Prohibited discrimination may include, among other things, firing or refusing to hire someone based on a real or perceived disability, segregation, and harassment based on a disability. Covered entities are also required to provide reasonable accommodations to job applicants and employees with disabilities.[16] A reasonable accommodation is a change in the way things are typically done that the person needs because of a disability, and can include, among other things, special equipment that allows the person to perform the job, scheduling changes, and changes to the way work assignments are chosen or communicated.[17] An employer is not required to provide an accommodation that would involve undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense), and the individual who receives the accommodation must still perform the essential functions of the job and meet the normal performance requirements. An employee or applicant who currently engages in the illegal use of drugs is not considered qualified when a covered entity takes adverse action based on such use.[18]

Defendant: HRB Digital LLC, one of the largest tax return preparers in the United States that offers a wide range of services online via website and mobile apps. Services include professional and do-it-yourself tax preparation, instructional videos, office location information, interactive live video conference and chat with tax pros, online and in-store services and electronic tax-return filing.

In general, when alterations are made to existing buildings or facilities, an accessible path of travel to the specific area of alteration shall be provided; this path of travel includes a primary entrance to the building or facility, toilet and bathing facilities serving the area of alteration, drinking fountains serving the area of alteration, public telephones serving the area of alteration, and signs as well as accessible routes which connect the area of alteration with site arrival points such as sidewalks, streets, and accessible parking (see CBC Section 11B-202.4). In general, these listed elements, if provided on the site, are required to comply with the current code requirements or be brought into compliance when an alteration occurs. In the context of EVCS, this scheme will apply when EVCS are installed at existing facilities where vehicle fueling, recharging, parking or storage is a primary function. These types of facilities include gas stations, stand-alone parking lots and stand-alone parking structures. Compliance is required to the maximum extent feasible without exceeding 20 percent of the cost of the work directly associated with the installation of EVCS (see Section 11B-202.4 Exception 10).
The question of fixing the elevator is an entirely different matter (and one with which I am personally struggling in my own home), depends on local building codes and the specifics of the building, and you will need to start with the local building department to see if there is any way to get the situation rectified if the landlord is unresponsive.
In the new construction of a new facility, all accessible rooms and spaces are required to be connected by an accessible route and all toilet facilities, drinking fountains, public telephones and signs are subject to accessibility requirements. These fundamental requirements provide accessibility in excess of that required for alterations to existing facilities so the regulations associated with path of travel requirements are not applicable to new facilities.
To the extent that EVCS are a public accommodation or commercial facility they are covered by the federal law of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Specific technical requirements for EVCS are not specified in the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. DSA is not familiar with state and municipal accessibility requirements for EVCS outside of California.

Currently, while storefronts, public areas and public bathrooms must legally take measures to accommodate everyone with disabilities, online ADA compliance is not mandatory on anything but government-managed websites. Instead, these rules act as guidelines to ensure that disabled people have the same ability to access and read/view your website as everyone else.


Tennessee v. Lane[80], 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. George Lane was unable to walk after a 1997 car accident in which he was accused of driving on the wrong side of the road. A woman was killed in the crash, and Lane faced misdemeanor charges of reckless driving. The suit was brought about because he was denied access to appear in criminal court because the courthouse had no elevator, even though the court was willing to carry him up the stairs and then willing to move the hearing to the first floor. He refused, citing he wanted to be treated as any other citizen, and was subsequently charged with failure to appear, after appearing at a previous hearing where he dragged himself up the stairs.[81] The court ruled that Congress did have enough evidence that the disabled were being denied those fundamental rights that are protected by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and had the enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. It further ruled that "reasonable accommodations" mandated by the ADA were not unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the harm.[82]
I live in an Apartment complex in San Jose, CA that was built in 1979 with over 300 units. There are four ADA parking spots close to my Apt. but when I get sick due to the terminal disease I have and leave my car parked which is permitted with a sticker from the complex for residential vehicles and also have disability license plates. I get threating sticker’s on my car windows from the Maintenance manager that it will be towed due to parking longer than 72hrs all the time. I’m then instructed to go park in another parking lot 300 to 400+ yards away with no sidewalk from the parking lot and then many stairs before I can get back to my Apt. that has ADA spots 100ft away and my disability license plates are for mobility reasons. They are building a new Apt. Building and have public access for their leasing office. Can anyone tell me if a violation has been committed by treating me this way? BTW there is nothing in our lease that says we residents or visitors with passes have a minimum or max days cars can be parked. If this is a violation please contact me so we can get a case going.
I moved into a HUD complex on April 1, 2014. Jan. 28, 2017 tenants on floors 7-8 were compensated and displaced for a complete makeover of our apartments, I live on 8. I returned on May 1, 2016. The first thing I noticed, my countertops had been lowered. Regardless of what anyone says to the contrary, this is ergonomically unacceptable for me, being I am 6’1.
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) authorizes the United States Department of Justice to certify that state laws, local building codes, or similar ordinances meet or exceed the ADA Standards for Accessible Design for new construction and alterations. Title III applies to public accommodations and commercial facilities, which include most private businesses and non-profit service providers.
The fact that the California federal courts only had ten website accessibility lawsuits filings in 2018 may be a surprise to some since California continues to lead the pack in the number of all ADA Title III lawsuit filings in federal court.  However, it appears that plaintiffs filed their new cases in state court after a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a website accessibility lawsuit against Dominos’ in 2017.  The Ninth Circuit reversed that dismissal last month, making California federal court an attractive venue for plaintiffs once again.  We predict that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will cause the number of website accessibility lawsuits in California federal courts to increase dramatically in 2019.
Three defendants were able to dismiss website access lawsuits early because they had already entered into consent decree or settlement agreements with previous plaintiffs which required them to make their websites conform to the WCAG 2.0 within a specified amount of time. That said, not all courts agree that a prior settlement — as opposed to a binding judgment or court order — can be the basis for a dismissal.
This document contains the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) accessibility provisions adopted by DSA and commentary on selected requirements. Commentary is included from the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and from DSA for provisions unique to California. Additionally, an expanded table of contents for Chapter 11B is provided at the beginning of the chapter.

That would be great for a referral. I am trying to fid one on my own, and am striking out on this. I’m somewhat confused though by the recently passed CA law (smaller businesses with < 25 employees can take advantage of the ADA CASP program to avoid being liable for any type of payment. That's how I'd interpreted this new regulation). The thing is he was in fact told to do this 4 + years ago (I know for a fact). My concern is maybe county zoning would have no record of this (it was in a citation)? Or, my LL would suddenly have amnesia. Thanks too.

What’s in store for 2018? If the Ninth Circuit upholds the Domino’s district court’s dismissal on due process grounds, the number of California website accessibility lawsuits in federal court may go down dramatically.  Even if that occurs, we see no end to the website accessibility lawsuit surge elsewhere and expect that new plaintiffs’ firms will continue to enter the scene.  While the current administration’s DOJ is not likely to push the website accessibility agenda, its inaction will not stop the lawsuits.  Only an amendment to the ADA can do that, which we believe is highly unlikely.  Thus, the best risk mitigation effort for covered entities is still to make their websites accessible as soon as possible, with the assistance of ADA Title III legal counsel experienced in website accessibility issues and reputable digital accessibility consultants.
Does Ca law trump Federal or vice versa? We have a private community pool with 220 members. We have a swim team, which makes us a public entity (they allow nonmembers to join). We have been told to get 2 modes of entry into the pool. I would like swim team to pay for 2 chair lifts since we would be private and therefore not legally have to put in chair lifts without the team being there. Please advise.
In 2017, lawsuits against companies for ADA website compliance were not nearly as common and based on this article, you can see that lawyers had to prove that the web presence was closely related to Winn-Dixie’s physical location. Nowadays, we are seeing that websites are being held to the same standards as physical locations as it relates to ADA. Websites are now a public space.
That would be great for a referral. I am trying to fid one on my own, and am striking out on this. I’m somewhat confused though by the recently passed CA law (smaller businesses with < 25 employees can take advantage of the ADA CASP program to avoid being liable for any type of payment. That's how I'd interpreted this new regulation). The thing is he was in fact told to do this 4 + years ago (I know for a fact). My concern is maybe county zoning would have no record of this (it was in a citation)? Or, my LL would suddenly have amnesia. Thanks too.
I have an ADA placard for my car and we go to Dodger Stadium alot through out the year. We have been told by employees that if all the marked stalls are taken and we haven’t paid the $35 to park in the closer lot that we have to park in a different lot , which is quite a bit farther to walk because I only paid the $15 general parking fee. Is this right?

Explain to the plaintiff that you’ve reviewed the grievance and talked with a lawyer. It may be best to explain the ADA guidelines, and that proposed laws are not currently laws, nor are there current penalties for violating these proposed laws. Knowing that you’ve gone to this trouble can sometimes scare away anyone attempting to file a lawsuit. It’s best to let your attorney contact the plaintiff when making statements.

×