006): 753. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/

cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=

2ahUKEwiftLer0efiAhXnp1kKHcKvAawQFjAHegQICRAC&url=http%3 A%2 F%2Fuknowledge.uky.edu

%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1250%26context%3Dlaw_facpub&usg=AOvVaw103-hXdxGkm

ODx7J97qGK-&httpsredir=1&article=1250&context=law_facpub. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

238 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Annual 

Report to Congress FY 2017, 12.

239 Ibid., 22.

240 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. May 17, 2004. Joint Statement of the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, Reasonable Accommodations Under the Fair 

Housing Act. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/huddojstatement.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

241 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. March 5, 2008. Joint Statement of the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, Reasonable Modifications 

Under the Fair Housing Act. https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/reasonable_modifications_mar08.pdf. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019).

242 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity and 

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. April 30, 2013. Joint Statement of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Justice, Accessibility (Design and Construction) 

Requirements for Covered Multifamily Dwellings Under the Fair Housing Act. https://www.justice.gov/sites/

default/files/crt/legacy/2013/05/03/jointstatement_accessibility_4-30-13.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 115
243 U.S. Housing and Urban Development. Service Animals and Assistance Animals for People with Disabilities 

in Housing and HUD-Funded Programs. April 25, 2013. https://archives.hud.gov/news/2013/servanimals_

ntcfheo2013-01.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

244 DOJ emphasized to NCD that the ADA service animal definition was promulgated in compliance with all 

relevant procedures and requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws and 

included consideration of extensive public comments and pursuant to Executive Order 12866, and that DOJ 

considered and incorporated comments from numerous federal agencies including HUD.

245 For a recent comprehensive study on the impact of natural disasters on people with disabilities see National 

Council on Disability, Preserving Our Freedom: Ending Institutionalization of People with Disabilities During 

and After Disasters. May 2019. Washington, DC: National Council on Disability. https://ncd.gov/sites/default/

files/NCD_Preserving_Our_Freedom_508.pdf.

246 Government Accountability Office. Fair Housing, 46.

247 47 U.S.C. § 151 and 47 U.S.C. § 154.

248 Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

249 47 U.S.C. § 151.

250 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.

251 Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).

252 Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010).

253 Ryan, Camille. August 2018. American Community Survey Reports: Computer and Internet Use in the United 

States: 2016. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/

publications/2018/acs/ACS-39.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

254 Ryan, Camille, and Jamie Lewis. September 2017. American Community Survey Reports: Computer and 

Internet Use in the United States: 2015. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/

content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/acs/acs-37.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

255 Federal Communications Commission. Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Performance Report. https://docs.fcc.gov/

public/attachments/DOC-349139A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

256 Federal Communications Commission, Disability Rights Office. May 24, 2019. “About the Disability Rights 

Office.” https://www.fcc.gov/accessibility. (Accessed on July 9, 2019).

257 The other Bureaus include the International Bureau, Media Bureau, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

Wireline Competition Bureau, and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. The FCC bureaus are 

further supported by 11 staff offices.

258 47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq.

259 Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010).

260 47 U.S.C. § 255.

261 47 U.S.C. §§ 255(b), (c). 47 C.F.R. Parts 6 and 7.

262 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9).

263 47 U.S.C. §§ 617(a)(1), (b)(1), (g) (defined as "with reasonable effort or expense").

264 47 U.S.C. §§ 153(25), 153(36); 47 C.F.R. § 9.3.

265 47 U.S.C. § 619(a).

266 Federal Communications Commission. September 8, 2017. Consumer Guide: Accessible Browsers Built into 

Mobile Phones. https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/accessible_internet_browsers_built_into_mobile_

phones.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

267 Federal Communications Commission. June 5, 2019. “Disability Advisory Committee.” https://www.fcc.gov/

disability-advisory-committee. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

268 Ibid.

269 Disability Advisory Committee. December 21, 2018. “Disability Advisory Committee Charter,” ¶ 12. https://docs.

fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-356212A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

270 Disability Advisory Committee. September 22, 2016. “Recommendation of the Disability Advisory 

Committee: Best Practices to Promote Effective Access to and Usability of ICT Products and Services 

116 National Council on Disability
for Americans with Cognitive Disabilities.” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-341407A1.pdf. 

(Accessed July 9, 2019).

271 Ibid.

272 Federal Communications Commission. April 28, 2017. “Join the AccessInfo Email List.” https://www.fcc.gov/

general/join-accessinfo-email-list. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

273 Federal Communications Commission, Disability Rights Office. May 24, 2019. American Sign Language (ASL) 

Video Library. https://www.fcc.gov/asl-video-library. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

274 Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, § 104, 124 Stat. 2751, 2755 (2010) (adding, 

among other provisions, section 716 to the Communications Act of 1934). 47 U.S.C. § 617.

275 Federal Communications Commission. October 9, 2018. Biennial Report to Congress as Required by the TwentyFirst Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010. Washington, DC: Federal Communications 

Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-1036A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

276 Ibid., ¶ 8.

277 Ibid., ¶ 10.

278 Ibid., ¶ 7.

279 Ibid., ¶ 12.

280 Ibid., ¶ 13.

281 Ibid., ¶ 16.

282 Comments of the Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI); National Association 

of the Deaf (NAD); Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network; Association of Late-Deafened 

Adults, Inc.; Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA); Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Organization; Deaf Seniors 

of America; National Association of State Agencies of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.; Deaf/Hard of 

Hearing Technology RERC; Universal Interface & Information Technology Access RERC; National Association 

for State Relay Administration; and Telecommunications Equipment Distribution Program Association, filed In 

the matter of Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as enacted by the 

Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (filed May 3, 2018), 11 (“Consumer Groups 

Comments”). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/105032162422464/Comments%20for%202018%20CVAA%20

Biennial%20Report.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

283 Ibid. The comments acknowledged the emergence of speech-to-text capabilities that enable players to read a 

text transcript of other players’ spoken words, but asserting the need for the incorporation of relay services in 

games to allow for full social interaction by deaf and hard of hearing gamers.

284 Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, § 104, 124 Stat. 2751, 2758 (2010) (adding, 

among other provisions, section 717(b)(1)(B) to the Communications Act of 1934). 47 U.S.C. § 618(b)(1)(B).

285 Federal Communications Commission. Biennial Report, ¶ 22.

286 Ibid.

287 Federal Communications Commission, North American Numbering Council. October 23, 2018. “NANC 

Working Groups.” https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/north-american-numbering-council/

general/nanc-working-groups. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

288 47 C.F.R. § 68.4. Federal Communications Commission. May 24, 2019. “Hearing Aid Compatibility and Volume 

Control.” https://www.fcc.gov/general/hearing-aid:compatibility-hac. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

289 Ibid.

290 Ibid.

291 Ibid.

292 Federal Communications Commission. August 4, 2016. Improvements to Benchmarks and Related Requirements 

Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile Handsets. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-103A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

293 Ibid.

294 Federal Communications Commission. October 26, 2017. Access to Telecommunication Equipment and Services 

by Persons with Disabilities, Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Mobile 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 117
Handsets, and Comment Sought on 2010 Review of Hearing Aid Compatibility Regulations. Washington, DC: 

Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-17-135A1.pdf. (Accessed 

July 9, 2019).

295 Ibid., 19, n. 139.

296 Ibid.

297 Comments of the Wireless RERC, filed In the matter of Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility 

Act (filed May 3, 2018), 14. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1050307987566. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

298 Ibid. (reporting that “phone setup and enabling accessibility features [are] not easily or independently done 

for some people with disabilities”). Ex Parte Comments of DeafBlind Citizens in Action, filed in In the matter 

of Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as enacted by the TwentyFirst Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (filed June 29, 2018), 1. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/

file/1070209706971/DBCA%20Comments_2018%20CVAA%20Biennial%20Report.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

299 Ibid.

300 EAS is a federal public warning system that sends alerts to the public issued by federal, state and local 

governments, as well as the National Weather Service.

301 Federal Communications Commission. August 24, 2018. Accessibility to Emergency Information on 

Television. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/

accessibility-emergency-information-television. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

302 Federal Communications Commission. November 19, 2015. Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and 

Community-Initiated Alerting. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/

public/attachments/DA-15-1326A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

303 Disability Advisory Committee. June 23, 2015. “Recommendations of the Emergency Communications 

Subcommittee to the FCC Disability Advisory Committee.” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC334159A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019). Disability Advisory Committee. June 16, 2016. “Comments on PS 

Docket No. 15-91 on Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-Initiated Alerting.” https://apps.

fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-339905A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019). (Referencing the Geographic 

Targeting, Message Content, and Character Limitation Subgroup Report [WEA] report.)

304 Ibid.

305 Ibid.

306 47 C.F.R. § 11.51.

307 Federal Communications Commission. Improving Wireless Emergency Alerts and Community-Initiated 

Alerting.

308 Ibid., ¶¶ 91, 95.

309 Federal Communications Commission. September 29, 2016. Wireless Emergency Alerts and Amendments 

to Part 11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System. Washington, DC: Federal 

Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-127A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 

2019).

310 Federal Communications Commission. Wireless Emergency Alerts, Amendment of Part 11, ¶ 37 (2016). 

Comments of Consumer Groups filed In the matter of Wireless Emergency Alerts and Amendment of Part 11 

of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System (filed May 29, 2018), 3. https://ecfsapi.

fcc.gov/file/1053069515304/TDI%20and%20Consumer%20Groups%20WEA%20Comments.pdf. (Accessed 

July 10, 2019).

311 Federal Communications Commission. January 21, 2018. Wireless Emergency Alerts and Amendments to Part 11 

of the Commission's Rules Regarding the Emergency Alert System, Second Report and Order and Second Order 

on Reconsideration. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-4A1.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

312 Ibid., ¶ 17 and n. 93.

313 Ibid.

118 National Council on Disability
314 Federal Communications Commission. Strategic Plan 2018–2022. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/

DOC-349143A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

315 Federal Communications Commission. September 18, 2018. “FCC Announces Planned Emergency Alert Tests 

on September 20, 2018.” https://www.fcc.gov/fcc-announces-planned-emergency-alert-tests-september-20-2018. 

(Accessed July 9, 2019).

316 Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, § 106, 124 Stat. 2751, 2762–63 (2010); 47 

U.S.C. § 615c.

317 Federal Communications Commission. August 8, 2014. Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other 

Next Generation 911 Applications and Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment. Washington, DC: 

Federal Communications Commission. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521759385.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

318 Ibid. ¶¶ 11 - 35.

319 Federal Communications Commission. June 7, 2019. “Text 911 Master PSAP” Registry. https://www.fcc.gov/

files/text-911-master-psap-registryxlsx. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

320 Disability Advisory Committee. October 16, 2017. Recommendation of the FCC Disability Advisory Committee, 

Accelerating Public Safety Answering Point Adoption of Real-Time Text. https://www.fcc.gov/file/13124/

download. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

321 Disability Advisory Committee. February 28, 2018. Recommendation of the Disability Advisory Committee, 

Best Practices for Graphical Emergency Alerts, ¶ 6. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-349762A1.

pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

322 Ibid.

323 Telecommunications Act, 110 Stat. 56, § 305 (1996) (added section 713 titled “Video Programming 

Accessibility” to the Communications Act); 47 U.S.C. § 613.

324 Federal Communications Commission. August 7, 1997. Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video 

Programming, Implementation of Section 305 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming 

Accessibility. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/

Cable/Orders/1997/fcc97279.txt. (Accessed July 9, 2019). Federal Communications Commission. September 

17, 1998. Closed Captioning and Video Description of Video Programming, Implementation of Section 305 

of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Video Programming Accessibility, Order on Reconsideration. 

Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/

Orders/1998/fcc98236.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019). 47 C.F.R. § 79.1.

325 Federal Communications Commission. May 30, 2017. “Economically Burdensome Exemption from Closed 

Captioning Requirements.” https://www.fcc.gov/economically-burdensome-exemption-closed-captioningrequirements. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

326 Federal Communications Commission. April 11, 2018. Self-Implementing Exemptions from Closed 

Captioning Rules. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://www.fcc.gov/general/selfimplementing-exemptions-closed-captioning-rules. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

327 Ibid.

328 47 C.F.R. § 79.4(a)(4) and (b).

329 Federal Communications Commission. July 11, 2014. Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered Video 

Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 

2010. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC14-97A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019). 

330 Federal Communications Commission. February 20, 2014. Closed Captioning of Video Programming, 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc., Petition for Rulemaking. Washington, DC: Federal 

Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-14-12A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

331 Ibid.

332 Disability Advisory Committee Meeting. October 3, 2018. https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2018/10/

disability-advisory-committee-meeting. (Accessed July 9, 2019). The second iteration of the DAC, at its 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 119
last meeting in October 2018, recommended that the next iteration of the DAC for 2018–2020 “explore 

opportunities and challenges of developing technology-neutral metrics for closed captioning quality, with an 

eye toward facilitating objective comparisons between different captioning technologies, including automatic 

speech recognition, in terms of their ability to yield accuracy, completeness, synchronicity, and placement.”

333 Wilusz, Ryan. March 8, 2019. “‘God hates Muslims’ appears in closed caption on Knoxville’s Fox 43 broadcast.” 

Knoxville News Sentinel. https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/2019/03/08/god-hates-muslims-knoxvillewbir-fox-43-caption/3108266002/. (Accessed July 9, 2019). The audio was: "Hey, Rebecca Sweet, will you take 

my jacket for me please? Well, thank you. Thank you. Ok, hey! Smita's joining us now. Hey, Smita, how are 

you?" The ASR displayed: "to sweeten the thank you thank you God hates Muslims know who are you."

334 Federal Communications Commission. Closed Captioning of Video Programming, Telecommunications for the 

Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc.

335 Ibid., ¶ 77.

336 Ibid., ¶ 80.

337 Ibid., ¶ 82.

338 Federal Communications Commission. January 13, 2012. Closed Captioning of Internet Protocol-Delivered 

Video Programming: Implementation of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility 

Act of 2010. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/

FCC-12-9A1.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

339 Ibid.

340 Ibid.

341 47 C.F.R. § 79.108(a)(1)–(3). The rules also specify how covered entities should make accessible navigation 

devices available to requesting blind or visually impaired consumers, and how such entities can comply 

through the use of separate equipment or software. 47 C.F.R. § 79.108(a)(5)–(7).

342 Interview with Disability Rights Office Staff, March 20, 2019.

343 47 C.F.R. § 79.109(b).

344 Ex Parte Letter of Consumer Groups to the Federal Communications Commission. “Accessibility of User 

Interfaces” (filed November 14, 2016). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/102468434813/2016-10-24%20User%20

Interfaces%20TDI%20ex%20parte%2012-108%20AS%20FILED.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

345 Ibid.

346 Ibid.

347 Ex Parte Letter of Consumer Groups to Federal Communications Commission. “Accessibility of User Interfaces” 

(filed October 24, 2016). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/102468434813/2016-10-24%20User%20Interfaces%20

TDI%20ex%20parte%2012-108%20AS%20FILED.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

348 Federal Communications Commission. September 27, 2017. “Video Relay Services.” https://www.fcc.gov/

consumers/guides/video-relay-services. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

349 Federal Communications Commission. March 2, 2017. Fact Sheet: Improving the Quality and Efficiency of 

Video Relay Service. Report and Order, Notice of Inquiry, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Order. 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-343733A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

350 Ibid., ¶ 59.

351 Disability Advisory Committee. December 6, 2016. “Recommendation of the FCC Disability Advisory 

Committee.” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-342531A1.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

352 Federal Communications Commission. August 9, 2018. Attachment: Tentative Findings for the 2018 Biennial 

Report to Congress as Required by the CVAA. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission, ¶ 2. 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-832A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019). Although the Commission 

acknowledges that accessibility gaps continue to exist in another tentative finding, the Commission appears 

to limit that tentative finding to non-smartphones, accessible alerting features on video calls and devices for 

people who are deaf-blind. Ibid., ¶ 6.

120 National Council on Disability
353 Comments of Consumer Groups filed In the Matter of Implementation of Sections 716 and 717 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act (filed August 23, 2018). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10823135597862/TDI%20et%20al%20

Comments%20(Dkt%2010-213).pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

354 Ibid.

355 Federal Communications Commission. June 28, 2019. “Lifeline Support for Affordable Communications.” 

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/lifeline-support-affordable-communications. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

356 Federal Communications Commission. March 31, 2016. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, 

Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, and Connect America Fund. Washington, 

DC: Federal Communications Commissions. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-38A1.pdf. 

(Accessed July 9, 2019).

357 Ex Parte Letter of Consumer Groups to the Federal Communications Commission. March 23, 2016. “Lifeline 

and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, 

and Connect America Fund.” https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001550003.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

358 Federal Communications Commission. December 15, 2018. Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text 

Technology. Washington, D.C: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/

FCC-16-169A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

359 Disability Advisory Committee. October 8, 2015. “Recommendation of the FCC Disability Advisory Committee. 

Ad Hoc Real-Time Text Subcommittee.” https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-335867A1.pdf. 

(Accessed July 9, 2019).

360 Disability Advisory Committee. February 23, 2016. “Recommendation of the FCC Disability Advisory Committee 

Technology Transitions Subcommittee.” https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001518532.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

361 Disability Advisory Committee. October 3, 2018. “Recommendation of the FCC Disability Advisory Committee, 

Technology Transitions Subcommittee, RTT on Refreshable Braille Displays.” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/

attachments/DOC-354523A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

362 Ibid.

363 Federal Communications Commission. August 5, 2005. Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the 

Internet over Wireline Facilities Policy Statement [and other matters]. Washington, DC: Federal Communications 

Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-05-151A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

364 Federal Communications Commission. December 21, 2010. Preserving the Open Internet and Broadband 

Industry Practices. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/

attachments/fcc-10-201a1.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

365 Federal Communications Commission. February 26, 2015. Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet. 

Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-15-24A1.

pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

366 Federal Communications Commission. December 14, 2017. Restoring Internet Freedom. Washington, DC: 

Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-17-166A1.pdf. (Accessed 

July 10, 2019). Federal Communications Commission. “FCC'S Restoring Internet Freedom Order.” https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-351481A1.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

367 Federal Communications Commission. August 8, 2017. Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced 

Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, Thirteenth Section 706 

Report Notice of Inquiry. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/

attachments/FCC-17-109A1_Rcd.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

368 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1).

369 47 U.S.C. § 254.

370 Ibid.

371 47 U.S.C. § 225.

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 121
372 Interstate Telecommunications Relay Services Fund Advisory Council. Bylaws. http://www.rolkaloube.com/

wp-content/uploads/2017/12/0202TRSCouncilBylaws-1.doc. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

373 Ibid.

374 Rolka Loube Associates. May 22, 2018. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services 

for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service 

Program. http://www.rolkaloube.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2018-TRS-Fund-Annual-Report.pdf. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019).

375 Ibid.

376 Ibid.

377 Ibid.

378 Disability Advisory Committee. May 7, 2015. “Recommendation of the Subcommittee on Relay and 

Equipment Distribution to the FCC Disability Advisory Committee.” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/

DOC-334156A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

379 Ibid.

380 Ibid.

381 Interstate TRS Advisory Council. April 4, 2017. Meeting Minutes. http://www.rolkaloube.com/wp-content/

uploads/2017/11/AC-Minutes-April-2017.docx. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

382 Federal Communications Commission. June 30, 2016. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-toSpeech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities; Structure and Practices of the Video 

Relay Service Program. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-16-750A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

383 Rolka Loube Saltzer Associates. February 2008. TRS Fund Performance Status Report. Shows seven IP Relay 

providers as of January 2008.

384 Rolka Loube Saltzer Associates. Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, 

Appendix G. https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/6017614193. (Accessed July 10, 2019). Interstate TRS Advisory 

Council. April 15, 2014. Meeting Minutes, 2. http://www.rolkaloube.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/

AC-Minutes-April-15-2014-Revised-1.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019). (Noting that a Sorenson representative 

reiterated that “the exit by multiple providers [from the IP Relay market] was the result of a decrease in the rate 

and not the decrease in demand.”) Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, National Association 

of the Deaf, Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc., Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy 

Network, Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Organization, and California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing Comments filed “in Support of Sprint’s Petition for Reconsideration” (filed December 5, 2013), 

4–5. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520960972.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019). (“There is strong evidence that the 

Commission’s decision to reduce immediately IP Relay rates by nearly 20 percent, and to mandate further 

annual 6 percent reductions for the next 2 years, has had a dramatic and negative impact on the ability of deaf 

and hard of hearing consumers to have a choice of multiple providers from which they can obtain high-quality 

IP Relay services” and that “[t]here is enough evidence in the record for the Commission to conclude that the 

drastic reduction in IP Relay service providers is the direct result of an unrealistically low reimbursement rate.”); 

Nakahata, John. July 8, 2013. Letter to Marlene H. Dortch, Federal Communications Secretary. https://ecfsapi.

fcc.gov/file/7520928992.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019). (Indicating that the rates adopted “are simply too low to 

sustain a high-quality service” and “will not yield functionally-equivalent telecommunications relay service.”)

385 Sprint, Petition for Reconsideration. November 1, 2018. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1101203244827/Sprint%20

IP%20Relay%20Rate%20Petition%20-%20REDACTED%20%5BAS%20FILED%5D%20-%2011.1.2018.pdf. 

(Accessed July 10, 2019).

386 Ibid., 4.

387 Government Accountability Office. April 29, 2015. Telecommunications Relay Service: FCC Should Strengthen 

Its Management of Program to Assist Persons with Hearing or Speech Disabilities. Washington, DC: 

Government Accountability Office. https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/669916.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

122 National Council on Disability
388 Consumer Groups Comments filed In the Matter of Structure and Practice of the Video Relay Service 

Program, Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and 

Speech Disabilities (filed December 9, 2015). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001353579.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 

2019). Consumer Groups and Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf Comments filed In the Matter of Structure 

and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 

Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (filed June 4, 2015). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/

file/60001076828.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019). Consumer Groups Comments filed In the Matter of Structure 

and Practice of the Video Relay Service Program, Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech 

Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (filed April 24, 2017). https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/

file/10424014647409/Consumer%20Groups%20Comments%20re%20VRS%20FNPRM.pdf. (Accessed 

July 10, 2019).

389 U.S. Department of Justice. November 19, 2009. “Twenty-Six Charged in Nationwide Scheme to Defraud the 

FCC’s Video Relay Service Program.” https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/twenty-six-charged-nationwide-schemedefraud-fcc-s-video-relay-service-program. (Accessed July 9, 2019). U.S. Department of Justice. January 13, 

2010. “Two Former Executives of Indicted Relay Services Company Plead Guilty to Defrauding FCC Program.”

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/January/10-crm-031.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019). U.S. Department 

of Justice. February 18, 2010. “Two Former Executives of Video Relay Services Company Plead Guilty to 

Defrauding FCC Program.” http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/February/10-crm-157.html. (Accessed July 9, 

2019). U.S. Department of Justice. March 5, 2010. “Four Former Owners and Employees of Three Video Relay 

Service Companies Plead Guilty to Defrauding FCC Program.” http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/March/10-

crm-229.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019). U.S. Department of Justice. March 9, 2010. “Three Former Owners 

and Employees of Two Video Relay Service Companies Plead Guilty to Defrauding FCC Program.” http://www.

justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/March/10-crm-237.html. U.S. Department of Justice. October 28, 2010. “Owner and 

a Former Executive of Indicted Video Relay Services Company Plead Guilty to Defrauding FCC Program.” 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/October/10-crm-1223.html. U.S. Department of Justice. January 6, 2011. 

“Individual Pleads Guilty to Defrauding FCC Video Relay Service Program.” http://www.justice.gov/opa/

pr/2011/January/11-crm-018.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019). U.S. Department of Justice. January 24, 2011. 

“Two Individuals Plead Guilty to Defrauding FCC Video Relay Service Program.” http://www.justice.gov/opa/

pr/2011/January/11-crm-100.html. (Accessed July 9, 2019). Federal Communications Commission. Hands On 

Video Relay Services, Inc., Go America, Inc., and Purple Communications, Inc., Order and Consent Decree. 

Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-10-

1734A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

390 Ibid.

391 Federal Communications Commission. Strategic Plan 2018–2022, 2.

392 Ibid., 10.

393 Interstate TRS Advisory Council. September 10, 2017. Meeting Minutes. http://www.rolkaloube.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/11/AC-Minutes-Sept-2017.pdf. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

394 Federal Communications Commission. September 8, 2017. “Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone 

Service.” https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/internet-protocol-ip-captioned-telephone-service. (Accessed 

July 10, 2019).

395 Ibid.

396 Federal Communications Commission. June 7, 2018. Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service, 

Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/

FCC-18-79A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

397 Ibid.

398 Rolka Loube. December 4, 2019. “Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities.” https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/1204051341584. (Accessed 

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 123
July 10, 2019). Finding that the Commission’s proposed rate of $1.58 per minute does not cover all providers’ 

costs and may force some providers out of the market.

399 Interview with Disability Rights Office Staff, March 20, 2019.

400 Sorenson Communications Inc. and CaptionCall, LLC v. FCC, No. 13-112 (D.C. Cir., June 20, 2014).

401 Ibid., 15.

402 Federal Communications Commission. Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone Service, ¶ 13.

403 Ibid.

404 Statement of Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel Concurring. June 7, 2018. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/

attachments/DOC-351394A5.pdf; Comments of Consumer Groups (HLAA, TDI, and NAD), CG Docket Nos. 03-

123 & 13-24 (July 26, 2018), http://a360-wp-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/hearingr/2018/08/

FCC-Letter.pdf.

405 Disability Advisory Committee. September 22, 2016. “Recommendation of the FCC Disability Advisory 

Committee, IP CTS Quality Standards.” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-341497A1.pdf. (Accessed 

July 9, 2019).

406 Disability Advisory Committee. October 3, 2018. “Recommendation of the FCC Disability Advisory Committee, 

Relay and Equipment Distribution Subcommittee, Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Relay Service 

Metrics.” https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-354522A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

407 Federal Communications Commission. June 7, 2018. Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned Telephone 

Service; Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing 

and Speech Disabilities. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/

attachments/FCC-18-79A1.pdf. (Accessed July 9, 2019).

408 47 U.S.C. § 717(b)(1)(C)–(F).

409 47 U.S.C. § 717(a).

410 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 14.32 (consumer dispute assistance), 14.34–14.37 (informal complaints); a consumer may 

file a formal complaint with the Enforcement Bureau without first submitting an RDA or an informal complaint. 

47 C.F.R. §§ 14.33, 14.38.

411 47 C.F.R. § 14.32(e). Federal Communication Commission. March 2, 2011. Implementation of Sections 716 and 

717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2010; Amendments to the Commission’s Rules Implementing Sections 255 and 251(a)(2) of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and Accessible Mobile 

Phone Options for People Who Are Blind, Deaf-Blind, or Have Low Vision, ¶ 237. Washington, DC: Federal 

Communications Commission. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-11-37A1.pdf. (Accessed July 10. 2019).

412 47 C.F.R. § 14.35(a).

413 47 C.F.R. § 14.36(b).

414 47 C.F.R. § 14.36(c). The complainant may then file a reply. 47 C.F.R. § 14.36(d).

415 47 U.S.C. § 618(a)(3)(B)(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 14.37(a).

416 47 U.S.C. § 618(a)(3)(B)(i); 47 C.F.R. § 14.37(b). Any manufacturer or service provider that is the subject of such 

order will have a reasonable opportunity to comment on the Commission’s proposed remedial action before 

the Commission issues a final order with respect to that action. 47 U.S.C. § 618(a)(4); 47 C.F.R. § 14.37(c).

417 Federal Communications Commission. Biennial Report, ¶ 26.

418 Ibid.

419 Federal Communications Commission. Biennial Report, ¶ 27.

420 Ibid.

421 Ibid.

422 Ibid.

423 Ibid., ¶ 28.

424 Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010).

124 National Council on Disability
425 Federal Communications Commission. Biennial Report, ¶ 28.

426 Ibid.

427 Ibid.

428 Ibid.

429 Ibid., ¶ 29.

430 Ibid., ¶ 30. The final RDA was withdrawn by the consumer when he switched to another carrier.

431 Ibid., ¶ 31.

432 Interview with Disability Rights Office Staff, March 20, 2019.

433 Ibid.

434 Interstate TRS Advisory Council. September 13, 2018. “Meeting Minutes,” 9.

435 Federal Communications Commission, Accessibility Clearinghouse. “Hearing, Language and Speech 

Disabilities.” https://ach.fcc.gov/resources-by-disability/hearing-language-and-speech-disabilities/. (Accessed 

July 10, 2019).

436 National Council on Disability. Has the Promise Been Kept? 92.

437 Data based on U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Performance Budget for CRT, reports for FY 2009 through 

FY 2015, 5–7; U.S. Department of Justice, Annual Performance Budget for CRT, exhibit to reports for FY 2016 

through FY 2018, 2. Calculation of constant dollars conducted by NCD.

438 Ibid. U.S. Department of Justice, FY 2019 Annual Performance Budget: Civil Rights Division, Summary 

of Requirements, 2. https://www.justice.gov/file/1034201/download. (Accessed August 13, 2019). 

U.S. Department of Justice, FY 2020 Annual Performance Budget: Civil Rights Division, Summary of 

Requirements,” 2. https://www.justice.gov/jmd/page/file/1143961/download. (Accessed August 13, 2019).

439 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (July 26, 1990).

440 29 U.S.C. § 794.

441 Pub. L. No. 110-325, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, as amended.

442 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “The Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act of 

2008.” https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa_info.cfm.

443 Pub. L. 96-247, § 2, May 23, 1980, 94 Stat. 349.; 42 U.S.C. § 1997 et seq.

444 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section, Description of the Laws We Use 

in Our Disability Rights Work. https://www.justice.gov/crt/rights-persons-disabilities (Accessed April 9, 2019).

445 42 U.S.C. § 1997(1).

446 42 U.S.C. § 1997a(a).

447 42 U.S.C. § 1997c.

448 Ibid.; 42 U.S.C. § 1997b.

449 Pub. L. No. 90-284, 82 Stat. 81 (April 11, 1968), 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601–3619.

450 Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, P.L. 100–430, September 13, 1988, 102 Stat. 1619.

451 29 U.S.C. §§ 701–796.

452 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Questions and Answers: The EEOC's Final Rule on 

Affirmative Action for People with Disabilities in Federal Employment.” https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/regulations/

qanda-ada-disabilities-final-rule.cfm. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

453 Government Services Administration. “GSA Section 508 and Accessibility, What Is Section 508?” https://www.

gsa.gov/about-us/organization/office-of-the-chief-information-officer/office-of-enterprise-planning-and-governance/

gsa-section-508-and-accessibility.

454 Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 2751 (2010). https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/21st-century-communicationsand-video-accessibility-act-cvaa. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

455 Federal Communications Commission. “Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act.” 

https://www.fcc.gov/general/twenty-first-century-communications-and-video-accessibility-act-0#block-menublock-4. (Accessed July 10, 2019).

Has the Promise Been Kept? Federal Enforcement of Disability Rights Laws (Part 2) 125
456 Ibid.

457 National Council on Disability, Promises to Keep, 29–30.

458 Ibid., 2.

459 Ibid., 389.

460 Ibid.

461 Ibid., A-11–A-19.

462 Ibid., A-29–A-32.

126 National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004