42 U.S.C. § 12101

Section 12101(a)(7) identifies equality of opportunity and full participation as goals of disability discrimination law, but those goals do not require educational institutions to lower or substantially modify academic standards.

Sallaj · filed 2026-02-27(a)(7)

Though discrimination statutes guarantee disabled students “equality of opportunity” and “full participation” in society, 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7), they do not require an educational institution to lower or substantially modify its standards to do so, Southeastern Community Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 413 (1979).

Section 12101(a)(7) supports the ADA’s purpose of promoting independent living, so an accommodation that makes people with disabilities reliant on others is not equivalent access.

Craig · filed 2025-12-19(a)(7)

The court went on to hold that even if providing nursing services could be considered a design or technology, requiring the plaintiff “to rely on nursing assistance[] rather than providing the means for [plaintiff] to address his own basic needs” could not be considered providing equivalent access since “the purpose of the ADA, even in the jail context, is to promote the ability of individuals with disabilities to engage in ‘independent living.’” Id. at 1069 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7)). The Court finds this case persuasive. Defendant’s disputed practice renders inmates reliant on staff to access the showers, regardless of whether a safe or appropriate chair is provided.

Section 12101(b)(1) states that the ADA was enacted to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc. · filed 2024-12-13(b)(1)

However, Congress enacted the ADA to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). As the Supreme Court has recognized, discrimination against disabled persons includes not just “intentional discrimination” or “affirmative animus” but also “thoughtlessness and indifference.” Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 295 (1985). Since courts must “construe the language of the ADA broadly to advance its remedial purpose,” the Court cannot say here that Plaintiffs’ emergency evacuation claims fail as a matter of law. Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 695 (9th Cir. 2014); see Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 336 (1967); Chapman, 631 F.3d at 945.

Section 12101(b)(1) states a broad anti-discrimination purpose, but it does not instruct courts to broadly construe the ADA or override Title III's specific statutory text.

Sookul v. Fresh Clean Threads, Inc. · filed 2024-10-16(b)(1)

The Court observes that, while Section 12101(b)(1) may state a broad purpose, it does not actually instruct courts to broadly construe any provisions in the ADA—including Title III’s definition of “public accommodation.”

Section 12101(a)(7) identifies assuring equality of opportunity for individuals with disabilities or perceived disabilities as a goal of the ADA; the opinion uses that purpose to explain that uniformly applied workplace policies do not, by themselves, implicate the ADA’s disability protections.

Bereznak v. Arrow Electronics, Inc. · filed 2024-08-12(a)(7)

Indeed, Plaintiff’s position on this matter is contrary to the spirit animating the ADA. The ADA seeks to “assure equality of opportunity” for individuals with disabilities or perceived to have disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7). Importantly, “to be perceived as having a disability, one must be perceived as different from most people in the general population.” Sharikov v. Philips Med. Sys. MR, Inc., 103 F.4th 159, 169 (2d Cir. 2024). Thus, the ADA’s concerns are not implicated where, as here, an employer views and treats all employees the same, such as through adopting company-wide policies applicable to every employee.

Section 12101(b)'s statement of the ADA's purpose, standing alone, does not create a private right of action.

Lightfeather v. Green · filed 2021-09-02(b)

Plaintiff designates his Complaint as presenting a “disability rights claim” under 42 U.S.C. § 12101. (Filing 1, p. 4.) This statute contains Congressional findings and a statement of purpose for enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”). The statement of purpose, in and of itself, does not give rise to a private right of action.

Section 12101(b)(3)'s statement of congressional purposes does not indicate that courts must alter generally applicable procedural rules to accommodate a litigant with a disability.

Ombe v. Cook · filed 2021-06-24(b)(3)

In connection with his argument that the district court did not sufficiently accommodate his autism, Mr. Ombe references a portion of the ADA that sets forth the Congressional purposes in enacting it. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(3). But this provision in no way indicates the district court ought to have altered or deviated from the rules applicable to everyone for the benefit of Mr. Ombe, or that it erred in concluding his claims were time-barred.

Section 12101(b)(1) identifies eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities as one purpose of the ADA.

Awodiya v. Ross University School of Medicine · filed 2021-05-24(b)(1)

Similarly, the ADA explicitly provides that one of its purposes is to eliminate discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) (stating that one purpose of the ADA is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities”). ... From those provisions, it is clear to us that the focus of both Acts is the elimination of discrimination.

Section 12101(b)(1) identifies eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities as the ADA’s purpose, supporting individualized assessment in Title II accommodation requests.

Marble v. Tenn. · filed 2019-03-29(b)(1)

Although PGA Tour is a Title III case, the Supreme Court’s reasoning makes clear that the individualized inquiry requirement also applies to requests for accommodation under Title II. ... Those three reasons also obtain for Title II: (1) the ADA protects “individuals,” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1); ... Therefore, when a disabled individual requests accommodation under Title II, the covered entity must give “individualized attention” to that request.

Section 12101(b) states that the ADA's purpose is eliminating disability discrimination, not creating or promoting safety measures.

Samuels v. Safeway, Inc. · filed 2019-06-05(b)

Nowhere does the ADA mention the creation or promotion of safety measures. Instead, as § 12101(b) makes clear, the ADA’s relentless focus is on the elimination of discrimination.

Section 12101(b)(1) declares a clear and comprehensive national mandate to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Montgomery v. District of Columbia · filed 2019-08-05(b)(1)

This Court agrees. Congress enacted the ADA “to provide a clear and comprehens ive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). To that end, the ADA “must be interpreted broadly to include the ordinary operations of a public entity in order to carry out the purpose of prohibiting discriminatio n. ” Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907, 913 (8th Cir. 1998). Hence, reading the “‘subjected to discrimination’ phrase in Title II” as “a catch-all phrase that prohibits all discrimination by a public entity,” Haberle, 885 F.3d at 180, including in the arrest and interrogation contexts, comports both with the text and purpose of the ADA.

The ADA Amendments Act broadened the interpretation of disability and instructed courts not to demand extensive analysis to determine whether an impairment is covered.

Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia · filed 2017-12-15

Congress amended the ADA by enacting the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the “ADAAA”) with the goal of broadening the interpretation of a disability under the ADA. It sought to “convey that the question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.” Mazzeo, 746 F.3d at 1268 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101, Note)..

Section 12101(b)(1) states that the ADA's purpose is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

City of Los Angeles v. AECOM Services, Inc. · filed 2017-04-24(b)(1)

Congress expressly set forth the purpose of Title II as “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities” through “clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)–(2).

Section 12101 states congressional findings and does not itself grant federal subject-matter jurisdiction.

Fermin v. United States · filed 2017-08-04

Sixth, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 likewise does not grant subject matter jurisdiction because it is simply a statement of Congressional findings.

Section 12101(b) states the ADA's purpose of eliminating disability discrimination and creating causes of action for qualified people, without changing obligations imposed by unrelated statutes.

In the Interest of: J.J.L., a Minor · filed 2016-11-15(b)

Congress enacted the ADA to eliminate discrimination and to create causes of action for qualified people who have faced discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b). We do not believe Congress intended to change the obligations imposed by unrelated statutes. ... Similarly, in the instant matter, the ADA is not applicable to a proceeding regarding the termination of parental rights under the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938.

Section 12101(b) states that the ADA's purpose is to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities, rather than racial discrimination.

Taos County Magistrate Court v. Currier · filed 2015-08-31(b)

Because the ADA protects against discrimination due to disability, and not due to race, a denial of ADA rights does not support § 1443(1) removal. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (purpose of the ADA is “elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities”); §12101(a)(4) (distinguishing disability discrimination from racial discrimination).

Section 12101(b) identifies the ADA’s purpose as eliminating disability discrimination through enforceable standards, which the court held does not include a remedy for physical injuries.

Aponik v. Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. · filed 2015-05-21(b)(1) and (2)

The ADA provides individuals with disabilities “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination” against them through “clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing [that] discrimination.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) and (2). ... As the ADA lists specific remedies and physical injury is not among them, and we will not read into the ADA a remedy that Congress was at pains not to mention. ... We hold that the ADA does not- permit recovery for physical injuries and will accordingly grant Verizon’s motion for partial summary judgment as to this claim.

Section 12101(b) states that the ADA seeks both to remedy and prevent discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. County of Clark · filed 2012-08-09(b)

Thus, the goal of the ADA is twofold. It is intended not only to remedy discrimination against disabled individuals but to prevent it.

Section 12101(b)(1) establishes a national mandate to eliminate disability discrimination, so a Title III plaintiff need not prove that discrimination was intentional.

Krist v. Kolombos Rest. Inc. · filed 2012-07-24(b)(1)

The Act, which is designed "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities," 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1), noted, among Congress's findings, that individuals with disabilities had "continually encounter[ed] various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion . . . and . . . failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices" id. § 12101(a)(5) (emphases added). This language itself is antithetical to any suggestion that the ADA was intended to allow recovery only for intentional discrimination.

Section 12101(b)(1) declares a national mandate to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Sak v. City of Aurelia · filed 2011-12-28(b)(1)

The ADA was enacted “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). Included within this mandate was Congress’s intention to ensure that disabled individuals, like Sak, are not separated from their service animals. Thus, I find that, whatever the legal bark of the City’s Ordinance prohibiting pit bull dogs as a general matter of public health and safety, it is sufficiently likely that enforcement of that Ordinance against Snickers would take such an impermissible bite out of Title II of the ADA and the regulations and guidance promulgated to implement it that a preliminary injunction is warranted.

Section 12101(b)(1) states that the ADA is intended to eliminate discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities.

Grosso v. UPMC · filed 2012-03-09(b)(1)

The purpose of the ADA is to eliminate discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).

Section 12101(b) and (b)(1) state that the ADA invokes broad congressional authority to address major areas of disability discrimination and establishes a clear, comprehensive national mandate to eliminate discrimination.

Pearson v. CHUGACH GOVERNMENT SERVICES INC. · filed 2009-11-06(b), (b)(1)

The purpose of the ADA is to “invoke the sweep of Congressional authority ... in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b), and “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) (emphasis added). ... Turning to the ADA, its broad language and legislative history emphasize its sweeping authority and national scope. Title I of the ADA lacks an ANC exemption; moreover, case law circumscribes its tribal exemption to tribal organizations functioning in a governmental role. ... In sum, the statutory language, legislative history, analogous case law, and federal policy all support one conclusion; under these facts, Aaskan Native Corporations retain employer liability under Title I of the American with Disabilities Act.

Section 12101(b) states the ADA’s purposes and shows Congress intended equal treatment of people with disabilities, even when that conflicts with the interests of state or local governments.

Bacon v. City of Richmond · filed 2006-02-28(b)

The plain language of § 12101(b), therefore, evinces clear Congressional intent to ensure equal treatment of disabled individuals, including, in appropriate cases, when these rights conflict with the interests of states, local governments, or their various subdivisions.

Section 12101(a)(7) identifies preventing disability discrimination based on uncontrollable characteristics and stereotypic assumptions as a purpose of the ADA.

Smith v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service · filed 2004-07-15(a)(7)

The purpose of statutes like the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA is to prevent employers from discriminating “based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society.”

Section 12101(b)(1) states that the ADA's purpose is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Hason v. Medical Board of California · filed 2002-02-12(b)(1)

Courts must construe the language of the ADA broadly in order to effectively implement the ADA's fundamental purpose of "provid[ing] a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." Arnold, 136 F.3d at 861 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) (1994)).

Section 12101(b) identifies the ADA's purposes as eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities through clear, strong, consistent, and enforceable standards.

Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co. · filed 2002-02-19(b)(1), (b)(2)

The primary purpose of the ADA is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities,” and “to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(2001). The Consent Decree fulfills that purpose by creating a clear and comprehensive program guaranteeing that Defendant’s gasoline stations and convenience stores throughout the nation will be accessible to the disabled, as determined by application of clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards.

Sections 12101(b)(1) and (a)(2) describe the ADA as a comprehensive mandate to eliminate disability discrimination and identify isolation and segregation as serious, pervasive discrimination.

Pathways Psychosocial v. Town of Leonardtown · filed 2001-03-29(b)(1), (a)(2)

The purpose of the ADA was to establish “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). ... The ADA was enacted in part because Congress found that the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities is a serious and pervasive form of discrimination in society.

Section 12101(b)(2) reflects the ADA's purpose of providing clear, strong, consistent, and enforceable standards to eliminate disability discrimination, rather than imposing a McDonnell Douglas pretext framework absent an allegation of disparate treatment.

Snead v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Company, a Delaware Corporation James McIntosh · filed 2001-01-23(b)(2)

In contrast, the ADA was designed "to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards” to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(2). As such, unless disparate treatment with others similarly situated is alleged, there is no statutory avenue under the ADA for an employer to articulate a nondiscriminatory reason for its actions or for an employee to show that the employer’s reason was pretextual.

The statute’s findings that disability discrimination is a serious and pervasive problem affecting access to public services were generalized and unsupported and did not establish the evidentiary basis needed for Title II’s application to the States.

Popovich v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division · filed 2000-09-18(a)(2)-(3)

Congress did include some specific findings in the ADA itself identifying discrimination against the disabled as a “serious and pervasive social problem” and stating that discrimination against the disabled affects “access to public services.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2)-(3). In our view, these generalized and unsupported “findings” do not cure the dearth of evidence in the legislative history.

Section 12101(a)(7)'s finding that people with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority does not justify applying heightened constitutional scrutiny.

Lavia v. Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections · filed 2000-08-08(a)(7)

In light of Cleburne, we give little weight to Congress' finding in 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7) that the disabled are a "discrete and insular minority”' — a finding that might lead some to infer erroneously that a heightened standard of scrutiny may be appropriate.

Section 12101(b) identifies the ADA's purpose as eliminating disability discrimination and providing causes of action for qualified people, and the court understood it not to alter obligations imposed by unrelated statutes.

In Re AP · filed 1999-04-09(b)

Congress enacted the ADA to eliminate discrimination and to create causes of action for qualified people who have faced discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b). We do not believe Congress intended to change the obligations imposed by unrelated statutes. Mother may have a separate cause of action against CYS pursuant to the ADA; however, such claim does not form a basis upon which to attack an order entered under § 6351(g) of the Juvenile Act. The complex issues associated with a claim of discrimination under the ADA are best resolved by resort to a separate suit in another forum.

Section 12101(a)(2) identifies the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities as discrimination the ADA was enacted to prevent.

Waggoner v. Olin Corporation · filed 1999-02-26(a)(2)

The purpose of the ADA is, of course, to prevent discrimination against persons with disabilities. Congress saw discrimination against disabled persons in society’s tendency “to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2).

Section 12101(a)(8)'s equality-of-opportunity goal does not require an employer to terminate a nondisabled employee to accommodate a disabled employee.

Quick v. Tripp, Scott, Conklin & Smith, P.A. · filed 1999-03-16(a)(8)

Quick’s request that a non-disabled employee be terminated in order to retain her as an accommodation is not reasonable in light of the ADA’s goals: “to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency” for disabled individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(8). Complying with such an accommodation could subject employers to claims of reverse discrimination.

Section 12101 identifies disability discrimination, including segregation and institutionalization, as a pervasive problem and states a national mandate to eliminate it.

Cramer v. Chiles · filed 1999-01-08(a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(7), (b)(1)

A major purpose of the ADA is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and to provide clear, strong, consistent and enforceable standards addressing discrimination against these persons. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1), (2). Discrimination under the ADA includes segregation. ... Segregation is a form of discrimination prohibited by the ADA; as a matter of law integration is affirmatively required. Federal regulations adopted to implement the ADA statute provide that “[a] public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d). Institutionalization of individuals with developmental disabilities, against their will, where less confining programs will satisfy their needs, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act’s integration requirements.

Section 12101(a)(3) records Congress's finding that people with disabilities have faced persistent discrimination in critical areas including employment and access to public services.

Alsbrook v. AR Commission on Law · filed 1998-09-11(a)(3)

By contrast, Congress incorporated into the ADA detailed and specific findings regarding the nature and extent of persistent discrimination suffered by individuals with disabilities “in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3).

Section 12101(a)(2) and (a)(3) identify the ADA's purpose as eliminating discrimination against people with disabilities, rather than subsidizing them.

Johnson v. State Technology Center at Memphis · filed 1998-10-06(a)(2) and (a)(3)

The purpose of enacting the ADA was not to subsidize the disabled but to eliminate a detestable form of discrimination.

Section 12101(b) declares that the ADA's purpose is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Gorman v. Bartch · filed 1998-08-20(b)

The stated purpose of the ADA also demonstrates its applicability to transportation of arrestees. In the statement of findings and purpose at the beginning of the statute, Congress noted that “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as...transportation...institutionalization...and access to public services” and that disabled individuals face the discriminatory effects of “failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices.” 42 U.S.C. 12101(a). Congress enacted the ADA to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b).

Subsection (a) records Congress’s findings that discrimination against people with disabilities is serious, widespread, and pervasive, supporting the ADA’s remedial scheme.

Coolbaugh v. La State · filed 1998-03-25(a)

In making our proportionality review, as Flores directs, we must consider the ADA’s scope in light of the evil it addresses. We first turn to findings in the ADA where Congress detailed its understanding of the extent of the evil it was addressing--discrimination against the disabled. ... 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (a) (1995). We must give these congressional findings substantial deference. ... We are satisfied that the extensive record compiled in the legislative history fully supports Congress’ detailed findings of a serious and pervasive problem of discrimination against the disabled. ... We are persuaded that Congress’ scheme in the ADA to provide a remedy to the disabled who suffer discrimination and to prevent such discrimination is not so draconian or overly sweeping to be considered disproportionate to the serious threat of discrimination Congress perceived.

Section 12101(a)’s congressional findings about disability discrimination are entitled to substantial judicial deference in reviewing the ADA’s constitutionality.

Coolbaugh v. State of Louisiana, on Behalf of la.dept. Of Public Safety & Corr., on Behalf of La. Dept. Of M · filed 1998-02-27(a)

We must give these congressional findings substantial deference.

Section 12101(b) states that the ADA’s purpose is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Doe v. Stincer · filed 1997-12-02(b)

The ADA is intended “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b).

Section 12101(a)(8) identifies equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency as the Nation’s proper goals for individuals with disabilities, and does not require preferential treatment.

Terrell v. USAIR · filed 1998-01-06(a)(8)

We cannot accept that Congress, in enacting the ADA, intended to grant preferential treatment for disabled workers. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(8) (“[T]he Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals; . . .”).

Section 12101(b) states that the ADA has a broad, remedial purpose of eliminating discrimination against people with disabilities.

Ferguson v. City of Phoenix · filed 1996-07-17(b)

Thus, the purpose of the ADA is clearly both broad and remedial; to ensure “the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”

Section 12101 states that the ADA’s purpose is to eliminate disability discrimination and that discrimination includes disparate effects from neutral barriers and failures to modify facilities and practices.

Vernon Crowder Stephanie Good v. Yukio Kitagawa, Chairman, Board of Agriculture, State of Hawaii Calvin Lum · filed 1996-04-30(b)(1), (a)(5)

The ADA was enacted by Congress in 1990 “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). Congress found that “individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, [and] failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices_” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5). ... In section 12101(a)(5), Congress declared its intent to address “outright intentional exclusion” as well as “the discriminatory effects of architectural,, transportation and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, [and] failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices.” It is thus clear that Congress intended the ADA to cover at least , some so-called disparate impact cases of discrimination, for the barriers to full participation listed above are almost all facially neutral but may work to effectuate discrimination against disabled persons.

Section 12101 identifies eliminating discrimination against people with physical or mental disabilities as the ADA's purpose and treats them as intended beneficiaries.

Noland v. Wheatley · filed 1993-10-22(a), (b)(1)

First, the ADA was intended to benefit individuals with physical or mental disabilities by eliminating discrimination against them because of their disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a) and (b). Mr. Noland is an individual with a disability; thus, the ADA was intended to benefit him.

Section 12101 states that the ADA is intended to use broad congressional authority to address major areas of disability discrimination and provide a clear, comprehensive national mandate against such discrimination.

Carparts Distribution Center, Inc. v. Automotive Wholesaler's Association of New England, Inc. · filed 1994-10-12(b), (b)(1)

Our interpretation is also consistent with the legislative history of the ADA. The purpose of the ADA is to “invoke the sweep of Congressional authority ... in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b). The ADA was enacted to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).

Section 12101 expresses the ADA’s intent to end the isolation and segregation of individuals with disabilities but does not itself provide a cause of action.

Hodges v. Smith · filed 1995-05-16

Plaintiffs also maintain that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, proscribe Defendant’s refusal to pay for Osmolite. As to the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiffs’ argument is that the age discriminatory feature in Georgia’s Medicaid plan violates the Act. However, the statute cited by Plaintiff has nothing to do with age discrimination. Plaintiffs’ argument under the Americans With Disabilities Act is that the provision of enteral products to those in nursing homes but not to those receiving home health services has a tendency to “isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities” in contravention of § 12101’s intent to end such segregation in American society. Hodges argues that he will be forced to live in a nursing home (a more segregated facility) in order to continue to receive Osmolite. However, the section cited by Hodges does not itself provide a cause of action to him; moreover, the record fails to convince the court that he would necessarily have to enter a nursing home if Osmolite is not reimbursable as part of home health services.

Section 12101(a) records Congress’s findings that people with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority subjected to purposeful unequal treatment based on disability-related stereotypes, supporting broad construction of the ADA as a remedial statute.

Civic Ass'n of the Deaf of New York City, Inc. v. Giuliani · filed 1996-02-09(a)

In passing the ADA in 1990, Congress found that forty-three million Americans have one or more physical or mental disability; that they are a discrete and insular minority; and that they have been subjected to purposeful unequal treatment and relegated to a status of political powerlessness “based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a). As a remedial statute, the ADA must be broadly construed to effectuate its purpose.

Section 12101(a)(4) finds that people who experienced disability discrimination often lacked legal recourse, unlike victims of several other forms of discrimination.

Bartush v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · filed 1996-03-14(a)(4)

Clearly the rights granted under the ADA are independent of the employment rights granted under the CBA. The plain language of the ADA states that the rights protected by it are rights that have heretofore not been protected. “[U]nlike individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, or age, individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of disability have often had no legal recourse to redress such discrimination.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(4).

Section 12101 states that the ADA should use the full scope of congressional authority to address major areas of disability discrimination and establish a clear, comprehensive national mandate to eliminate that discrimination.

Kotev v. First Colony Life Insurance · filed 1996-05-30(b)(4) (b)(1)

First Colony’s narrow construction of Title III runs counter to the broadly stated purpose of the ADA: to “invoke the sweep of Congressional authority ... in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4). The ADA was enacted to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).

The ADA's national mandate eliminates disability discrimination by placing people with disabilities on an equal footing, not by giving them advantages unavailable to others.

Kornblau v. Dade County · filed 1996-06-20(b)(1)

The ADA was enacted to provide a national mandate "for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). ... nothing in the Act, its purpose, or the regulations can reasonably be read to give disabled parkers access to areas that would not be available to them if they were not disabled. The purpose of the Act is to place those with disabilities on an equal footing, not to give them an unfair advantage.

Section 12101(b) states that the ADA's central purpose is eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Hensley v. Gorda · filed 1997-01-06(b)

The ADA is intended first and foremost "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C., § 12101(b).

Section 12101(b)(4) states that Congress intended to invoke its Fourteenth Amendment and Commerce Clause authority, and the ADA was legitimately enacted under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Armstrong v. Wilson · filed 1996-09-20(b)(4)

The ADA specifically states that its purpose is “to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day to day by people with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4). ... The Court holds that the ADA was legitimately enacted pursuant to Congress’ authority under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 12101 identifies institutionalization as a critical area in which disability discrimination persists and states that Congress invokes its constitutional and commerce powers to address disability discrimination.

Yeskey v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · filed 1997-07-10(b)(4)

In sum, in enacting the ADA, Congress "invoke[d] the sweep of [its] authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4). The "critical areas" in which "discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists" were set forth in the statute, and include "institutionalization." Id. § 12101(a)(3). Thus, if the plain words of a statute are to guide the courts in interpreting it, then both statutes must be held to apply to state and local correctional facilities.

Section 12101(a)(3)'s mention of voting in the ADA's findings and purpose does not make the ADA an election law.

Lightbourn v. County of El Paso, Tex. · filed 1997-08-01(a)(3)

This analysis suggests that the ADA is not an election law. First, the ADA does not include even a single provision specifically governing elections. On the contrary, the statute never refers to elections. Indeed, the statute only mentions voting once, and that is in the "findings and purpose" section. This section, 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3), notes that "discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services...." The mere mention of the word "voting" here does not transform the ADA into an "election law." Such a tangential allusion is insufficient to impose on the Secretary the rather extraordinary duty of ensuring that local election officials interpret and apply the ADA uniformly.

Section 12101(a)(3)'s reference to voting in the ADA's findings and purpose does not make the ADA an election law.

Lightbourn v. County of El Paso · filed 1997-08-11(a)(3)

This analysis suggests that the ADA is not an election law. First, the ADA does not include even a single provision specifically governing elections. On the contrary, the statute never refers to elections. Indeed, the statute only mentions voting once, and that is in the "findings and purpose" section. This section, 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3), notes that "discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting, and access to public services...." The mere mention of the word "voting" here does not transform the ADA into an "election law." Such a tangential allusion is insufficient to impose on the Secretary the rather extraordinary duty of ensuring that local election officials interpret and apply the ADA uniformly.

Section 12101(a)(2) records Congress's finding that discrimination against people with disabilities was pervasive and supports treating the ADA's application to state prisons as remedial legislation.

Amos v. Md. Dept of Public Safety · filed 1999-12-29(a)(2)

When enacting the ADA, Congress made several findings of both past and present discrimination against the disabled in the country's general population that it determined violated the Equal Protection Clause. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2)-(a)(3), (a)(5)-(a)(6); H.R.Rep. No. 101-485, pt.2, at 22, 30, 42 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 267, 303, 311-12, 324. Congress determined that "the exclusion of persons with disabilities from government facilities, programs, and benefits was a result of past and on-going discrimination." (Intervenor S. Br. at 18). ... In light of the legislative history and the stated purpose of the ADA, we must conclude that the ADA, even with respect to state prison inmates, is indeed adequately justified as remedial legislation and therefore fully within the scope of Congress' enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Section 12101(b)(1) states that the ADA's purpose is to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities, not to remedy sexual-orientation discrimination unrelated to disability.

Vandeveer v. Fort James Corp. · filed 2003-03-12(b)(1)

It goes without saying, though, that the ADA was not designed to remedy discrimination based on sexual orientation, but to “eliminat[e] discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). ... To accept Vandeveer’s reasoning would be to treat the ADA as a “back door” through which the disabled (and no one else) would be able to challenge any form of discrimination - or any kind of unpleasant circumstances - whatsoever. We decline to do so.

Section 12101(b)(1) identifies the ADA's purpose as providing a clear and comprehensive national mandate to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc. v. County of Westchester · filed 2004-10-22(b)(1)

The ADA sets forth the standards of accessibility that must be met by various public entities and, as such, establishes the level of accessibility that disabled individuals can properly expect. Whether its requirements are met, therefore, provides an appropriate framework for determining whether, in a given case, disabled individuals seeking injunctive relief are at risk of suffering a harm that the law recognizes. The ADA was enacted to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) (2000). In particular, it requires that otherwise qualified handicapped individuals be provided with “meaningful access” to the program or services sought.

Section 12101(a)(5) recognizes that discrimination includes the effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers and failures to modify existing facilities.

Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky · filed 2004-10-01(a)(5)

Most importantly, our conclusion is supported by the text of Title II. Title II and the ADA more broadly were motived in part by Congress’s finding that, in addition to “outright intentional exclusion,” individuals with disabilities also suffer from indirect forms of discrimination, such as “the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and communication barriers, . . . [and] failure to make modifications to existing facilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5) (emphasis added). Congress stated that the purpose of the ADA was to eliminate such discrimination, in part by using its power “to enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce [] in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.” Id. § 12101(b)(1) & (4). Such language shows that Congress, aside from merely hoping to curtail intentional discrimination against the disabled, aimed to improve the quality of the lives of the disabled by requiring that public entities – as well as other entities subject to the Act’s requirements – eliminate barriers to physical access, including barriers inherent in existing facilities.

Section 12101(a)(5) identifies failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices as a form of discrimination targeted by the ADA.

AP Ex Rel. Peterson v. Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District No. 11 · filed 2008-03-17(a)(5)

Several aspects of the ADA and its implementing regulations make it clear that covered entities have a duty to grant reasonable accommodations to disabled persons. As noted above, the “Findings” section of the ADA explicitly identifies the “failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices” as one of the “various forms of discrimination” at which the law is directed. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5).

Section 12101(a)(9) identifies Congress's finding that disability discrimination denies people with disabilities equal opportunities and reflects an ADA purpose broader than protecting only those with the most obvious impairments.

Emory v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals Lp · filed 2005-03-11(a)(9)

The statute was passed because Congress found “the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous,” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(9), not in order to provide piecemeal protection to only those with the most tragic or obvious impairments.

Section 12101(a)(9) identifies assuring equality of opportunity and full participation for people with disabilities as a purpose of the ADA.

Moss v. Shelby County · filed 2005-11-29(a)(9)

Congress enacted the ADA with the intention of incorporating disabled individuals into society and the workforce. One of the ADA’s purposes, specified in 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(9), is to “assure equality of opportunity [and] full participation” of disabled individuals. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(9). In order to achieve this goal, in certain situations, it is necessary to modify standard procedures to ensure that disabled individuals are receiving the same benefits and opportunities as non-disabled individuals.

Section 12101(a)(7) recognizes that people with disabilities have faced unequal treatment based on stereotypic assumptions not indicative of their ability to participate in and contribute to society.

Bolmer v. Oliveira · filed 2008-08-05(a)(7)

While DMHAS is literally correct that stereotyping in not recited in the Title II regulations, the ADA itself memorializes Congress’s intent to combat stereotyping of handicapped individuals: ... individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals ... and resulting from stereotypic assumptions ... not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society.

Section 12101(b)(2)'s purpose of strong, consistent, and enforceable anti-discrimination standards supports requiring public entities to act affirmatively to ensure meaningful access for people with disabilities.

Pierce v. District of Columbia · filed 2015-09-11(b)(2)

Given Congress’s unmistakable intent to create “clear, strong, consistent, [and] enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities” in various aspects of life, 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(2), and also its recognition that “benign neglect” is a particularly pernicious form of disability discrimination, Alexander, 469 U.S. at 295, the District’s insistence here that prison officials have no legal obligation to provide accommodations for disabled inmates unless the inmate specifically requests such aid—and even then, only if it actually turns out that the inmate really needs the requested accommodation—is untenable and cannot be countenanced.

Section 12101(b)(1) establishes a broad mandate to eliminate disability discrimination, including intentional exclusion and failures to modify existing facilities and practices.

Bassilios v. City of Torrance · filed 2015-12-04(b)(1)

The statute provides a “comprehensive” and “broad mandate” to eliminate discrimination against disabled persons, addressing both “outright intentional exclusion” as well as the “failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices.” PGA Tour, 532 U.S. at 675, 121 S.Ct. 1879 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690, 694 (9th Cir.2014); 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).

Section 12101(b) identifies the ADA’s principal purposes as eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities and establishing clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing that discrimination.

Chicago Housing Authority v. DeStefano & Partners, Ltd. · filed 2015-12-11(b)

The principle purpose of the ADA is "(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities [and] (2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (2006). Congress, therefore, intended to remedy discrimination against disabled individuals, as well as to prevent discrimination against the same group.

Section 12101(b) states that the ADA's purposes are eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities and providing clear, strong, consistent, enforceable antidiscrimination standards.

Chicago Housing Authority v. DeStefano & Partners, Ltd. · filed 2016-02-19(b)

The principle purpose of the ADA is “(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities [and] (2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (2006).

Section 12101(a)(7) identifies independent living as an ADA purpose, supporting the requirement that accommodations enable people with disabilities to address basic needs independently rather than merely rely on staff assistance.

Clemons v. Dart · filed 2016-03-09(a)(7)

And by requiring Clemons to rely on nursing assistance, rather than providing the means for Clemons to address his own basic -needs, the defendants are not providing “equivalent access,” as the purpose of the ADA, even in the jail context, is to promote the ability of individuals with disabilities to engage in “independent living.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(7).

Section 12101(a)(2)'s finding that society has isolated and segregated people with disabilities supports an expansive reading of the ADA's integration mandate, extending beyond institutionalization.

Guggenberger ex rel. Guggenberger v. State · filed 2016-07-28(a)(2)

These findings suggest that the ADA and the integration mandate have an expansive reach, touching upon all aspects of an individual’s life in which “isolation] and segregation]” may be experienced.

Section 12101(b) reflects the ADA’s purpose of eliminating discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities and creating causes of action for those who face it, without changing obligations imposed by unrelated statutes.

In the Interest of: J.J.L., a Minor · filed 2016-10-06(b)

Congress enacted the ADA to eliminate discrimination and to create causes of action for qualified people who have faced discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b). ... We do not believe Congress intended to change the obligations imposed by unrelated statutes. ... Mother may have a separate cause of action against CYS pursuant to the ADA; however, such claim does not form a basis upon which to attack an order entered under § 6351(g) of the Juvenile Act. ... Similarly, in the instant matter, the ADA is not applicable to a proceeding regarding the termination of parental rights under the Adoption Act, 23 Pa.C.S. §§ 2101-2938. ... Mother’s claims related to any alleged discrimination are more appropriately handled in a suit separate from the termination of her parental rights, and not as a basis to attack the determination regarding termination of parental rights. Hence, this claim is without merit.

Section 12101 declares the ADA a national mandate requiring clear, consistent, and enforceable standards to combat disability discrimination.

Guenther v. Griffin Construction Company · filed 2017-01-19(a)(2), (b)(1)

So what did Congress say? Congress declared its interest in passing the ADA was to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate” with “clear, strong, consistent, [and] enforceable standards” to address the “serious and pervasive social problem” of disability-based discrimination on a case-by-case basis. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2), (b)(1)-(2) (emphasis added); see Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 446 & n.6 (considering broad application of the ADA’s protections “consistent with the statutory purpose of ridding the Nation of discrimination”). ... A state law allowing claims to abate when the aggrieved party dies impedes this broad remedial purpose. ... For all of these reasons, we hold federal common law does not incorporate state law to determine whether an ADA claim for compensatory damages survives or abates upon the death of the aggrieved party.

Section 12101's ADA Amendments Act findings direct that disability under the ADA be interpreted broadly without demanding extensive analysis.

Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia · filed 2019-08-15

Congress amended the ADA by enacting the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (the "ADAAA") with the goal of broadening the interpretation of a disability under the ADA. It sought to "convey that the question of whether an individual's impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis."

Section 12101(b)(1) states that the ADA was enacted to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities, and the court used that purpose to construe the Act broadly when evaluating a Title II failure-to-accommodate claim.

Smith v. Dunn (DEATH PENALTY) · filed 2021-02-08(b)(1)

The ADA was enacted “for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). The Act responds to an extensive history of discrimination in public services against individuals with disabilities. Nat’l Assoc. of the Deaf v. Florida, 980 F.3d 763, 773 (11th Cir. 2020). Its provisions are to be construed broadly to protect those interests. Kornblau v. Dade County, 86 F.3d 193, 194 (11th Cir. 1996).

Section 12101's congressional findings do not identify a history of unconstitutional disability discrimination in professional licensing or retaliation against employees opposing unlawful disability discrimination.

Renner v. Supreme Court of Florida · filed 2022-05-25

In the findings and purpose clause of the ADA, Congress did not find a history of unconstitutional discrimination of disabled people with regard to professional licensing or a history of retaliation against employees who opposed unlawful employment discrimination against the disabled. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101.

Section 12101(a)'s finding that disability should not diminish full participation in society is a policy mandate and, standing alone, does not create a cause of action.

Mercer v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division 689 · filed 2023-02-24(a)

In response to Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Plaintiff points to the Findings and Purpose section of the ADA, which includes the finding that a mental or physical disability should not “diminish a person’s right to fully participate in all aspects of society.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a). The Court concurs with this sentiment; however, it agrees with Defendants this mandate alone does not provide a cause of action in this matter.

42 U.S.C. § 12101 contains the ADA’s findings and purpose provisions and does not itself provide a cause of action.

King v. Lazer Spot Inc. · filed 2024-07-24

The federal statute is the ADA’s “Findings and purpose” provision, which does not provide a cause of action.

Section 12101 states the ADA's findings and purposes but does not itself provide a substantive cause of action.

Gunn v. Stearns · filed 2025-08-21

“Section 12101 is simply a statement of the ‘[f]indings and purpose’ behind the ADA; it provides no substantive causes of action.”

Section 12101 identifies voting as an area where discrimination against people with disabilities persists, but does not require states to provide blind voters voting privacy free from third-party assistance.

Nelson v. Miller · filed 1996-12-20

This Court does not find anything in the ADA to indicate that Congress believed that the Voting Rights Acts were insufficient. Nothing in Ligktbourn or in anything submitted by the Plaintiffs demonstrate that Congress intended that the ADA or RA should be read so broadly as to require states with statutory provisions regarding a secret ballot to provide blind voters with voting privacy free from third party assistance.

Section 12101(a)(7)'s finding that people with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority does not justify heightened constitutional scrutiny.

Lavia v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, State Correctional Institution at Greene · filed 2000-08-08(a)(7)

In light of Cleburne, we give little weight to Congress' finding in 42 U.S.C. S 12101(a)(7) that the disabled are a "discrete and insular minority" -- a finding that might lead some to infer erroneously that a heightened standard of scrutiny may be appropriate.

Section 12101(b) states that the ADA aims to eliminate disability discrimination and create causes of action without changing obligations imposed by unrelated statutes.

In Re CMS · filed 2007-07-03(b)

Congress enacted the ADA to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities and to create causes of action for qualified people who have faced discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b). Congress did not intend to change the obligations imposed by unrelated statutes.

Section 12101(a)(8) identifies equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency as national goals for individuals with disabilities.

Hartsfield v. Miami-Dade County · filed 2000-04-18(a)(8)

We cannot accept that Congress, in enacting the ADA, intended to grant preferential treatment for disabled workers. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(8) (“[T]he Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals; ...”).

Section 12101(b)(4) expressly invokes Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power as a basis for the ADA.

Martin v. State of Kan. · filed 1997-09-30(b)(4)

Congress clearly and explicitly invoked its “power to enforce the fourteenth amendment” in enacting the ADA, however. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4).

Section 12101(b)(4) states that the ADA invokes Congress’s Fourteenth Amendment enforcement power.

Kimel v. State of FL Bd. of Regents · filed 1998-04-30(b)(4)

Unlike the ADEA, it is plain that Congress was invoking its Fourteenth Amendment enforcement powers when it enacted the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (“It is the purpose of this chapter ... (4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment-”).

Section 12101(b)'s statement of purpose supports the conclusion that the ADA preempts conflicting state law.

Oconomowoc Residential Programs, Inc. v. City of Greenfield · filed 1998-09-30(b)

Given these explicit exceptions to preemption and the statement of Congressional purpose, the court concludes that Congress intended that the ADA preempt state law with which it conflicts.

Section 12101(a)(3)’s findings of disability discrimination in areas including education and voting encompass discrimination by states.

Cisneros v. Wilson · filed 2000-09-11(a)(3)

We conclude that contrary to Lavia’s holding that the statute lacks a legislative history or congressional findings of discrimination against the disabled by the states, Congress did in fact make findings of state discrimination.

Section 12101 describes the ADA’s purpose as eliminating discrimination and ensuring equal opportunity for people with disabilities, rather than giving them a competitive advantage.

United States v. Woody · filed 2016-11-22

Notwithstanding this lack of clear direction, the “findings and purpose” section of the ADA persuade the Court that Congress did not intend the ADA to operate as an affirmative action statute.

Section 12101(b)(3) and (4) state the ADA’s purpose to use federal authority and enforcement to address discrimination against people with disabilities.

Independent Living Center v. City of Los Angeles · filed 2013-09-19(b)(3)–(4)

Congress made explicit its purpose in creating a national remedial scheme in which the “Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the [protections] on behalf of individuals with disabilities” and “to invoke the sweep of congressional authority ... in order to address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(3) & (4).

Section 12101’s findings and purpose support applying the ADA to discrimination against people with HIV or AIDS even when the discrimination stems from ignorance.

United States v. Morvant · filed 1995-03-23

One of the stated purposes of the ADA is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). ... Given that statement, Congress appears to have intended the ADA to address the discriminatory effect of benign actions or inaction as well as intentional discrimination. ... While these statements were made in the context of the hearing impaired and with regard to the burden of proof to be applied in an ADA case, there is no reason for their not being equally applicable to an AIDS or HIV-positive individual where such blatant discrimination as demonstrated by Morvant is presented.

Section 12101 recognizes disability discrimination and reflects Congress's purpose of reducing it, but it does not change the rational-basis standard for constitutional equal-protection review of disability classifications.

Contractors Association Of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City Of Philadelphia · filed 1993-10-07(a)(5)

We disagree. The Contractors offer no evidence that the ADA overruled Cleburne, and the limited case law is to the contrary. More v. Farrier, 984 F.2d 269, 271 n. 4 (8th Cir.1993) (ADA does not "alter the standard for constitutional equal protection claims"). Moreover, we believe application of heightened scrutiny to the preference for handicapped business owners would run counter to the ADA, which Congress enacted to reduce discrimination against handicapped persons. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101(a)(5)-(9) (Supp.1990). Therefore, we hold the district court properly chose the rational basis standard in reviewing the Ordinance's preference for handicapped persons.

Section 12101(a)(5) recognizes that ADA discrimination includes failure to modify existing facilities and practices and relegation to lesser services, not merely outright intentional exclusion.

Ball v. AMC Entertainment, Inc. · filed 2003-02-24(a)(5)

However, it is clear that Congress intended the ADA to require more than the general availability of services. Congress expressly stated that the Act addressed the various forms of discrimination encountered by disabled individuals, which included not only “outright intentional exclusion” but also “failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices” and “relegation to lesser services.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5).

The ADA prohibits employment discrimination based on disability and supports claims for failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, hostile work environment, and termination because of disability.

Eaton v. Town of Townsend · filed 2019-03-06

Count III asserts a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ... The Court concludes that the amended complaint plausibly states a claim on each of the four theories.

The ADA does not provide a remedy for inadequate medical treatment absent discrimination based on disability.

Brown v. Rose · filed 2019-03-12

The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to state an ADA claim because he did not allege discrimination based on his disability, but instead a claim for incompetent treatment. Id. at 249. ... Further, the Seventh Circuit held that the ADA is not a remedy for medical malpractice. Id. ... He is alleging incompetent treatment for his injuries, not incompetent treatment for a disability. Further, it is not apparent that Brown even alleges a purported disability with specificity. The ADA does not apply to Brown’s allegations.

The ADA requires a disability-discrimination plaintiff to show that she is disabled, qualified to perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodation, and suffered adverse employment action because of her disability.

Bethea v. JP Morgan Chase & Co · filed 2019-09-30

The elements of an ADA discrimination claim vary slightly: “To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Plaintiff must show that ‘[(1)] [her] employer is subject to the ADA; (2) [s]he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) [s]he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of [her] job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) [s]he suffered adverse employment action because of [her] disability.’” ... Accordingly, the Court finds that no reasonable jury could find that Plaintiff was qualified for her position, with or without accommodation, at the time of her termination and that Plaintiff therefore cannot establish a prima facie discrimination claim under the ADA, Title VII, or the ADEA.

The ADA requires a disability-discrimination plaintiff to show a disability, the ability to perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and adverse employment action because of the disability.

MURRAY v. WAL-MART STORES INC · filed 2019-12-06

To carry his initial burden at step one of the ADA burden-shifting, Murray must establish “that (1) he suffers from a disability or handicap, as defined by the ADA . . ., that (2) he was nevertheless able to perform the essential functions of his job, either with or without reasonable accommodation, and that (3) [the defendant] took an adverse employment action against him because of, in whole or in part, his protected disability.”

The ADA does not provide a separate basis for relief on these facts when the school’s educational program satisfies IDEA/FAPE requirements and does not deny meaningful participation.

C.K. v. Mercer Island School District · filed 2020-03-17

The Court’s ruling in support of the ALJ’s findings and conclusions – affirming that Parents were not denied meaningful participation in the IEP process and Student was not denied a FAPE by the District’s actions and recommendations – basically resolves any question of whether Defendant’s actions violated the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The ADA protects qualified individuals with disabilities from intentional employment discrimination; a plaintiff must plausibly allege a disability, qualification to perform the job's essential functions, and an adverse employment action because of the disability.

Haymon v. Metra · filed 2020-03-31

To state a claim for intentional disability discrimination, a plaintiff must adequately allege that she was (1) disabled within the meaning of the ADA (or the Rehabilitation Act); (2) qualified to perform the essential functions of her job; and (3) suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability. See Bunn v. Khoury Enter., Inc., 753 F.3d 676, 683 (7th Cir. 2014); see also Washington v. Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 181 F.3d 840, 845 n.6 (7th Cir. 1999) (explaining that, generally, the standards applicable to the ADA are also applicable to the Rehabilitation Act).

The ADA prohibits disability discrimination and requires a disabled employee seeking accommodation to show that she can perform the essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation and that the employer failed to provide one.

Oquendo v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2020-04-07

To survive summary judgment on a failure to accommodate claim, a plaintiff must point to sufficient evidence showing that: (1) she is disabled within the ADA’s definition; (2) she could perform the job’s essential functions either with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (3) the employer knew of her disability yet failed to reasonably accommodate it. ... To prove “reasonable accommodation,” a plaintiff needs to show not only that the proposed accommodation would enable her to perform the essential functions of her job, but also that, at least on the face of things, it is feasible for the employer under the circumstances.

The ADA prohibits private employers from discriminating against qualified individuals because of disability and requires a disability-discrimination claimant to show disability, qualification, and an adverse action because of disability.

Wilmes v. Packsize, LLC · filed 2020-04-21

The ADA “bars private employers from discriminating against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” ... In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, “an employee must show that she (1) is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) is a qualified individual under the ADA, and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability.” ... Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the first two elements of a prima facie case under the ADA, her claim founders on the third. ... Therefore, she fails to state a claim under the ADA.

Title II of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by public entities, but it does not treat inadequate medical treatment as discrimination in a public service, program, or activity.

Morris v. State of California · filed 2020-04-30

However, the Court agrees that the complaint does not state an ADA claim. Plaintiff’s requests – a wheelchair, housing in a facility with a wheelchair ramp, and housing in a prison with an on-site podiatrist and orthopedist – are requests for medical treatment, not requests for the prison’s services, programs or activities, as understood by the ADA. The defendants’ failure to provide the requested medical treatment does not state a cognizable ADA claim. The “ADA prohibits discrimination because of disability, not inadequate treatment for disability.”

Under the ADA, a prima facie disability-discrimination claim requires proof that the employer is covered, the plaintiff is disabled, qualified with or without reasonable accommodation, subjected to an adverse employment action, and acted against because of the disability.

Lavorgna v. Hamden Shoreline Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Associates, P.C. · filed 2020-07-29

To state a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA and the CFEPA, Plaintiff must show: “(1) the employer is subject to the ADA; (2) the plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA or perceived to be so by her employer; (3) she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation; (4) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (5) the adverse action was imposed because of her disability.”

The ADA broadly covers individuals with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, but the claimant must provide enough evidence to show that substantial limitation.

Garren v. CVS Health Corporation · filed 2020-08-28

For the ADA to apply, a person must have a “disability” as defined in the Act, meaning he or she either (1) has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” (2) has “a record of such an impairment,” or (3) is “regarded as having such an impairment.” ... Courts are to apply a broad construction in favor of expansive coverage in determining whether a person is disabled and whether an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity. ... “Standing” and “working” both qualify as major life activities. ... “To determine whether a disability substantially limits major life activities, the regulations direct courts to compare the person claiming a disability to ‘most people in the general population.’” ... This is not a demanding standard, and it generally does not require a plaintiff to submit scientific, medical, or statistical evidence. ... The Court therefore lacks evidence from which it could find Plaintiff is substantially limited in standing or working. Without such evidence, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff qualifies as a person with a disability under the ADA. ... The Court will therefore GRANT CVS’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA.

The ADA requires a discrimination plaintiff to show that she is qualified to perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and it does not require employers to tolerate chronic absenteeism caused by a disability.

Sanchez v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2020-09-28

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) [her] employer is subject to the ADA; (2) [she] was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) [she] was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) [she] suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability.” ... “An employee cannot be considered otherwise qualified when she is unable to report to work at the time required, because she is not able to perform the essential functions of her job.” ... “[t]he ADA does not require employers to tolerate chronic absenteeism even when attendance problems are caused by an employee’s disability.”

The ADA requires a disability-discrimination claimant to allege that she is disabled, qualified to perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability.

Griffin v. City of Chicago · filed 2020-10-27

Finally, to allege discrimination based on disability, Griffin must allege “facts showing that (1) [s]he is disabled; (2) [s]he is qualified to perform the essential function of the job either with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) [s]he suffered an adverse employment action because of [her] disability.” ... These allegations plausibly state claims for relief based upon the City’s June 2019 denial of Griffin’s application.

The ADA requires a plaintiff alleging discrimination to allege that the discrimination was based on a disability.

Donald v. Jackson · filed 2020-10-27

Donald also does not allege he was discriminated against on the basis of a disability, which is required for a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. or the Tennessee Disabilities Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-50-103 et seq.

The ADA requires a claimant to show a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity; stress and anxiety tied only to a particular job do not establish a disability.

O'Malley v. Trader Joe's East, Inc. · filed 2020-12-17

A “disability” is “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). ... Therefore, the fact that the Plaintiff suffered stress and anxiety as a result of the particular circumstances related to her employment at Trader Joe’s does not mean that the Plaintiff was disabled.

The ADA bars an employer from discriminating against a qualified employee because of the employee’s known association with a person with a disability.

Sterling v. Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas · filed 2020-10-23

Under the ADA, Ms. Sterling can establish a prima facie case by demonstrating that she was qualified for the position, that she was subject to an adverse employment action, that she had a known association with a person with a disability, and that the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances raising a reasonable inference that her association with a person with a disability was a determining factor in the adverse employment action.

The ADA covers employers and protects qualified individuals with actual or perceived disabilities from adverse employment actions and denial of reasonable accommodation.

Vincent v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2021-03-30

To state a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (a) her employer is subject to the ADA; (b) she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA or perceived to be so by her employer; (c) she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation; and (d) she suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability. ... A plaintiff states a prima facie failure to accommodate claim by demonstrating that (1) plaintiff is a person with a disability under the meaning of the ADA; (2) an employer covered by the statute had notice of his disability; (3) with reasonable accommodation, plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the job at issue; and (4) the employer has refused to make such accommodations.

The ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating against qualified individuals on the basis of disability, and a plaintiff must allege a disability, qualification for the job, and an adverse employment action because of the disability.

Williams v. Genesis Energy, LLC · filed 2021-03-31

“ ‘The ADA prohibits an employer from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability,” by, among other things, terminating an individual's employment.’ ” ... “ ‘To establish a prima facie discrimination claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he was qualified for the job; [and] (3) that he was subject to an adverse employment decision on account of his disability.’ ” ... Here, Oris failed to state a claim under the ADA because he did not allege that he has a disability. The ADA defines “disability” as: (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the individual; (2) a record of such impairment; or (3) being regarded as having an impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Notably, the Complaint fails to specify whether Oris had a physical or a mental disability, what the disability was, or how it impaired a major life activity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). It follows that Oris has also failed to allege that he suffered an adverse employment decision on account of his disability, since he fails to identify any such disability. Consequently, the Court finds that Oris’ failure to identify any alleged disability is fatal to his ability to withstand Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Accordingly, Oris’ claims for disability discrimination under the ADA and the LEDL are dismissed.

The ADA does not prohibit punishing a person for misconduct arising from a disability when the punishment is for the misconduct rather than the disability.

Syed v. Northwestern University · filed 2021-05-06

Alternatively, Syed seems to suggest that he cannot be held accountable for acts that were caused by his disability. Federal law, however, does not prohibit individuals from being punished for misconduct arising from their disability, so long as the individual is not being punished for the disability itself. See Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619, 630–31 (7th Cir. 2013). Northwestern expelling Syed because it believes he assaulted and harassed other students, does not violate the ADA or Section 504. Syed has failed to establish a likelihood of success for his discrimination claims.

The ADA requires an adverse action because of disability for intentional discrimination, and a prisoner seeking an accommodation must show that it is necessary for equal access to mental-health treatment or other services and benefits.

Robinson v. Butrisk · filed 2021-05-17

But to the extent that he claims intentional disability discrimination claim on the basis of what he believes to be inadequate mental health treatment and deprivation of single-cell status, this intentional disability claim fails because he has not alleged facts to show that any adverse action was taken by prison officials because of his mental disability. ... Nor does Robinson allege any plausible failure-to-accommodate claim, because he does not allege facts to show that single-cell status is necessary in order for Robinson to have an equal opportunity to receive mental health treatment or other prisoner services and benefits. ... Accordingly, Robinson has not alleged plausible grounds for relief under the ADA.

The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities, including failure to accommodate, and a prima facie claim requires disability, qualification, and exclusion or denial of a program benefit because of the disability.

Munz v. David · filed 2021-05-27

Plaintiff also asserts a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794-794e. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals because of their physical or mental disability, including a failure to accommodate a disability. Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 2012). In order to make out a prima facie case of discrimination under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he suffers from a disability as defined in the statutes, (2) that he is qualified to participate in the program in question, and (3) that he was either excluded from participating in or denied the benefit of that program based on his disability. Jackson v. City of Chicago, 414 F.3d 806, 810 (7th Cir. 2005). Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the denial of a low bunk permit to accommodate his neurological issues are sufficient to state a prima facie case under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

The ADA does not require a prison to provide an accommodation that is not necessary for an equal opportunity to receive treatment, services, or benefits; a requested accommodation sought as an end in itself is insufficient.

Alejandro v. Quiros · filed 2021-11-16

Alejandro alleges that the DOC violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., by discriminating against him because of his mental health issues and by denying him special accommodations. ... this intentional discrimination claim fails because he has not alleged facts to show that any adverse action was taken by the defendants because of his mental health illness. ... Nor does Alejandro allege any plausible failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, because he does not allege facts to show that single-cell status is necessary in order for him to have an equal opportunity to receive mental health treatment or other prisoner services and benefits. ... To the contrary, he seeks single-cell status as an end in itself. ... Accordingly, I will dismiss Alejandro’s ADA claim.

The ADA prohibits an employer from failing to make reasonable accommodations for a qualified individual’s known disability unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship, and it contemplates an interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation.

Solomon v. County of Nassau · filed 2021-12-01

Discrimination under the ADA includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A); accord 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(a). ... Once that request is provided, the ADA contemplates that “employers will engage in an interactive process with their employees and in that way work together to assess whether an employee's disability can be reasonably accommodated.” ... After reviewing the allegations concerning the willingness of Defendant to address Plaintiff's complaints and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of Plaintiff, the Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim of discrimination under the ADA.

The ADA requires a plausible showing that an employer took adverse employment action because of the employee’s disability.

Hayes v. Mellon · filed 2022-08-09

To succeed on a claim of disability discrimination under both the ADA and G.L. 151B, a plaintiff must make a plausible claim that his employer took adverse employment action against him because of his disability or handicap. ... In light of the pre-existing plan to outsource Plaintiff’s entire division, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim that he was terminated as a result of his disability.

The ADA protects qualified individuals with disabilities from discrimination in job applications, hiring, discharge, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Chandler v. Louisiana Pacific Corporation · filed 2022-10-27

The ADA thus protects a qualified individual from discrimination on the basis of disability in the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, and prohibits an employer from discriminating against a qualified individual with a disability because of the individual's disability.

A plaintiff must allege that she has a disability to plausibly state a discrimination claim under § 12101.

Murray v. Pyle · filed 2022-11-16

Plaintiff fails to plausibly allege a discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12101 because she fails to allege that she has a disability.

The ADA requires a plaintiff seeking to challenge denial of benefits to allege that the defendant acted because of the disability or that the disability made access difficult and required a reasonable accommodation.

Marquez v. Office of Social Security · filed 2022-12-06

Given the Court’s obligation to construe Plaintiff’s submissions “liberally, . . . reading such submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest,” Nunez, 836 F. App’x at 72 (citation omitted), the Court construes this as a claim asserted under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. However, his ADA claim fails because he “does not allege that Defendant[ ] acted ‘due to [his] disability,’” Speer v. Norwich Pub. Utilities, 2022 WL 852968, at *1 (2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2022) (summary order) (quoting Hamilton v. Westchester Cty., 3 F.4th 86, 91 (2d Cir. 2021)), or that his “disability made it difficult in any way for [him] to access benefits” and required a reasonable accommodation. Id. (quoting Tardif v. City of New York, 991 F.3d 394, 405 (2d Cir. 2021)). As this claim is premised on an “indisputably meritless legal theor[y],” it must be dismissed.

The ADA requires a disability-employment-discrimination plaintiff to show disability, qualification to perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and an adverse employment decision caused by discrimination; a failure-to-accommodate claim requires additional proof of notice, a request, lack of good-faith assistance, and reasonable accommodability.

HALL v. SEPTA · filed 2022-12-15

To state a claim of disability employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA, (2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations by the employer; and (3) he has suffered an otherwise adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination.” ... To support a claim for a failure to accommodate under the ADA, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) he was disabled and his employer knew it; (2) he requested an accommodation or assistance; (3) his employer did not make a good faith effort to assist; and (4) he could have been reasonably accommodated.”

The ADA requires a disability-discrimination claim to plausibly allege a disability, exclusion from or denial of a qualified person's access to a public entity's services, programs, or activities, and discrimination because of the disability; inadequate medical care alone is insufficient.

Jenkins v. Getachew · filed 2023-03-22

The Complaint separately refers to violations of the ADA but avers no facts to make the claim plausible. ... A disability discrimination claim must plausibly aver that (1) the plaintiff suffers from a disability; (2) he was excluded from or denied the benefits of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities for which he was otherwise qualified; and (3) the exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was because of his disability. ... Although the Complaint broadly alleges that Jenkins is “disabled,” no other facts explain the nature or extent of his disability. ... And even if his ankle injury renders him physically disabled, the Complaint focuses solely on Defendants’ denial of adequate medical care. This alone is insufficient to establish a violation of the ADA. ... Because the ADA claim fails as a matter of law, it must be dismissed.

The ADA prohibits discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual because of disability and requires an ADA plaintiff to show disability, qualification, exclusion from services because of disability, and a public entity.

Washington v. Serrato · filed 2023-03-28

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., prohibit discrimination against an otherwise qualified individual based on his or her disability. ... In order to obtain relief under either the ADA or RA, a plaintiff must show (1) that he is disabled within the meaning of the act, (2) that he is “otherwise qualified” for the services sought, (3) that he was excluded from the services sought solely by reason of his disability, and (4) that the program in question receives federal financial assistance (for an RA claim), or is a public entity (for an ADA claim).

The ADA prohibits disability discrimination by public entities, including disparate treatment and failures to make reasonable accommodations; damages require an intentional violation.

Piotrowski v. the Rocky Point Union Free School District · filed 2023-03-30

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under either the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that “(1) plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) plaintiff was excluded from participation in a public entity’s services, programs or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) such exclusion or discrimination was due to plaintiff’s disability.” ... In sum, the School District, Board, and County are entitled to summary judgment on Piotrowski’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act damages claims based on a one-day in-school suspension, both because Piotrowski has not put forward facts suggesting he “as a practical matter was denied meaningful access” to school services as a result of the suspension, Hamilton, 3 F.4th at 91, and because he has not put forward facts suggesting that his suspension for insubordination reflected a deliberately indifferent or otherwise purposeful failure to accommodate his diabetes.

The ADA permits an employee to proceed with an employment-discrimination claim when the complaint plausibly alleges that the employer regarded her as having a mental or behavioral health impairment.

Fedder v. Ohio Medical Transportation, Inc. · filed 2023-05-12

Plaintiff’s Complaint sufficiently pleads a “regarded-as” disability discrimination claim under the ADA, and Plaintiff may therefore proceed on that claim.

Title II of the ADA bars public entities from denying qualified individuals with disabilities the benefits of services, programs, or activities, or discriminating against them because of disability.

Adamczyk v. IDOC · filed 2023-08-16

In Count 6, Plaintiff articulates a viable claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act). The ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, because of that disability . . . be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The Rehab Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794-94e, prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals based on a physical or mental disability. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 794-94e. Discrimination under both statutes includes the failure to accommodate a disability. The analysis is the same under both statutes, except that the Rehab Act includes as an additional element the receipt of federal funds, which all states accept for their prisons. Jaros v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2012).

The ADA prohibits disability discrimination in employment, public-entity programs and services, public accommodations, and telecommunications, but a plaintiff must allege a disability and discrimination or denial of access covered by one of those titles.

Swinton v. Department of Justice · filed 2023-09-28

The Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities. Title I of the ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability in the employment context. Title II of the ADA requires public entities to make their programs and services equally accessible to individuals with disabilities. Title III of the ADA prohibits owners, operators, and lessees of places of public accommodations from prohibiting against individuals on the basis of disability with regards to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of the place of public accommodation. Title IV requires that all telecommunications companies in the U.S. take steps to ensure functionally equivalent services for consumers with disabilities, notably those who are deaf or hard of hearing and those with speech impairments. Plaintiff has not identified his disability, and the complaint does not allege discrimination in the employment context, or that a public entity denied him services based on a disability, or that he was denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation, or that he was unable to use a telecommunications service due to his disability. Accordingly, Plaintiff has not stated a claim under the ADA. Because it is unclear if Plaintiff could state a claim under the ADA, his ADA claim is DISMISSED with leave to amend.

The ADA requires a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination to show disability or regarded-as disability, qualification for the job, and an adverse employment action because of the actual or perceived impairment.

Fedder v. Ohio Medical Transportation, Inc. · filed 2023-12-28

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that (1) she was, or was regarded as, disabled, (2) she was qualified to perform the job’s requirements, and (3) she suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability or perceived impairment. ... In light of these allegations, Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that she was terminated because of her perceived impairment as opposed to her poor performance or some other reason.

The ADA's disability-discrimination claim requires a causal connection between the challenged conduct and the plaintiff's disability.

Hoid v. Boulder County Sheriff's Office · filed 2024-02-06

Furthermore, neither Mr. Hoid’s complaint nor his objection presents support for the contention that Mr. Hoid’s alleged mistreatment, while detained, was due to him having type 1 diabetes.

Title II of the ADA covers state prisons, but it does not guarantee a particular level of medical care absent discrimination because of a disability.

Jordan v. Correction · filed 2024-02-06

Granted, as to factor (2), the ADA applies to state prisons, rendering a prison "an entity subject to" that statute. See Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S 206, 209 (1998) (holding that the ADA "unmistakably includes State prisons and prisoners within its coverage"). However, the issue remains as to the third factor—whether Plaintiff has been discriminated against because of a disability. ... The ADA "do[es] not guarantee any particular level of medical care for disabled persons, nor assure maintenance of services previously provided." ... "Courts routinely dismiss ADA suits by disabled inmates that allege inadequate medical treatment, but do not allege that the inmate was treated differently because of his or her disability." ... Plaintiff fails to identify any activity or program he was unable to participate in because of his disability. He alleges that he did not receive timely dental care but attributes the lack of care to lawsuits and grievances he filed, not to any disability. Thus, Plaintiff fails to allege facts to establish the third element of an ADA claim. Any ADA claims are dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).

An ADA discrimination claim requires treatment because of the plaintiff's impairment; a bare denial of disability-plan benefits, without disability-based discrimination, does not state such a claim.

McGrath v. Fire Department of the City of New York · filed 2024-02-09

This court also dismissed Plaintiffs disability discrimination claim because Plaintiff failed to allege facts supporting “even a minimal inference of discrimination motivated by Plaintiffs disa- bility.” ... “[T]he sine qua non of an ADA claim is that the plaintiff was treated dif- ferently ‘because of his impairment.” ... These assertions are more properly suited for his operative retaliation claim; they cannot, however, sustain a claim under the ADA. See Dedyo, 1998 WL 9376, at *12 (“[A] simple denial of entitlement under a dis- ability plan does not state a claim under the ADA. Congress did not intend to federalize all claims of improper withholding of dis- ability benefits, and we decline to adopt a rule that would compel that result.”).

The ADA requires a plaintiff to show a disability, qualification for the public service or program with or without reasonable modifications, and exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination because of the disability; a plaintiff who refuses a reasonable accommodation cannot prevail on that discrimination claim.

Cartagena v. Lovell · filed 2024-05-24

To seek recovery for violation of either the ADA or the RA, a plaintiff “must allege that (1) she has a disability, (2) she is otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or activity, and (3) she was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of such service, program, or activity, or otherwise discriminated against, on the basis of her disability.” ... In short, Cartagena’s complaint demonstrates that he was not “qualified” to remain in the general prison population. ... For this reason alone, Cartagena failed plausibly to allege that he was “otherwise qualified” for the benefits that he seeks and therefore to state a claim for discrimination. ... Quite apart from these shortfalls in Cartagena’s complaint, it must also be noted that Cartagena refused the reasonable accommodation — treatment of his mental illness — that would have expedited his return to the general prison population. This also undoubtedly precludes his present claims. Neither the ADA nor the RA supports a claim for discrimination when the plaintiff rebukes the very accommodations tailored to move him out of the restrictive housing of which he complains.

The ADA's employment-discrimination framework requires a plaintiff to show that she is disabled, qualified to perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and terminated because of her disability.

Buhagiar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. · filed 2024-06-11

Next, we turn to the ADA discrimination claim. “To set forth a prima facie disability discrimination claim [under the ADA], a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is qualified (i.e., able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation); and (3) the employer terminated him because of his disability.” ... “Under the ADA an employee is considered disabled if he is regarded by his employer as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” ... Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to Buhagiar, we conclude that the record does not support an inference that Wells Fargo perceived Buhagiar as disabled under the ADA. ... Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Wells Fargo on Buhagiar’s ADA discrimination claim.

Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified individual with a disability from its services, programs, or activities because of that disability, and a plaintiff must plead the elements of a prima facie case.

Wells v. East Baton Rouge School System · filed 2024-08-08

Title II of the ADA provides: “[N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” ... To make out a prima facie case under Title II, a plaintiff must show (1) that she is a qualified individual within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that she is being excluded from participation in, or being denied benefits of, services, programs, or activities for which the public entity is responsible, or is otherwise being discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination is by reason of her disability.

The ADA requires a disability-discrimination plaintiff to show a disability, qualification for the position, and an adverse employment action because of the disability; a failure-to-accommodate claim requires employer knowledge, a request for accommodation, no good-faith effort to accommodate, and a possible accommodation.

AYALA, SR. v. LOCAL 6 BAKERY CONFECTIONERY AND TOBACCO WORKERS INTERNATIONAL · filed 2024-08-21

To establish a prima facie case, an ADA discrimination plaintiff must show that he: (1) has a disability; (2) is a qualified individual; and, (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability. ... Establishing a prima facie case of failure-to-accommodate discrimination requires showing that: (1) the employer knew about the employee’s disability; (2) the employee asked for an accommodation or assistance; (3) the employer did not make a good-faith effort to accommodate the employee; and, (4) the employee could have been accommodated.

The ADAAA requires a retaliation plaintiff to show protected conduct, an adverse employment action, and a causal relationship between them.

EASTERLING v. COUNTY OF DELAWARE · filed 2024-12-03

To establish a claim of retaliation under the ADAAA and under the PHRA on the basis of a disability, plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of retaliation. He may do so by showing that he engaged in protected conduct, that the employer took an adverse action either after or at the same time as the employee’s protected activity, and that the protected conduct and the adverse action were causally related.

The ADA does not require a particular level of medical care or provide a remedy for inadequate treatment unless the plaintiff alleges disability-based unequal access to services.

Jordan v. Quiros · filed 2024-12-13

The ADA “do[es] not guarantee any particular level of medical care for disabled persons, not assure maintenance of services previously provided.” ... Indeed, “courts routinely dismiss ADA suits by disabled inmates that allege inadequate medical treatment, but do not allege that the inmate was treated differently because of his or her disability.” ... Accordingly, because Mr. Jordan alleges that he cannot speak to mental health staff whenever he wishes, but does not allege that able-bodied inmates are afforded any different access, his ADA/RA will be dismissed.

The ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in covered areas of public life and requires allegations tying the challenged conduct to a provision of the Act.

McCloskey v. Humboldt County Sheriff's Department · filed 2023-11-14

What is not clear, of course, if how Deputy Hearn’s admonition to Plaintiff violated any section of either the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et. seq.) (prohibiting discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places that are open to the general public – ensuring that people with disabilities have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else) or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701, et. seq.) (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted and funded by the federal government). Nothing in the FAC even approaches stating a claim under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, nor does it appear that this defect can be remedied by amendment; accordingly, Claim-6 is DISMISSED with prejudice.

The ADA requires a disability-discrimination claim to allege a disability, qualification for the position, and an adverse employment action because of the disability; an ADA retaliation claim requires protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection.

Pena v. Atascosa County · filed 2025-01-27

Both Pena’s disability discrimination and retaliation causes of action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), require him to demonstrate a causal connection between the discrimination or retaliation he experienced and his alleged disability. A discrimination cause of action brought under the ADA requires a plaintiff to allege he has a disability, that he was qualified for his position, and that he suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability. ... To establish a prima facie case of retaliation in violation of the ADA, a plaintiff must show he participated in an activity protected under the statute, his employer took an adverse employment action against him, and a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.

The ADA prohibits covered entities from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities and requires reasonable accommodations for known physical or mental limitations.

Way v. City of Missouri City · filed 2025-04-09

The ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., “is a federal antidiscrimination statute designed to remove barriers which prevent qualified individuals with disabilities from enjoying the same employment opportunities that are available to persons without disabilities.” Taylor v. Principal Fin. Grp., Inc., 93 F.3d 155, 161 (5th Cir. 1996). The ADA thus makes it unlawful for covered entities to “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability[.]” § 12112(a). 5 “Discrimination” under the ADA includes “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee.” § 12112(b)(5)(A).

The ADA prohibits disability discrimination and requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations when a qualified employee can perform the essential functions of the job with accommodation.

Brikman v. Westchester Medical Center Advanced Physician Services, P.C. · filed 2025-08-13

The elements of a [discrimination] claim under the ADA are: “(1) the employer is subject to the ADA; (2) the plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA or perceived to be so by his employer; (3) he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation; (4) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (5) the adverse employment action was imposed because of his disability.” ... To sufficiently plead a claim for failure to accommodate under the ADA, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) plaintiff is a person with a disability under the meaning of the ADA; (2) an employer covered by the statute had notice of his disability; (3) with reasonable accommodation, plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the job at issue; and (4) the employer has refused to make such accommodations.”

Section 12101's ADA covers disability discrimination based on pregnancy-related complications, but pregnancy alone is not a disability; a claimant must show disability, qualification with or without reasonable accommodation, and discharge solely because of the disability.

Bunnell v. Wm. Beaumont Hosp. · filed 2025-09-04

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under either statute, Bunnell must show that she is an individual with a disability, that she is otherwise qualified to perform the job requirements, with or without reasonable accommodation, and that Beaumont discharged her solely because of the disability. ... Although pregnancy, by itself, is not a “disability” under the ADA, some pregnancy complications can predicate a claim of disability discrimination. ... Bunnell has not shown a dispute of material fact as to disability discrimination under the ADA and PWDCRA. ... But there is no evidence that Zeiter or any other Beaumont employees knew about her severe morning sickness, which was not mentioned in her doctor’s note. For these reasons, the district court properly dismissed Bunnell’s disability-discrimination claims.

The ADA requires a disability-discrimination plaintiff to allege a disability, qualification to perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and an adverse employment decision because of discrimination; accommodation allegations must connect the requested accommodation to the disability and ability to work.

IN RE: NIA STALLWORTH · filed 2025-09-12

To state a claim under the ADA, the Complaint must allege that the plaintiff (1) “is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA,” (2) “is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodations,” (3) and has experienced an “adverse employment decision as a result of discrimination.” ... Without any allegations at all connecting Plaintiff’s doctor’s appointments to her disabilities or connecting her disabilities to her ability to work, the Complaint does not state a claim for disability discrimination or a failure to accommodate.

The ADA prohibits disability discrimination by public entities and requires a plaintiff to plead qualification, denial or discrimination in a public service, and causation by disability.

VanderWeken v. Davis · filed 2025-10-06

The ADA generally prohibits discrimination on the basis of an individual’s disability. In order to proceed with an ADA claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege (1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; (3) that he was denied the benefits of those services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of his disability.

To state an ADA claim under Title II or III, a plaintiff must plead facts supporting disability discrimination and identifying the defendant's status as a public or private entity or place of public accommodation.

Flenaugh · filed 2025-12-23

In any case, Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to state a claim under Titles II or III of the ADA. Plaintiff states her belief that Defendant discriminated against her because of her alleged disability but does not plead any facts to support this assertion, nor any that support an inference that any of the alleged actions taken by Defendant were motivated by a discriminatory animus based on Plaintiff’s alleged disability. Neither does Plaintiff allege whether Defendant is a “private entity” or “place of public accommodation” within the meaning of the ADA.

The ADA requires a plaintiff to show that she is a qualified individual with a disability, was excluded from or denied access to a public entity’s services or was otherwise discriminated against, and suffered that exclusion or discrimination because of her disability.

Hernandez · filed 2026-01-13

To state an ADA or Rehabilitation Act claim, Plaintiff must allege “(1) that [s]he is a ‘qualified individual’ with a disability; (2) that [s]he was excluded from participation in a public entity’s services, programs or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by a public entity; and (3) that such exclusion or discrimination was due to [her] disability.”