Source: https://www.williamgoren.com/blog/tag/rulemaking/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:20:38+00:00

Document:
First off, I want to wish everyone a happy new year! Hope everyone had a happy and safe new year. Back to the grind for all of us and back to school for our kids. Before moving on to the blog entry of the week, a lot has happened over the last two weeks. The biggest thing that happened is that I am no longer a pure solo practitioner. Over the last couple of weeks, I became Of Counsel to the firm Kitchens New Cleghorn, a firm in Atlanta. My practice, which is described here, stays the same. The difference now is that I have the advantages a firm offers me, including administrative support and colleagues with a shared purpose. Very excited about the opportunity. Second, my blog site and my website changed to reflect the new reality of being of counsel to Kitchens New Cleghorn in different ways. One way that it changed is that www.williamgoren.com gets forwarded to my blog site. That needed to be done anyway as my website was really acting as nothing more than a placeholder for the blog site attached to it. The website was pretty static, and it is the blog site that has been actively changing the content for the last several years now. The other way the blog site changed is that you now see a reference to the law firm, and there is also the section describing my practice. Otherwise, it is pretty much the same everyone has grown comfortable with. I am looking forward to this exciting new journey for me, and I believe it will benefit my clients and myself going forward.
Turning to the blog entry of the day, I had several choices. In the end, I decided to go back to airplanes. In particular, recently, the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act became law, and there are several provisions in it affecting persons with disabilities. Also, the Department of Transportation on November 16, 2018 fined Scandinavian Airlines system $200,000 because they had developed a separate website for persons with disabilities rather than a single website allowing everyone, including persons with disabilities, to use. So, as usual, the blog entry is divided into categories, and they are: key provisions of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act; takeaways with respect to the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act; and highlights of the consent order between the Department of Transportation and Scandinavian Airlines system/takeaways. The reader is free to concentrate on any or all of the categories.
By April 5, 2019 the Comptroller General of the United States has to submit to the appropriate congressional committee a report assessing: the availability of functional lavatories on commercial aircraft; the extent to which flights take off without functional lavatories; the ability of passengers with disabilities to access lavatories on commercial aircraft; the extent of complaints to Department of Transportation and air carriers related to lavatories and any efforts they had taken to address complaints; and the extent to which air carriers are reducing the size and number of lavatories to add more seats and whether this creates passenger lavatory access issues.
Not later than 90 days after the enactment of the act, which by my calculations would be around January 5, 2019, two days ago, the Secretary of Transportation shall require each covered air carrier to submit a summarized one page document describing the rights of passengers in air transportation, including guidelines, among other matters, compensation for mishandled baggage, including delayed, damaged, pilfered, or lost baggage (which presumably includes wheelchairs that are checked).
Sometime in early May 2019, the air carriers have to make available that one page document in a prominent location on its website.
Not later than October 5, 2019, the Comptroller General of the United States must have conducted a study that includes: 1) a review of airport accessibility best practices for individuals with disabilities, including best practices that improve infrastructure facilities and communication methods, including those related to way finding, amenities, and passenger care; 2) review of air carrier and airport training policy related to 49 U.S.C. §41705 (Air Carrier Access Act); 3) a review of air carrier training policy related to properly assisting passengers with disabilities; and 4) a review of accessibility best practices that exceed those recommended under: the Architectural Barriers Act oof 1968; Rehabilitation Act 1973; Air Carrier Access Act oof 1986; and the ADA of 1990 as amended. Not later than one year after the date the Comptroller General initiates the study, the Comptroller General has to submit to the Secretary of Transportation and to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the study, including its findings and recommendations.
By October 5, 2020, the Architectural And Transportation Barriers Compliance Board in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, aircraft manufacturers, air carriers and disabilities advocates, shall conduct a study to determine: 1) the feasibility of cabin wheelchair restraint systems; and 2) if feasible, the ways in which individuals with significant disabilities using wheelchairs, including power wheelchairs, can be accommodated within cabin wheelchair restraint systems. Not later than one year after initiation of the study, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board must submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the findings of the study. From this report, the Secretary of Transportation has to develop, if appropriate, specific recommendations regarding improvement to wheelchair assistance provided by air carriers and recommendations on how training programs by air carriers can address consumer complaints regarding wheelchair assistance.
The Secretary of Transportation has to develop a document known at the Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights. That document must use plain language to describe the basic protections and responsibilities of covered air carriers, their employees and contractors, and people with disabilities under the Air Carrier Access Act. This document must include at a minimum, plain language descriptions of protections and responsibilities provided in law relating to the following: 1) the rights of passengers with disabilities to be treated with dignity and respect; 2) the rights of passengers with disabilities to receive timely assistance, if requested, from properly trained covered air carrier and contractor personnel; 3) the right of passengers with disabilities to travel with wheelchairs, mobility aids, and other assistive devices, including necessary medications and medical supplies, including stowage of such wheelchairs, age, and devices; 4) the rights of passengers with disabilities to receive seating accommodation, if requested, to accommodate a disabilities; 5) the rights of passengers with disabilities to receive announcements in an accessible format; and 6) the rights of passengers with disabilities to speak with a complaint resolution officer or to file complaint with the covered air carrier or the Department of Transportation. In developing the Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights,, the Secretary of Transportation has to consult with stakeholders, including disability organizations, covered air carriers, and their contractors.
Each covered air carrier has to include the Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights on a publicly available Internet website of the covered air carrier and in any preflight notifications or communication provided to passengers who alert the covered air carrier in advance of the need for accommodations relating to disabilities.
Covered air carriers and contractors of covered air carriers have to submit to the Secretary of Transportation plans ensuring employees of covered air carriers and their contractors received training on the protections and responsibility described in the Airline Passengers with Disabilities Bill of Rights. The Secretary of Transportation has to review those plan to ensure the plans address the matters described as being necessary to the Bill of Rights for Airline Passengers wwith Disabilities.
A sense of Congress provision was added to make clear that it is the sense of Congress that: 1) the aviation industry and every relevant stakeholder must work to ensure that every individual who experiences a disability has equal access to air travel; 2) as technology and ease of travel continue to advance, accessibility is a continuing priority; and 3) accommodations must extend to every airport and service or facility of an air carrier and are inclusive of every disability.
The civil penalty assessed for violating the Air Carrier Access Act with respect to damages to a passenger’s wheelchair or other mobility aid or injury to a passenger with a disability has now increased to an amount not to exceed three times the maximum penalty otherwise allowed.
When it comes to the Air Carrier Access Act, a separate violation occurs for each act of discrimination prohibited by the Air Carriers Access Act.
The Secretary of Transportation has to engage in rule-making to define the term “service animal,” for purposes of air transportation and to develop minimum standards for what is required for service and emotional support animals carried in aircraft cabins. In conducting that rule-making, the Secretary of Transportation has to consider at least the following: 1) whether to align the definition of service animal with the DOJ regulations implementing the ADA; 2) reasonable measures to ensure pets are not claimed as service animals. Such measures might include: a) requiring photo identification for service animal identifying the type of animal, the breed of animal, and the service the animal provides to the passenger; B) requiring documentation indicating whether or not a service animal was trained by the owner or an approved training organization; C) requiring, from a licensed physician, documentation indicating the mitigating task or tasks a service animal provides to its owner; and D) whether to allow a passenger to be accompanied by more than one service animal; 3) reasonable measures to ensure the safety of all passengers, such as whether to require health and vaccination record for service animal and whether to require third-party proof of behavioral training for service animals; 4) the impact additional requirements on service animals could have on access to air transportation for passengers with disabilities; and 5) if impacts on air transportation for passengers with disabilities are found, ways to eliminate or mitigate those impacts. The Secretary of Transportation has until April 5 of 2022 to issue final rules on the matters covered in this paragraph.
The Secretary of Transportation has to establish an advisory committee on issues relating to your travel needs of passengers with disabilities. The duties of that committee include: 1) identifying and accessing the disability related access barriers encountered by passengers with disabilities; 2) determining the extent to which the programs and activities of the Department of Transportation are addressing accessibility barriers; 3) recommending consumer protection improvement in the travel experience of passengers with disabilities; 4) advising the secretary with regards to the implementation of the Air Carrier Access Act;; and 5) conducting such activities as the Secretary considers necessary to carry out this section. Members of this committee are to be appointed by the Secretary of Transportation and must be composed of at least one representative of each of the following groups: passengers with disabilities; national disability organizations; air carriers; airport operators; contractor service provider; aircraft manufacturer; wheelchair manufacturer; and national veterans organization representing veterans with disabilities. This committee is also charged with reviewing current regulations with respect to practices for ticketing, preflight seat assignment, and stowing of assistive devices for passengers with disabilities and with making recommendations on whether these current regulations need to be modified with respect to: a) providing accommodation for passengers with disabilities, if requested, in ticketing and preflight assignments; B) requiring covered air carrier to provide priority access to bulkhead seating of passengers with disabilities needing access to features of those seat due to disabilities regardless of class of service of ticket purchase; and C) ensuring passengers with disabilities can stow their assistive devices without cost.
Not later than 14 months after the advisory committee is established and annually after that, the advisory committee has to submit to the Secretary of Transportation a report on the needs of passengers with disabilities in air travel, including: a) an assessment of existing disability related access barriers, and any emerging disability related access barriers likely to be an issue in the next five calendar years; B) evaluation of the extent to which the Department of Transportation’s programs and activities are eliminating disability related access barriers; C) a description of the advisory committee’s action; D) a description of improvement related to air travel experience of passengers with disabilities; and E) any recommendation for legislation, administrative action, or other action that the advisory committee considers appropriate. The advisory committee terminates on September 30, 2023.
Not later than 180 days after October 5, 2018 (approximately April 5 of 2019), Secretary of Transportation shall: 1) review, and if necessary revise, applicable regulations ensuring that passengers with disabilities requesting assistance while traveling in air transportation receive dignified, timely, and effective assistance in airports and on aircraft from trained personnel; and 2) review, and if necessary revise, applicable regulations relating to covered air carrier training program for air carrier personnel, including contractors, who provide physical assistance to passengers with disabilities to ensure that training under such programs occur on an annual schedule for all new and continuing personnel charged with providing physical assistance and also includes, where appropriate, construction by personnel with hands-on training for employees who physically lift or otherwise physically assist passengers with disabilities, including the use of relevant equipment.
The compliance date of the final rule dated November 2, 2016, on the reporting of data for mishandled baggage and wheelchair in aircraft cargo compartments is effective not later than 60 days, approximately December 5 of 2018, after the enactment of this act.
There is a strong focus on accessibility to aircraft for persons with mobility impairments. You don’t see much of a focus on other disabilities, at least not explicitly. It is true that Act in its sense of Congress provision does contain all disabilities language.
Some of the deadlines have already passed. For example, airlines should have already submitted their one page document describing the rights of people with disabilities in air transportation to the Secretary of Transportation, and the final rule for the reporting of data dealing with mishandled baggage with respect to wheelchairs has already gone into effect. Other provisions of the act have deadlines that are coming up shortly. For examples: a report dealing with lavatories on commercial aircraft is due in early April; one page document to be displayed by airlines in early May 2019; and by sometime in early April, the Secretary of Transportation has to review and revise applicable regulations mentioned in ¶ I15 above. There are also October, 2019, deadlines as well.
Civil penalties for damages to wheelchairs have just tripled.
The continuing violation doctrine is a nonstarter as every act of discrimination is a separate act.
The problem dealing with animals on airplanes has to be specifically addressed. On the table, is matching up the Air Carrier Access Act with the Department of Justice regulations on service animals. While they are at it, they may want to consider getting rid of the completely arbitrary distinction between psychiatric service animals and service animals for those with physical disabilities. It is also entirely possible that a bunch of requirements specifically noted for the advisory committee to consider in the Reauthorization Act will result in a situation with respect to animals on planes that would not be allowed if this was an entity dealing with service animals under title II or try to III of the ADA.
The advisory committee is problematic because of the way people with disabilities silo. Passengers with disabilities and national disability organizations each get at least one (not clear if it can be more than one), representative, but how you go about making sure that every disability is represented when people with disabilities silo terribly, I have no idea. For example, the deaf and hard of hearing community is going to have very different issues than the wheelchair community when it comes to airplane access.
The advisory committee terminates on September 30, 2023. I don’t understand why it terminates at all because I don’t see these issues ever ending.
Scandinavian Airline System developed a separate website for individuals with disabilities instead of ensuring that a primary website was consistent with Web content accessibility guidelines 2.0 level AA standard, which unlike the ADA, is required by 14 C.F.R. §382.43(c)(1). The product was developed by a company called Usablenet and Scandinavian Airlines system believed that that product was the best way to meet the Department of Transportation website accessibility requirements.
Under the Department of Transportation rulemaking system, airlines were required to ensure all remaining webpages on their primary website were accessible by December 12, 2016.
The Department of Transportation previously had said that creating a separate accessible website would likely perpetuate the problem of unequal access access as carriers would allot fewer resources than needed over time to properly maintain the secondary site. The Department of Transportation also said that it is well-established with respect to disability nondiscrimination law that separate or different aids, benefits or services can only be provided to individuals with disabilities when necessary to provide age, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others. Finally, the Department of Transportation does allow airline to use an alternative version only when conforming a public facing webpage constitutes an undue burden or fundamentally alter the information provided by that page.
Scandinavian Airlines system does not admit liability, but did agree to pay a fine of $200,000 to resolve the matter. $100,000 of that payable within 30 days with the other $100,000 becoming due and payable if Scandinavian airlines violates the order cease and desist order payment provisions.
With respect to takeaways on the Scandinavian Airline systems matter, they are: 1) the Department of Transportation imposed a significant penalty for not having an integrated website that all people could use; 2) the Department of Transportation does not believe that separate but equal will suffice when it comes to people with disabilities being able to access airline websites; 3) the Department of Transportation references auxiliary aids language of the final regulations implementing the ADA; and 4) by DOT regulations, the ADA concepts of undue burden and fundamental alteration, are also in play. So, even though websites that are not air carrier owned are not subject to the Air Carrier Access Act and its final implementing regulations, this particular case is a red flag alert to title II and title III entities that may be considering developing a separate website for persons with disabilities. The answer to that question is don’t do it.
The ABA Journal is, again, seeking nominations for its list of the 100 best legal blawgs, the “Blawg 100.” The nomination process is simple. Go here and answer a few simple questions touting your favorite blawgs. In addition to this one, there are many good blogs out there. For example, the ones that I use frequently, I have listed in my blog roll.
Turning to the question of the week. Let’s say an employer has someone who is 4’10” tall. That someone gets on the employer’s nerves and the employer retaliates by telling her that she has to drive a car that she can’t possibly drive due to her height. She of course can’t do that. Therefore, the employer fires her. She sues alleging disability discrimination because she is only 4’10” tall. Does she survive a motion to dismiss? Will she survive a motion for summary judgment?
The above was pretty much the scenario in the case of McElmurry v. Arizona Department of Agriculture (Docket number:CV-12-02234-PHX-GMS, D. Ari. June 11, 2013). In this case, the plaintiff worked at a lab in Yuma, Arizona, and her job consisted of screening traps set by other employees in the field. It wasn’t a happy place to work, and the plaintiff attempted to raise health concerns with the person who oversaw the program she worked in. Those concerns were not taken seriously, and people who complained of health problems were sent to the field of fired regardless of their physical condition. They also had their workers compensation claims denied. Things went from bad to worse. In the end, her supervisor assigned her to fieldwork despite the fact that the plaintiff said that she would not be able to drive the vehicle due to her small stature. Once she was in fieldwork, she suffered an injury. Eventually, the plaintiff was fired and was told that since Arizona’s a right to work State, they could fire you anytime they wanted without reason. She filed suit under both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and under the ADA. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss.
The defendant’s motion to dismiss was based on two grounds. First, sovereign immunity prevented a lawsuit involving the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Second, since all the plaintiff was, was short, being short was not a disability under the ADA. With respect to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim, the court held that the state was protected by sovereign immunity. With respect to the ADA claim, the court relied on the EEOC’s interpretation of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) that said their view (EEOC), of the term “impairment,” does not include physical characteristics such as eye color, hair color, being left-handed, height, weight, or muscle tone that are within normal (emphasis mine) range and are not the result of a physiological disorder. The court said that a motion to dismiss was too soon to throw out the case because her height was alleged to be outside the normal range. Also, the court said that it was plausible that height in some contexts could substantially limit one or more of the major life activities of the individual. Accordingly, the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ADA claim was denied.
One of the things that academicians (which I used to be), share with attorneys who counsel in the ADA (which I am), is that they are always looking for cases that push the envelope. Academicians do that to move the legal paradigm. Whereas, people who counsel in the ADA, do that to get a sense of where the law might be heading and to suggest ways to head off future lawsuits. That said, in a case such as this, it’s important to delve deeper to see just what are the risks, in this case to the employer. Once you do that, I do believe that an employer has many ways to defend claims such as this.
First, it is curious as to why sovereign immunity was raised successfully with respect to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, but does not appear to have been raised with respect to the ADA. That seems to be a bit odd. After all, under Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), sovereign immunity with respect to title I of the ADA is very much in play. On the surface, it seems there may have been a missed opportunity here unless, Arizona did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act but did with respect to the ADA (I have not done the research on that, but this would seem very unlikely to be true).
Second, there is a roadmap for successfully defending against a claim of height being a disability where that height is not due to any physiological disorder or condition. That roadmap would work like this. First, the ADA, even as amended, doesn’t define what a physical or mental impairment is. Second, the EEOC in their final regulations does define what a physical impairment means. They say that a physical impairment (emphasis mine), is, “ any physiological disorder or condition, (emphasis added) cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). The way this regulation is phrased, it would seem clear that a physical impairment must be a physiological disorder or condition. It would also seem clear that “physiological,” applies to both “disorder,” and, “condition,” and that some kind of impairment must be involved. Third, it is true that in the appendix the EEOC says that impairment might include a physical characteristics such as height that is outside the normal range and not the result of a physiological disorder (see above), but anything that appears in the appendix is an interpretation of the regulation put out by the EEOC and since that interpretation itself did not go through the formal rulemaking process, the court is free to ignore it.
Lesson learned: there are several things we can take away from this case. First, just because an employer is in a right to work state, that does not mean they are free to ignore applicable antidiscrimination laws. Second, on the defense side, if a defendant has the opportunity to do so, it should argue sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity is very much in play with respect to title I of the ADA. Third, if you are an employer, and you get sued claiming discrimination under the ADA because a person was short, you are going to want to assess whether that person’s height is due to a physiological condition or disorder that is the result of an impairment versus whether he or she is just short. Also, you are going to want to argue, that the “outside normal range,” language contained in the appendix is not something that the court should follow since that language did not go through proper rulemaking process. Finally, employers need to have systems in place so that their employees are trained so that the kind of environment detailed in this case does not occur and when it does, it is not tolerated.
Recently, the New York Times reported that a federal judge ruled that the city of New York must start approving taxi medallions so that more taxis were wheelchair accessible. After reading the article, I decided to go to the case itself, Noel V. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 2011 WL 6747466 (S.D. N.Y. December 23, 2011). In this case, the plaintiffs sued the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission because their regulations were not set up to approve a sufficient number of taxis that were wheelchair accessible. Interestingly enough, the Commission defended on the grounds that title II of the ADA did not apply to them. There were two possible ways title II could apply. First, there is a section of title II that applies to public entities operating a demand responsive system. Second, and more common, is that title II demands that governmental entities be accessible to persons with disabilities. With respect to the first issue, the court decided that the Commission was not operating a demand responsive system (which would have required that each and every taxi be wheelchair accessible), and therefore, the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act pertaining to a demand responsive system did not apply. However, the court did find that the Commission was a public entity subject to title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and therefore, its operations must be accessible to persons with disabilities. The Commission admitted that it had both the ability and authority to provide more wheelchair accessible vehicles but simply had chosen not to do so. Therefore, only 232 taxi cabs in New York out of 13,237 were accessible to individuals using wheelchairs. The court held that the Commission did not provide meaningful access to this public benefit. Therefore the court ordered that the Commission to propose a comprehensive plan that provides meaningful access to taxi services for passengers using wheelchairs. The plan must include targeted goals and standards as well as anticipated measurable results. Furthermore, until such a plan was proposed and approved by the court, all new taxi medallions sold or new street hail livery licenses or permits issued by the Commission must be for wheelchair accessible vehicles. No doubt this is a great victory for persons with disabilities.
However the question becomes where did the “meaningful access” standard come from? That, is an interesting story. Noel relies on another case, Henrietta D v. Guilani, 119 F. Supp. 2d 181 (E.D.N.Y. 2000), where the court held that a city program that provided federal and state benefits for individuals suffering from AIDS was run in such a way that the beneficiaries of that program lacked meaningful access to it. This decision relied on Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985), a Rehabilitation Act case, which upheld a Tennessee reduction of annual inpatient hospital days that the Tennessee Medicaid program would pay. It is there that the, “meaningful access” phrase first appears. It appears in the context of saying that the reduction in hospital stays is a neutral decision and does not impact upon whether a person with a disability had meaningful access to the program. Therefore, one can see that in Noel the term, “meaningful access” is being used quite a bit differently than what it had been used in prior case law.
What does this all mean? It is very strange in a way. The Commission never argued at the lower level that summary judgment should be denied because a question of fact existed as to whether the program and activities of the Commission were accessible to persons with disabilities or whether there were other ways that could be formulated so that the program and activities of the Commission could be accessible to persons with disabilities, wheelchair users in this case. Perhaps, an appeal might claim that the lower court did not apply the proper legal standard (that is, “meaningful access” is being used in this case in a way different than existing precedent, and therefore, the argument goes that an appellate court should send the case back down with the correct legal standard, whatever that may be).
At any rate, a deceptively complex case, that bears following in the future. It also serves notice on regulatory bodies that their regulations should be formulated in such a way that they do not have a disparate impact on (screen out) persons with disabilities. Failure to do so, could subject the agency to a title II suit along the lines described here.
Update: During the week of March 19, the city received a stay from the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals with respect to the District Court decision referenced here. The city has also made clear that it will be appealing the decision, perhaps along the lines discussed here.
In fact, this case was appealed and on June 28 the second circuit came down with its decision whereby the Second Circuit held that the city was not in violation of part a of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and that the District Court erred in granting partial summary judgment for the plaintiff and entering the temporary injunction. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded for entry of partial summary judgment for the city. In doing so, the Second Circuit had to find that the district court abused its discretion in its decision.
How did the Second Circuit go about reversing the District Court decision? First, the court noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act while broad in scope was not without its limits.
Second, the court turned to the federal regulations dealing with licenses. The court said that what this section does is prohibit the agency issuing the regulations from refusing to grant licenses to persons with disabilities who are otherwise qualified own or operate taxis but does not assist persons who are consumers of the licensee’s product. Such a conclusion was also supported by the Department of Justice’s technical assistance manual, which the court found to be persuasive authority.
Third, the court found that a program or activity of the public entity was not involved here. That is, an activity of the public entity does not become a “program or activity” of the public entity merely because it is licensed by the public entity unless the private industry practice is the result of the licensing requirements. Such was not the case here (that is, the licensing scheme did not cause the discrimination). While the number of taxis that have to be accessible were small, nothing prevented the private companies from using whatever number of accessible taxis they desired. To buttress this point, the court cited to several cases that made this distinction between the regulatory agencies and the licensees or the people being regulated themselves. They did distinguish one case that did not make that distinction, but that case was substantially different as it dealt with the situation with a private entity had to use equipment required by the public agency (machine for the state lottery in West Virginia).
Finally, an interesting question arises as to why the plaintiffs went after the public entity and not the taxi companies themselves. It turns out, as the Court notes, that federal regulations specifically exempt providers of taxi service from being required to purchase or lease accessible automobiles. Therefore, since the taxi industry is exempt from being required to purchase or lease accessible taxis, there can be no underlying violation of the ADA for a licensing authority to fail to address that by regulation.
What does this all mean? It means that for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act, there is a big difference between the regulations issued by a public entity and the people or entities subject to those regulations. Unless those regulations mandate discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act is not going to allow a title II claim to proceed. It also means that the time to ensure that the regulations increase accessibility to the maximum extent is at the time the regulations are being formulated not once they are done. For example, when a state or the federal government formulates regulations, those regulations first have to be proposed, then receive comments from the public, then those comments have to be digested by the regulatory body, and then the final regulations have to be issued. These regulations of New York were not state or federal but it is possible that prior to issuing the licensing regulations, there may have been some ability for the public to comment on the proposed licensing regulations. If not, that fact might offer grounds for attacking the regulations.

References: §41705
 §382
 v. 
 § 1630
 v. 
 § 1630
 V. 
 v. 
 v.