42 U.S.C. § 12101

The ADA requires prisons to make reasonable accommodations for inmates with disabilities, but it does not provide a federal remedy for medical malpractice or a mere disagreement over treatment.

Sistrunk v. Khan · filed 2013-01-24

Under both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, prisons must make reasonable accommodations for inmates with disabilities. ... But in this case, for the reasons discussed in preceding paragraphs, it was not “unreasonable” in the statutory sense for Dr. Khan to have prescribed crutches rather than a wheelchair. ... This case boils down to a disagreement between the plaintiff and his doctor over what was the best course of treatment. The plaintiffs dissatisfaction with the defendant’s decision is not actionable under the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Rehabilitation Act.

The ADA applies to state prisons and requires covered prison programs and services to provide reasonable access, including qualified sign-language interpreter services for a deaf inmate.

Randolph v. Rodgers · filed 1997-10-10

The Court disagrees, and finds that the broad language of both acts was intended to apply to all parts of state government, including prisons. ... There can be no serious doubt that the Missouri Department of Corrections is a "department, agency ... or other instrumentality" of the State of Missouri, and the prisons operated by the Department of Corrections, and the programs operated by those prisons, are "programs or activities" of the Department of Corrections. ... The Court concludes that the undisputed evidence shows that defendants have violated the ADA and the Rehab Act by failing to provide plaintiff with qualified sign-language interpreter services during his non-emergency medical care, educational programs, and disciplinary and classification hearings.

The ADA requires a disability-discrimination claimant to allege a disability, qualification for the job, and discharge solely because of the disability; an ADA retaliation claimant must allege protected activity, adverse action, and causation.

Lemons v. US Air Group, Inc. · filed 1999-01-19

In order to properly state a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that he (1) has a disability, (2) is otherwise qualified for the employment in question, and (3) was discharged from his employment solely on the basis of the disability. ... To state a claim of retaliation under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he engaged in protected activity, (2) his employer took adverse employment action against him, and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the adverse action.

The ADA retaliation claim requires protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between them; a termination claim fails without that causal connection.

Teffera v. North Texas Tollway Authority · filed 2004-12-22

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must prove: (1) he engaged in an activity protected by the ADA; (2) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal connection existed between his participation in the protected activity and the adverse employment action. ... Assuming, arguendo, that merely filing a form requesting accommodation is protected activity under the ADA, Teffera’s “pretext” charges nevertheless fail for lack of a causal connection between such protected activity and his termination.

The ADA does not require disability discrimination to be the sole reason for an adverse action, but disability must be the but-for cause.

Thomas v. Contoocook Valley Sch. D. · filed 1997-11-05

However, upon extensive and persuasive analysis on the issue, the Eleventh Circuit held that the ADA does not require disability discrimination to be the "sole" reason for the adverse action. ... This court concurs with the conclusion reached by the Eleventh Circuit. ... To preserve employer freedom of choice, this court holds that the Price Waterhouse "but for" causation test is applicable to the ADA, so that an employer may escape liability by proving that it would have engaged in the challenged conduct even if it had not taken disability into account.

Section 12101(b)(1) identifies eliminating disability discrimination as a congressional goal that supports construing the ADA's remedial provisions broadly.

Civic Ass'n of Deaf of New York City, Inc. v. Giuliani · filed 1997-07-28(b)(1)

As this Court previously concluded, it would be inconsistent with Congress’ express goal of “eliminating] discrimination against individuals with disabilities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1), to permit a municipality to remove a component of a service that is accessible to the deaf and the non-deaf, leaving behind a component that is accessible only to the non-deaf.

Section 12101(a)(3) identifies persistent discrimination against people with disabilities in critical areas including employment, housing, public services, and other aspects of life.

Alsbrook v. City Of Maumelle · filed 1998-11-12(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) records Congress’s finding that discrimination against people with disabilities remained a serious and pervasive problem supporting the ADA’s remedial scheme.

Amos v. Maryland Department Of Public Safety And Correctional Services · filed 1999-06-24(a)(2)

Under such analysis, we hold that Congress did in fact act constitutionally when it enacted the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act pursuant to its enforcement powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment with the intent that the statutes apply to state prisons. ... 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). We are compelled to give some deference to the record of Congress' factual findings, and to Congress' determination that the ADA is an appropriate remedy to the harms it found to exist.

Title II of the ADA requires a plaintiff to be a qualified individual denied public-entity services because of disability, and permits suit against the public entity rather than individual defendants.

Collins v. Collier · filed 2022-02-15

In order to state a claim under the Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., a plaintiff must allege that (1) he is a qualified individual; (2) who was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity; and (3) that the exclusion, denial, or discrimination was because of his disability. ... However, a plaintiff may not sue the individual defendants for violating the ADA, as only the public “entity” is amenable to suit. ... Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against the defendants in their individual capacities for violations of the ADA fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Title II of the ADA does not require courts to provide legal counsel as an accommodation for a person with disabilities.

Purdy v. Community Correction · filed 2022-01-06

Plaintiff is requesting appointment of counsel as an accommodation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., but federal courts are not “public entities” subject to the public services provisions of Title II of the ADA. ... Moreover, even at the state level, “there is no requirement under the ADA that courts provide legal counsel for a person with disabilities.”

The ADA's nondiscrimination requirement applies to services a State voluntarily provides, even when the ADA does not require the State to provide that service.

Reeves v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections · filed 2022-01-26

Though the defendants may be correct that they did not have a statutory obligation to provide death row inmates with any election form, once they undertook to do so they were required to comply with the ADA.

The ADA prohibits a public entity from denying a qualified person with a disability the benefits of its services because of that disability, and discrimination includes failing to accommodate the disability.

Knox v. Jeffreys · filed 2021-09-22

Under the ADA, “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 (2006). ... Under both statutes, discrimination includes the failure to accommodate a disability. Jaros, 684 F.3d at 672 (citation omitted). ... These allegations are sufficient to articulate a colorable ADA and RA claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C. §§ 794-94e, Jaros v. Ill. Dep’t of Corr., 684 F.3d 667, 672 (7th Cir. 2012).

Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from excluding a qualified individual with a disability from services, programs, or activities because of disability and requires reasonable modifications unless they would fundamentally alter the program.

Byerly v. Governor · filed 2019-09-24

Plaintiff also cites the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., which generally prohibits discrimination on the basis of an individual’s disability. ... Title II extends to prison inmates who are deprived of the benefits of participation in prison programs, services, or activities because of a disability. ... In order to proceed with an ADA claim, Plaintiff must show (1) that he has 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. ... There are no allegations in the Amended Complaint supporting a plausible inference that Plaintiff was discriminated against on the basis of disability. Plaintiff’s passing reference to his disability is insufficient.

The ADA requires a plaintiff challenging a public entity to allege denial of participation in its services, programs, or activities because of disability and discriminatory intent.

Hussey v. MN State Services for the Blind · filed 2019-06-11

Like the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA requires that Hussey allege that she was denied participation in services, programs, or activities, of a public entity based on her disability, Loye v. Cty. of Dakota, 625 F.3d 494, 496-97 (8th Cir. 2010), and that defendants acted with discriminatory intent. Meagley, 639 F.3d at 389.

Title II of the ADA requires a prisoner claiming denial of access to prove disability qualification, denial or exclusion from a public entity's services, programs, or activities, and discrimination because of disability.

Allen v. Reese (INMATE 1) · filed 2019-08-02

In order to demonstrate a denial of access claim under Title II of the ADA,3 the plaintiff must prove that (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by a public entity; and (3) the exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was because of his disability. ... Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a denial of “services” with respect to his claim pertaining to emergency exit access for wheelchair bound inmates which could support an ADA claim. ... Accordingly, the court concludes that summary judgment is due to be granted on the plaintiff’s ADA claims.

Section 12101(a)(3) reflects Congress's intent that ADA protection against disability discrimination cover a variety of public services, including education.

Cunningham v. University of New Mexico Board of Regents · filed 2011-04-20(a)(3)

Congress intended this protection against disability discrimination to apply to a variety of public services, including education.

Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified person with a disability from its services, programs, or activities, but does not require police to take a suicidal person into custody and transport him for evaluation absent a denial of a covered service or benefit because of disability.

Amirault v. City of Roswell, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Mexico · filed 1997-07-31

Title II of the ADA generally prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified individual with a disability from services, programs, or activities of the public entity. ... We are in accord with the district court's reasoning on Amirault's ADA claim. The record simply does not suggest that the police somehow had a duty to take Amirault into custody and transport him to the City's health clinic for evaluation and that by failing to do so Amirault was denied access to any "service, benefit, or program" of the City. ... In this regard, the district court then went on to hold that most certainly there was no showing that any possible denial of benefits or services was because of Amirault's disability. We agree.

Title II of the ADA requires an inmate claiming disability discrimination to show a qualified disability, denial of access to prison services, and a disability-based reason for that denial.

Laubach v. Roberts · filed 2004-05-28

In order to demonstrate an ADA claim pursuant to Title II, an inmate must demonstrate: (1) a qualified disability; (2) denial of participation in or the benefits of services, programs, or activities provided by the prison; and (3) a disability-based reason for the denial of services, programs, or activities.

Title II of the ADA does not treat freedom from verbal harassment by prison officers as a public entity service, program, or activity subject to the statute.

Stakey · filed 2026-02-04

Not being subjected to verbal harassment by IDOC officers is not a “service[], program[], or activit[y] of a public entity” under these statutes.

The ADA requires a timely administrative charge, and in Massachusetts an EEOC charge covered by the work-sharing agreement receives a 300-day filing window; discrete discriminatory acts outside that period are untimely.

Williams v. City of Brockton · filed 2014-11-13

This court finds that the 300-day window applies to Williams’ claims of discrimination under the ADA. ... Because Williams’ EEOC charge is deemed to have been filed with the MCAD as well, the plaintiff had 300 days after the discriminatory act or practice occurred to file his charges with the EEOC. ... To the extent Williams relies on the denial of his 2010 request for IOD leave to support his claims under the ADA, those claims accrued by no later than May 21, 2010, when his request was denied for a second time. ... Accordingly, any such claims are untimely.

The ADA is subject to Connecticut's three-year general tort statute of limitations.

Stiffler v. Norwalk Hospital, No. Cv 97 0346806 (Sep. 10, 1998) · filed 1998-09-14

With regard to proposed count 29, the plaintiff moves to add Robert Stiffler as a party plaintiff to assert a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The court concludes that the statute of limitations for an ADA claim is General Statutes § 52-577 .

The ADA does not set a statute of limitations, so courts apply the most analogous state limitations period when consistent with federal law and policy.

Stroud v. Harrison · filed 1998-12-01

We begin with an analysis of 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (the Americans with Disabilities Act) and the statute of limitations issue as it relates to this case. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not set forth a statute of limitations, but case law provides guidance on what statute of limitations to apply in cases such as the one before us. ... We conclude that N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 168A is more analogous to the ADA for the purposes of the case at issue. We therefore apply the statute of limitations set out in Chapter 168A, which is “180 days after the date on which the aggrieved person became aware ... of the alleged discriminatory practice or prohibited conduct.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168A-12 (1995). The plaintiff in this case was subjected on or about 15 April 1996 to the behavior described above. He filed his complaint in May 1997, outside the 180-day statutory period. We must, therefore, affirm the decision of the trial court to the extent that plaintiff relies on the ADA and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168-4.2.

In Tennessee, ADA retaliation claims are subject to a one-year statute of limitations borrowed from the most analogous state civil-rights action.

Reid v. Shelby County Board of Education · filed 2020-03-30

Plaintiff’s urging for the Court to liberally construe the savings statute and apply it to her retaliation claim (ECF No. 79, 7-8) does not overcome the R. & R.’s correct determination that claims brought under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act in Tennessee are subject to the same one-year statute of limitations as state civil-rights actions.

ADA claims borrow the forum state's personal-injury statute of limitations and tolling rules; here, Illinois's limitations period was two years.

Phillips v. Metro Transit Agency · filed 2021-09-23

Most of his federal causes of action—under the RA, the ADA, and § 1983—borrow the statute of limitations for personal injury, including the tolling rules, from the law of the state where the incident occurred. ... Phillips’s causes of action accrued in Illinois, where the incident occurred, so the applicable statute of limitations is two years.

Section 12101(b)(1) states the ADA's purpose of providing a clear and comprehensive national mandate to eliminate disability discrimination, supporting broad application of Title III.

Florida Paraplegic, Ass'n v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida · filed 1999-02-03(b)(1)

Congress stated that the purpose of the ADA was "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against 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)(1), (4). ... We hold, therefore, that because the ADA is a generally applicable law and because no exception to the presumption that such statutes apply to Indian tribes controls this case, Title III of the ADA governs the Miccosukee Tribe in its operation of its gaming and restaurant facility.

An ADA plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies before bringing an ADA action in federal court.

McNamee v. Starbucks Coffee Co. · filed 2012-12-19

In that regard, it is well settled that an ADA plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies before commencing an action in federal court. ... Here, Plaintiff filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC, but it alleged discrimination only on the basis of age and gender, not disability. Moreover, the EEOC’s actual investigation into Plaintiffs complaint only addressed discrimination on the basis of age and gender, not disability. Accordingly, Plaintiff failed to administratively exhaust her ADA claim, since it was neither specifically included in her EEOC complaint nor “reasonably related” to the claims that were included. ... Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the ADA claim.

The ADA permits claims to be adjudicated in state courts, and exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies is not required before seeking federal relief.

Smith v. Lorch · filed 1999-04-01

Since jurisdiction over suits brought under §§ 1981 et seq., 2000e et seq., and 12101 et seq. has not been restricted to federal courts, we conclude state district courts also have the power and authority to decide claims arising under these provisions. See Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 110 S.Ct. 1566, 1567, 108 L.Ed.2d 834 (1990); Eberhardt, 630 So.2d at 846; Dean v. Nunez, 503 So.2d 212, 213 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 506 So.2d 1229 (La.1987). Furthermore, the exhaustion of either state judicial or administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to the invocation of federal relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 et seq., 2000e et seq., and 12101 et seq. since the causes of action established by those statutes are fully supplementary to any remedy, adequate or inadequate, that might exist under state law.

Section 12101(a)(3) identifies areas of persistent disability discrimination and, as construed here, does not extend ADA coverage to actions taken by the Illinois National Guard.

Gordon v. Illinois National Guard · filed 1999-04-26(a)(3)

Notably absent from the above passage is any mention of the military. Given Congress’ specific enunciation that such sectors as housing, transportation, public accommodations, and voting are a concern, this Court can only conclude that if Congress had intended the ADA to cover the military, it would have indicated that this was so. ... Accordingly, given the rarity of the Judiciary’s intervention in military affairs, and Congress’ silence on whether the military is a covered entity, this Court holds that the ADA does not cover actions taken by the Illinois National Guard.

The ADA generally applies to religious institutions, but the First Amendment ministerial exception bars an ADA employment-discrimination claim by an employee serving a ministerial role.

Starkman v. Evans · filed 1999-12-27

And yet, the “ministerial exception” outlined in McClure should be extended to the case now before us because, like the ADA and the Louisiana retaliatory discharge statute at issue in the instant case, Title VII is an anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation statute. ... While religious institutions are generally bound by the ADA and other employment discrimination laws, (e.g. a church secretary or janitor may advance an ADA claim if he or she is discharged because of a disability), the facts of this case trigger the Free Exercise Clause’s bar against such claims.

Section 12101(3)'s findings identify persistent disability discrimination, but they do not establish that the discrimination is irrational or chiefly committed by state governments.

Erickson, Melinda v. Bd Governors State · filed 2000-03-27(3)

The legislative findings in 42 U.S.C. sec.12101 contain not a word about state governments. Congress did find that persons with disabilities have been discriminated against; it found the same in the ADEA for age. What it did not find is that the practices labeled "discrimination" are irrational (as that term works under the Equal Protection Clause) or that states are major offenders--a critical inquiry not only under Kimel but also under Florida Prepaid. Instead, Congress used the word "discrimination" in sec.12101, and Committees of Congress used that word in the legislative history, to refer to any disadvantage that accompanies a disability.

The ADA does not validly abrogate States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity for individual suits in federal court.

Stevens, Georgeen v. IL Dept Transportati · filed 2000-04-11(a), (a)(4), (a)(5), (b)(1), (b)(4)

Passage of the ADA was not a proper exercise of Congress’s authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the ADA does not abrogate the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity, and IDOT, as a department of the State of Illinois, cannot be sued without its consent in federal court for a violation of the ADA. We conclude that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case.

Section 12101 states that the ADA seeks to eliminate disability discrimination and records that people with disabilities often lacked legal recourse; the court held that the ADA’s broad protections exceeded Congress’s Section 5 enforcement power in suits against States.

Stevens v. Illinois Department of Transportation · filed 2000-04-11(a)

The fact that the ADA targets some discrimination that is not a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment is reflected in the Congressional finding that "unlike 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. sec. 12101(a)(4). Thus, while the ADA may remedy and prevent arbitrary and illegitimate discrimination against the disabled that is unconstitutional, it also sweeps in a wide area of conduct singling out the disabled that is not prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The ADA does not apply to a religious employer's decision to choose its ministers when applying it would interfere with that prerogative.

Rosati v. Toledo, Ohio Catholic Diocese · filed 2002-12-03

The ministerial exception is based on the First Amendment. Therefore, just as there is a ministerial exception to Title VII, there must also be a ministerial exception to ADA claims and to any state law cause of action that would otherwise impinge on the church’s prerogative to choose its ministers.

The ADA supports a cause of action for disability-based harassment creating a hostile work environment.

Fox v. General Motors, Corp. · filed 2000-04-19

This framework indicates that a cause of action for harassment exists under the ADA.

The ADA permits a disability-discrimination claim based on a hostile work environment to proceed past dismissal when the complaint alleges sufficient factual content.

Hills v. Borough of Colwyn · filed 2013-10-17

Defendant Borough moves to dismiss Cizmarik’s PHRA, Title VII, and ADA claims against the Borough on the grounds that Cizmarik fails to state a hostile work environment claim. I will deny Colwyn Defendants’ motion to dismiss these claims, because Cizmarik has alleged sufficient factual content to survive a motion to dismiss.

The ADA protects a qualified individual with a disability from unwelcome disability-based harassment that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions when there is a basis to impute liability to the employer.

Rose v. Sumter County School District · filed 2022-03-01

To establish a hostile work environment claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove “(1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on his disability; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) some factual basis exists to impute liability for the harassment to the employer.”

Section 12101(a)(5) recognizes disability discrimination as including failure to make reasonable modifications and relegation to lesser services, and a denial of meaningful access can establish discrimination even when a person ultimately participates.

Nolan v. Markle · filed 2024-08-27(a)(5)

In addressing a motion for summary judgment, the Koon Court affirmed that “disability ‘discrimination’ includes not just ‘outright intentional exclusion’ but also lesser injustices like ‘failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices’ and ‘relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities.’” Id. at 405 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5)). As such, “disability discrimination includes the failure to provide reasonable modifications that would make accommodations accessible to the disabled without causing an undue burden to the program.” Id. at 406. ... Given the clear language in Koon, that Nolan may ultimately have attended or received the services without the use of his requested wheelchair does not mean Nolan has failed to plead the denial of “meaningful access” to those services. ... As such, the Court will deny CO Markel’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim.

The ADA requires an intentional-discrimination claim to allege that the defendant took wrongful action because of the individual's disability.

Lebron v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2014-10-20

To state a claim for intentional discrimination under either statute, the parents need have pleaded that the Commonwealth engaged in some wrongful action because of the child's disability.

Section 12101(a)(5) identifies communication barriers as a form of discrimination faced by people with disabilities and recognizes the ADA's purpose of remedying their discriminatory effects.

Argenyi v. Creighton University · filed 2013-01-15(a)(5)

Congress specifically intended the ADA to remedy "the discriminatory effects of . . . communication barriers" for individuals with hearing disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5). ... To the extent that the district court interpreted Martin to mean that the word "necessary" in the ADA requires a showing that the claimant has been effectively excluded from a place of public accommodation, it would be inconsistent with the congressional purpose of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

In § 12101, “discrimination” refers to any disadvantage that accompanies a disability, not only irrational discrimination forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause.

Melinda Erickson, United States of America, Intervenor v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities for Nort · filed 2000-03-27(3)

Instead, Congress used the word “discrimination” in § 12101, and Committees of Congress used that word in the legislative history, to refer to any disadvantage that accompanies a disability.

The ADA's disability-discrimination protections apply only when the claimant is disabled.

Nofles v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. · filed 2000-05-18

Because Nofles cannot recover under the ADA unless she is disabled, no actionable disability discrimination occurred within the limitations period.

The ADA requires a claimant to show that he is disabled to recover under the statute.

Banks v. Brown-Forman Corp. · filed 2003-12-15

In order to recover under the ADA, Banks was required to show that he is disabled.

The ADA requires a plaintiff to allege that he has a disability to state an ADA claim.

Daniel v. Honeywell International Inc. · filed 2023-10-02

Daniel’s ADA claim fails. Regardless of the theory underlying this claim, Daniel must allege that he suffered from a disability. See Fenney v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Co., 327 F.3d 707, 711–12 (8th Cir. 2003); Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc., 169 F.3d 1131, 1135 (8th Cir. 1999) (en banc). Daniel does not allege that he suffered from a disability. He alleges only that his objections to Honeywell’s vaccination policy were religious in nature. He does not allege anywhere that his objections were somehow rooted in a disability.

The ADA does not make ordinary job assignments or denial of a work vehicle, standing alone, actionable adverse employment actions.

Conley, Joseph M. v. Village Bedford Park · filed 2000-05-31

We do not believe that these actions, standing alone, rise to the level of an ADA violation. ... Consequently, Mr. Conley’s painting assignment did not constitute an adverse action under the ADA. ... Consequently, we cannot say that denying Mr. Conley use of a vehicle, of itself, violated the ADA.

The ADA does not make a maintenance worker’s painting assignment or denial of a Village vehicle, standing alone, an actionable violation.

Conley v. Village of Bedford Park · filed 2000-05-31

We do not believe that these actions, standing alone, rise to the level of an ADA violation.

The ADA requires a plaintiff alleging employment discrimination to show an adverse employment action—a materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of employment because of the employer’s conduct.

Wright v. Smith · filed 2022-11-22

To state a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., Wright must show that Rocket Auto subjected him to an “adverse employment action.” Talley v. Fam. Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc., 542 F.3d 1099, 1107 (6th Cir. 2008). That means a “materially adverse change in the terms or conditions of [his] employment because of his employer’s conduct.” Id. (citation omitted).

The ADA does not require an employer to conduct an in-person medical examination before imposing medical restrictions, but the employer's assessment of the employee's limitations and abilities must be sufficiently individualized.

Sanders v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · filed 2022-01-13

Union Pacific is correct that the ADA does not require Union Pacific to conduct an in-person medical examination. The Court will instruct the jury on the law, and the parties will not be permitted to argue to the contrary. The issue of whether U.P. conducted a sufficiently individualized assessment of Sanders’s limitations and his abilities to perform the essential functions of his position is a central issue in the case. Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion to the extent that it precludes evidence or argument that Union Pacific is required by law to conduct the in-person examination but will not exclude evidence that an in-person exam was not conducted. Sanders is free to argue that without an in-person exam, the inquiry Union Pacific performed was not sufficiently individualized. The defendant’s motion in limine will be denied.

The ADA permits an employer to require medical documentation or an examination reasonably necessary to determine whether an employee requesting accommodation has a condition requiring accommodation.

Kennedy v. Superior Printing Company Local 419m Graphic Communications International Union · filed 2000-06-15

Superior was entitled to require that Kennedy provide medical documentation sufficient to prove that he had a condition requiring accommodation. The ADA “permits employers ... to make inquiries or require medical examinations necessary to the reasonable accommodation process .... ” 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, App. § 1630.14(c).

The ADA does not directly apply to juvenile dependency proceedings and cannot be used as a defense in them.

Robert M. v. Superior Court CA5 · filed 2013-03-05

In any event, “the ADA does not directly apply to juvenile dependency proceedings and cannot be used as a defense in them.” ... Consequently, even if Robert had preserved the issue, the ADA is not a proper basis for challenging the juvenile court’s order terminating his reunification services.

The ADA does not directly apply to California juvenile dependency proceedings and cannot be used as a defense in them.

L.B. v. Superior Court CA1/2 · filed 2024-03-13

The ADA generally applies to state and local public entities; because California’s juvenile dependency law requires the courts and social services agencies to consider a parent’s limitations and disabilities in providing reasonable services, “the ADA does not directly apply to juvenile dependency proceedings and cannot be used as a defense in them.”

The ADA's remedies do not extend to uniformed members of the armed forces.

Baldwin v. United States Army · filed 2000-08-21

We now join the Sixth Circuit in holding that uniformed members of the armed forces are also barred from bringing claims under the ADA.

The ADA applies to websites offered by public accommodations; it does not make every website a public accommodation per se.

Fernandez · filed 2025-09-29

The text says that websites that are offered by public accommodations are subject to the ADA—not, as Plaintiff would have it, that any website is per se a public accommodation.

The ADA’s phrase “place of public accommodation” requires a physical location, so the ADA does not apply to a stand-alone website with no alleged violation arising from a physical space.

Martin v. THI E-Commerce, LLC · filed 2023-09-13

We agree with the majority view that a “place of public accommodation” requires a physical location. We reach this conclusion because (1) it is the most natural usage of the phrase “place of public accommodation”; (2) the examples listed in section 12181(7) are all places that traditionally operate out of a physical location open to the public; and (3) the relevant regulations define the phrase in terms of a “facility,” which, in turn, is defined in terms of physical structures. Combined, these textual indicators leave no room for ambiguity.

The ADA does not apply to private residential properties.

Stemmons v. Corsco · filed 2022-02-04

Regardless, the ADA does not apply to private residential properties.

The ADA permits a plaintiff challenging architectural access barriers to seek equitable relief, and remediation moots the claim only when recurrence is unlikely and the effects of the violation are completely and irrevocably eradicated.

Sutton v. 626 Emmut Properties, Ltd. · filed 2019-08-02

Because an ADA plaintiff who, like Sutton, raises a claim based on an architectural access barrier is limited to seeking equitable relief, rather than money damages, such a claim “can become moot if a defendant remedies the access barrier [at issue] during the pendency of the litigation.” Bacon v. Walgreen Co., 91 F. Supp. 3d 446, 451 (E.D.N.Y. 2015). But such remediation moots an ADA claim “only if the defendant can demonstrate that (1) there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation will recur and (2) interim relief or events have completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” Thomas v. West, No. 14 Civ. 4459, 2018 WL 3768525, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2018) (quoting Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of New York, 594 F.3d 94, 110 (2d Cir. 2010)).

The ADA, as cited at § 12101 et seq., requires accessibility in places of public accommodation and commercial facilities, while allowing emergency-warning systems in medical care facilities to be modified to suit standard healthcare alarm practice.

Access Now, Inc. v. Ambulatory Surgery Center Group, Ltd. · filed 2001-05-02

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 USC § 12101 et seq., by and through the regulations and guidelines set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”), mandates that places of public accommodation and commercial facilities shall be accessible to persons with disabilities, which mandate includes generally the placement audible and visual alarms where emergency warning systems are provided. ... These guidelines also provide that emergency warning systems in medical care facilities may be modified to suit standard health care alarm design practice.

For an ADA claim challenging athletic eligibility, the plaintiff must establish standing by showing an injury for which the court can grant relief.

Pryor v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n · filed 2001-07-05

Claims under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act should be evaluated using the same analysis. ... Without an injury for which the Court can award some relief, Plaintiff fails to establish the third prong of the standing analysis. For this reason, Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act is GRANTED.

The ADA protects a qualified individual with a disability from discrimination by requiring the ability to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

Jones v. Walgreen Co. · filed 2012-05-10

A plaintiff seeking to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that she was "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job with or without accommodation; and (3) that she was discharged or adversely affected, in whole or in part, because of her disability.

The ADA requires an employment-discrimination plaintiff to show a disability, qualification to perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation, and an adverse employment decision because of the disability.

Pugh v. City of Attica, Indiana, Attica Police Department, Attica Board of Works · filed 2001-07-26

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Mr. Pugh must show that (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA, (2) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of his job either with or without reasonable accommodation, and (3) he suffered from an adverse employment decision because of his disability.

Section 12101 identifies transportation and modifications to existing facilities and practices as areas of disability discrimination and establishes a broad national mandate to eliminate such discrimination.

Evans v. Page · filed 2001-08-10(a)(3), (a)(5), (b)(1)

As recognized in Gorman, Congress noted, in the statement of findings and purpose in the beginning of the statute, that “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as *** transportation” (42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3) (1994)) and that “individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including *** failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices” (42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5) (1994)). ... The Act provides “a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) (1994); Gorman, 152 F.3d at 913. ... The statute must be interpreted broadly to include the ordinary operations of a public entity, in order to carry out the purpose of prohibiting discrimination.

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

Cripe v. City of San Jose · filed 2001-08-17(b)(1)

Given the standards of review that apply to this appeal, we must agree with the plaintiffs that the City's policy relegating them to unsatisfactory jobs in which they have little or no possibility for promotion simply cannot be reconciled with the ADA's "clear and comprehensive national mandate" to "eliminat[e] . . . discrimination against individuals with disabilities." 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101(b)(1).

To make a prima facie ADA employment-discrimination case, a plaintiff must show a disability, qualification for the job, and an adverse employment action because of the disability.

Peter v. Lincoln Technical Institute, Inc. · filed 2002-10-07

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, “a plaintiff must be able to establish that he or she (1) has a ‘disability,’ (2) is a ‘qualified individual,’ and (3) has suffered an adverse employment action because of that disability”.

To establish an ADA violation, a plaintiff must show a disability, qualification for the benefit, and exclusion from the benefit because of disability.

Brownscombe v. Department of Campus Parking · filed 2002-05-28

(1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; and (3) that he was excluded from the benefit due to discrimination solely on the basis of the disability.

The ADA prohibits disability discrimination in employment and requires a plaintiff to show that she was disabled, could perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and suffered an adverse employment decision based on her disability.

Rossi v. Amica Mutual Insurance · filed 2005-02-09

Rossi charges that Arnica violated federal law prohibiting workplace discrimination against those with disabilities, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., known as the Americans with Disabilities Act or “ADA.” In order to prevail on a claim under the ADA: ... a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that she was able to perform, with or without reasonable accommodation, the essential functions of her job; and (3) that the adverse employment decision was based in whole or in part on her disability.

The ADA requires a disability-discrimination plaintiff to show that the plaintiff has a disability, can perform the job's essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and that the employer knew of the disability but failed to accommodate it.

Khaleel v. Metro One Loss Prevention Services Groups · filed 2007-01-08

To state a case under the ADA for discrimination on the basis of disability, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he is an individual with a disability as provided in the statute; that, with or without a reasonable accommodation, he is able to perform the essential functions of the job in question; and that the employer had notice of his disability and failed to provide such an accommodation.

The ADA requires a plaintiff alleging disability discrimination to show that the employer is covered, the plaintiff is disabled, the plaintiff is qualified with or without reasonable accommodation, and the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of the disability.

McDonnell v. Schindler Elevator Corp. · filed 2015-07-02

At the first step, a plaintiff must adduce evidence that (1) his employer is subject to the ADA; (2) he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) he was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of his job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) he suffered adverse employment action because of his disability.

The ADA discrimination claim may proceed when the complaint plausibly alleges that the plaintiff was a qualified individual, was discharged, was meeting the employer's legitimate expectations, and that the circumstances support an inference of unlawful discrimination.

Gill v. Coca Cola Bottling Consolidated Company · filed 2019-09-16

To state a claim for a violation of the ADA, Plaintiff must plead facts showing that he “(1) was a qualified individual; (2) was discharged; (3) was fulfilling the legitimate expectations of the employer; and (4) the circumstances of the discharge raise a reasonable inference of unlawful discrimination.”

For an ADA disparate-treatment claim, the plaintiff must show that he is disabled, can perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and that his disability was the but-for cause of an adverse employment action.

Butler v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation, The · filed 2019-09-27

To survive summary judgment on this claim, Butler must prove that (1) he was disabled, (2) he was qualified to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and (3) his disability was the "but-for" cause of adverse employment action. ... The court agrees with Metra that, based on the undisputed facts in the record, no reasonable jury could find that Butler is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; "was qualified to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation"; and suffered adverse employment actions because of his disability. Scheidier, 914 F.3d at 541.

The ADA requires a plaintiff to allege a qualifying disability, ability to perform the job’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and an adverse action because of the disability; temporary medical conditions and inability to attend work do not satisfy those requirements.

Soto v. Marist College · filed 2019-06-05

Under this test, the Plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of disability-based discrimination. To do so, a plaintiff must demonstrate that: “(1) the defendant is covered by the ADA; (2) [the] plaintiff suffers from or is regarded as suffering from a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (3) [the] plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) [the] plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action because of his disability or perceived disability.” ... Plaintiff here did not specify whether his “health related complications” resulted in or from his alleged limp or any other permanent disability “that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” ... However, “[a] disability under the ADA does not include temporary medical conditions, even if those conditions require extended leaves of absence from work[,] because such conditions are not substantially limiting.” ... Therefore, even taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, he has failed to state a claim for discrimination under the ADA, and his ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL claims based on disability discrimination are dismissed.

Title II of the ADA requires a plaintiff to show a disability, exclusion from or denial of benefits of a public entity's services, programs, or activities despite being otherwise qualified, and discrimination because of the disability.

Williams v. Corizon · filed 2020-09-09

The Rehabilitation Act and ADA generally are construed “to impose the same requirements due to the similarity of the language of the two acts.” ... To establish a prima facie case under Title II of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he/she has a disability; (2) he/she was either excluded from participation in 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 by reason of the disability. ... Here, Williams has not established that he has a disability, nor has he shown that he was excluded or denied benefits. Therefore, his claims under Section 504 and the ADA fail.

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

Owens v. The City of New York Department of Education · filed 2021-08-30

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must adduce sufficient evidence that would allow a jury to find that (1) her employer is subject to the a governing statute (in this case, the ADA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL); (2) she was disabled; (3) she was otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) she suffered an adverse employment action because of her disability.

The ADA's disability-discrimination claim requires a plaintiff to show that the plaintiff is disabled, is a qualified individual, and suffered an adverse employment decision because of the disability.

Harris v. Wehco Video Inc · filed 2022-02-22

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on disability under the ADA, Mr. Harris must show that he: “(1) is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) is a qualified individual under the ADA; and (3) has suffered an adverse employment decision because of the disability.” ... At this stage, however, the Court cannot conclude based on the record before it that permitting Mr. Harris to amend his complaint to allege an ADA claim would be futile given that Mr. Harris asserts that he provide his supervisor notification of a disability; that he advised his new supervisor of the need for an accommodation of that disability when he transitioned to a new, full-time position; and that he suffered an adverse employment action of being unable to meet assigned sales quotas, unpaid salary, and lost sales income. Taking the allegations in the Proposed Amended Complaint as true, the Court determines that it would not be futile to permit Mr. Harris to amend his complaint to raise his ADA claims at this stage.

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

Maluf v. Bergelectric Corp · filed 2023-03-30

To prove a prima facie claim under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., a plaintiff must show that (a) he is disabled under the meaning of the ADA (this includes being "regarded as" disabled; (b) he is qualified to perform the essential functions of her position with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (c) he suffered an adverse action because of her disability. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973).

The ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified individual with a disability from its services, programs, or activities, or discriminating against that individual because of the disability.

Crispin v. Peiri · filed 2023-04-13

Crispin generally references the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., alleging that the Defendants have “refused to comply with” and “intentionally violated” the ADA. ... To state a prima facie case for discrimination under the ADA, Crispin must allege: (1) that he is a “qualified individual” with a disability; (2) that 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 his disability.

The ADA prohibits employment discrimination based on disability and requires a plaintiff to show disability, qualification with or without reasonable accommodation, an adverse employment decision, employer knowledge, and that the position remained open or the plaintiff was replaced to establish a prima facie case.

Phipps v. Wieland Chase, LLC · filed 2024-06-11

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., and Ohio law, Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.01 et seq., prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. ... To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA, an employee must demonstrate that (1) he has a disability, (2) he is otherwise qualified for the job “with or without reasonable accommodation,” (3) he “suffered an adverse employment decision,” (4) his employer “knew or had reason to know” of his disability, and (5) his position remained open, or he was replaced. ... The fact that he might be “wired” and “work harder and faster” is not sufficient to put Defendant on notice of his anxiety and depression.

The ADA requires a prima facie disability-discrimination claim to allege a qualified individual with a disability, coverage under the Act, and denial of or discrimination in access to services because of the disability; an ADA claim unrelated to employment does not require an EEOC charge.

Davis v. Winston Preparatory School · filed 2025-06-30

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must plead facts showing “(1) [t]hat she is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that the defendants are subject to one of the Acts; and (3) that she was denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit from defendants’ services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by defendants, by reason of her disability.” ... Because Plaintiff's ADA claim has no connection with employment, she was not required to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.

Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from excluding qualified individuals with disabilities from their services, programs, or activities, or discriminating against them because of disability; an ADA plaintiff must plead disability, qualification, and exclusion, denial, or discrimination by reason of disability.

Chapman v. Madison County Jail Employees · filed 2025-08-14

Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq. (the “ADA”), provides that “no 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.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. To state a claim under the ADA, Chapman must show that he is “(1) disabled under the statute, (2) otherwise qualified for participation in the program, [services, or activities], and (3) being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under[,] the program, [services, or activities] by reason of his . . . disability.” S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445, 453 (6th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

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

Legarza · filed 2026-02-12

A prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA requires a plaintiff to show: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is a qualified individual, meaning he could perform the essential functions of his job with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action on the basis of his disability.

For an ADA disability-discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show a disability, qualification for the job with or without reasonable accommodation, an adverse employment decision, employer knowledge of the disability, and replacement or less favorable treatment.

Dixon · filed 2026-03-03

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, Dixon must show that he: (1) “has a disability”; (2) is otherwise qualified for the job with or without reasonable accommodation”; (3) “suffered an adverse employment decision”; (4) had an employer who “knew or had reason to know of [his] disability”; and (5) “was replaced” or was treated less favorably.

The Americans with Disabilities Act creates a private right of action for disability discrimination.

Salas v. University of Utah Health Center · filed 2022-01-19

As Plaintiff’s counsel correctly notes, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., creates a private right of action for disability discrimination.

Section 12101 contains the ADA's congressional findings and statement of purpose, but that statement alone does not create a private right of action.

Lightfeather v. Prey · filed 2022-03-03

Plaintiff attempts to present a “disability rights” claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12101. ... 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.

The Americans with Disabilities Act does not mandate monetary compensation by the federal government.

Pierce v. United States · filed 2015-01-28

Likewise, the ADA is not a money-mandating law.

Title I of the ADA permits private individuals to sue state officials for prospective injunctive relief under Ex parte Young.

Gibson v. Ark. Dept. of Corr. · filed 2001-09-12

Given these differences and the unambiguous language of the Garrett footnote, we conclude that private individuals can sue state officials for injunctive relief under the ADA by using Ex parte Young.

The ADA does not provide federal-sector employees a procedure, subject-matter jurisdiction, or a sovereign-immunity waiver to challenge a settlement agreement in the circumstances presented.

Palmer v. Kempthorne · filed 2009-04-29

While Mr. Palmer is not claiming a breach of his settlement agreement, following our analysis in Lindstrom, we conclude that the regulations—which address only compliance with a settlement agreement—simply do not address whether federal-sector employees may bring suits in federal district court on their Title VII and ADA settlement agreements under the circumstances present here. Because neither Title VII nor the ADA provides a procedure allowing a federal employee in Mr. Palmer’s circumstances to challenge the settlement agreement, neither Title VII nor the ADA provides a grant of subject matter jurisdiction, and a waiver of sovereign immunity, here.

Section 12101 et seq. does not permit a claimed ADA violation to be raised on direct appeal as grounds to set aside an otherwise valid juvenile dispositional order; the challenge must proceed through an independent civil action.

In Re MS · filed 2009-06-12

We need not resolve the minor's assertion that, by analogy to Thompson, the ADA should also apply to the substantive decisionmaking process of a juvenile court in selecting the appropriate placement because neither Thompson nor any of the other foregoing decisions support his essential procedural premise that the ADA violation can be raised in the context of a direct appeal from a dispositional order, rather than by means of a complaint in an independent civil action.

The ADA permits compensatory damages for discrimination claims, but an ADA retaliation claim does not permit compensatory or punitive damages.

Cannon v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. · filed 2021-09-10

The ADA permits recovery of compensatory damages for discrimination claims. ... The ADA, however, does not permit “compensatory and punitive damages” for an ADA retaliation claim.

The ADA does not require an employee to exhaust internal union appeal procedures before bringing a claim against a union for discriminatory handling of grievances.

Nyhart v. U.A.W. International · filed 2001-10-24

Similarly, the court concludes that there is no duty to exhaust internal union appeal procedures prior to bringing an ADA claim.

Section 12101(7) identifies discrimination based on stereotypic assumptions about a person's abilities as a form of disability discrimination the ADA addresses.

Jewell v. Reid's Confectionary Co. · filed 2001-11-21(7)

Indeed, the purpose of the ADA was, in part, to punish employers for making just this sort of “stereotypic [assumption] not truly indicative of the individual ability” of their employees. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(7).

The ADA requires a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a proper charge of discrimination before bringing suit.

McCall v. Board of Commissioners of County of Shawnee · filed 2003-10-10

The Tenth Circuit has made clear that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing suit under Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the KAAD. ... In order to maintain a claim under Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination within 300 days of the discriminatory action in states, such as Kansas, that statutorily prohibit discrimination. ... Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiff has not exhausted her administrative remedies on her Title VII, ADEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act and KAAD claims. Thus, the court must dismiss these claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The ADA subjects employment-discrimination claims to the same administrative-exhaustion requirements as Title VII claims.

Gilmore v. UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER STRONG MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DIVISION · filed 2005-09-01

The University asserts that plaintiffs ADA claim should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. I agree. ADA claims are subject to the same exhaustion requirements as Title VII claims.

The ADA requires a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil action for disability discrimination.

Smith v. Janey · filed 2009-08-24

A plaintiff seeking to file a civil action for disability discrimination under the ADA is required to exhaust his administrative remedies first. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d) (requiring an ADA plaintiff to file a formal charge with the EEOC before filing a lawsuit); ... Accepting the administrative charge at face value, the record establishes that the plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his disability claim before bringing this civil action. Therefore, he cannot prevail on any disability claim here.

Title I of the ADA does not validly abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit.

Benn v. First Judicial District Of Pennsylvania · filed 2005-10-12

It follows that Pennsylvania, if sued under Title I, retains its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Title I of the ADA is subject to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, which bars private individuals’ suits against states for money damages.

Dendinger v. State of OH · filed 2006-11-14

Dendinger next alleges that BCI & I violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. BCI & I argues that it is entitled to sovereign immunity from this claim under the Eleventh Amendment. As the district court correctly found, the Eleventh Amendment does in fact bar suits against states by private individuals for money damages under Title I of the ADA.

The ADA's application to a state agency does not overcome Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.

Mulero v. Connecticut · filed 2008-08-18

However, because the Department of Education is an arm of the state of Connecticut, his claims under the ADA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

The ADA does not permit a damages claim against an unconsenting state agency when sovereign immunity has not been waived.

Jones v. New York State Metro D.D.S.O. · filed 2013-10-17

First, as the State of New York has not waived sovereign immunity from suits for damages under Section 1983 and the ADA, the Eleventh Amendment bars Jones’s claims under these statutes against the DDSO, a division of the state agency referred to as the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities.

Section 12101 and the ADA do not themselves abrogate tribal sovereign immunity or authorize suit against an immune tribal casino.

(PS) Nguyen v. Cache Creek Casino Resort · filed 2021-01-04

Instead, Nguyen argues that the provisions of, for example, 42 U.S.C. Section 12101 demonstrate a congressional override of this immunity. ... However, as multiple courts have noted, the provisions of the ADA under which Nguyen sues do not suffice as evidence of a congressional waiver.

Section 12101(a)'s findings do not establish a nationwide pattern of unconstitutional disability discrimination by states sufficient to support the ADA's abrogation of state immunity.

Stevens v. Illinois Department of Transportation · filed 2000-04-11(a)

The types of discrimination at which the statute is aimed are recited in the “Findings and purpose” section of the Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a). ... Without more detailed findings concerning a nationwide pattern of arbitrary and illegitimate discrimination against the disabled by the States, the ADA cannot be viewed as a proportional and congruous response to the problem of state-perpetrated discrimination against the disabled.

Section 12101(b)(4) reflects Congress’s express abrogation of Eleventh Amendment immunity in adopting the ADA.

Hunter v. Chiles · filed 1996-10-24(b)(4)

Congress explicitly abrogated the Eleventh Amendment in adopting the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4).

The ADA does not provide a cause of action for damages against supervisors or fellow employees.

Lee v. South of Market Health Center · filed 2020-05-07

Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA do not provide a cause of action for damages against supervisors or fellow employees.

ADA claims against individual prison employees are not cognizable; such claims must be brought against the governmental entity.

Orr v. Sevier · filed 2019-06-13

Finally, Mr. Orr alleges that Nurse Lewis, Dr. Liaw, and Warden Sevier violated the ADA, but ADA claims must be brought against a governmental entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; Jaros v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 684 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[E]mployees of the Department of Corrections are not amenable to suit under the … ADA.”).

The ADA does not impose individual personal liability on employees sued in their individual capacities.

Soloviev v. Goldstein · filed 2015-05-13

Title VII, ADA, and ADEA, however, do not provide for individual personal liability.

The ADA does not impose individual liability on employees; liability runs only against the employer.

Noia v. Orthopedic Associates · filed 2015-02-09

It is well-established that the ADA and ADEA “do not provide for individual liability; rather, only against the employer.”

The ADA does not impose liability on individuals who are not employers, and an entity cannot be held liable absent intentional discrimination based on disability.

Pannell v. City of Bellvue · filed 2002-01-02

The defendants seek, and are entitled to summary judgment with regard to the ADA claims on the basis that individuals who are not employers cannot be held liable under that statute. ... With regard to the city’s alleged liability, there has been no showing that the officers intended to act as they did toward the plaintiff on the basis that he was disabled.. Absent a showing that an entity has intentionally discriminated on the basis of a disability, the entity cannot be held liable.

The ADA does not recognize a cause of action against supervisory employees in either their individual or official capacities.

Mercer v. Brunt · filed 2002-03-28

The defendants point out that it is well-settled law that the ADA does not recognize a cause of action against supervisory employees under the ADA, either individually or in their official capacity, citing ... This Court concurs.

The ADA does not impose personal liability for employment discrimination on individual defendants because the statute's coverage is limited to public entities, which do not include individuals.

Gentile v. Town of Huntington · filed 2003-10-22

Unlike the NYSHRL, under the ADA an individual may not be held personally liable for employment discrimination. ... The ADA “provides disabled individuals redress for discrimination by a ‘public entity.’ That term, as defined in the statute, does not include individuals.”

Title II of the ADA cannot be enforced through § 1983 against individual defendants, who also cannot be sued directly under Title II.

Stevenson v. Independent School District No. I-038 of Garvin County · filed 2005-05-19

The Court agrees with the circuits that have addressed this issue and holds that Plaintiffs cannot sue under § 1983 for violations of the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. ... Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiffs cannot sue the Individual Defendants directly under Title II of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.

The ADA's employment-discrimination provisions do not impose individual liability on supervisors or other individual defendants.

Torres-Negron v. Merck & Co., Inc. · filed 2005-06-13

As such, the Court will approve and adopt the Magistrate's recommendation that Plaintiff's ADA claims be dismissed against Co-defendants Spinola, González and Diaz since individual liability cannot attach under the ADA.

The ADA does not impose individual liability on employees sued as individual defendants.

Aque v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2009-02-02

“Title VII, the ADA, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act all have similar definitions of ‘employer’ and courts routinely apply arguments regarding individual liability to all three statutes interchangeably.” ... It is well established that there is no individual liability under any of the three statutes. ... The court therefore ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s ruling that the Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims be dismissed as against Mr. Hourigan and Ms. Longacre.

Title I of the ADA does not permit employment-discrimination actions against defendants in their individual capacities.

Carlson v. Geneva City School District · filed 2010-01-08

Defendants also correctly assert that Title I of the ADA does not permit actions against defendants in their individual capacities. Therefore, Plaintiff could not maintain an ADA claim against the individual Defendants in any event.

The ADA does not impose personal liability on individual employees.

Reyes-Ortiz v. Valdes · filed 2010-03-22

This district, however, has followed the majority of circuits that have confronted the issue and held that no personal liability can attach to employees under the ADEA or the ADA.

The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act apply the same substantive standards for determining liability.

Ridley School District v. M.R. · filed 2012-05-17

Second, the substantive standards for determining liability under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are the same, McDonald v. Pa. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 62 F.3d 92, 94-95 (3d Cir. 1995), and thus the District Court did not err in disposing of Parents’ claim under the ADA.

The ADA does not impose personal liability on individual employees or agents for employment discrimination.

Burton v. Chicago Public Schools · filed 2018-03-23

As discussed in detail in the Court’s July 2017 ruling, pro se Plaintiff cannot sue individual Defendants Damir Ara, Mary Ernesti, Mary Hart, and Gabriela Gonzalez under the ADEA, ADA, Title VII, and the Rehabilitation Act because there is no personal individual liability under these statutes.

The ADA does not permit a plaintiff to sue individual employees in their personal capacities.

Nair v. Winning Wheels, Inc. · filed 2019-02-21

In response, Nair acknowledges that in cases such as EEOC v. AIC Sec. Investigations, the Seventh Circuit held that plaintiffs may not sue individual defendants under either Title VII or the ADA. 55 F.3d 1276, 1282 (7th Cir. 1995). Because claims under the ADA and Title VII cannot be brought against individual employees, defendants Morgan-Dodge’s, Topp’s, and Styles’s motion to dismiss the ADA and Title VII claims against them individually is granted with prejudice.

The ADA does not impose individual liability on employees sued in their individual capacities.

Scott v. The Wise Co., Inc. · filed 2020-09-28

The Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court grant Brown’s Motion to Dismiss the Title VII and ADA claims, reasoning that as a matter of law “there is no individual liability under Title VII [or the ADA].” ... Scott has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s construction of his pleadings or his conclusion that Scott’s claims under the ADA and Title VII against Brown in her individual capacity fail as a matter of law. ... Therefore, the Court ADOPTS these conclusions that the Second Amended Complaint alleges only the ADA, Title VII, and FLSA causes of action against Brown and that Brown is entitled to the dismissal of the retaliation claims under the ADA and Title VII as a matter of law.

The ADA permits employment-discrimination relief against the employer, but not personal liability against an individual defendant.

Baptiste-Alkebul-Lan v. Smith · filed 2022-12-09

Individual defendants are not amenable to private suit and personal liability for employment discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ... Plaintiff’s claims against Smith seek to impose individual liability and such relief is not available under these statutes. Relief, if any, is against the employer, not an individual.

The ADA does not impose individual liability on defendants sued in their individual or personal capacities.

Cruz v. New York City Transit · filed 2025-02-26et seq.

The R&R’s conclusion that the ADA and Title VII do not provide for individual liability is correct.

Section 12101’s stated goals do not require ADA liability for every workplace harm involving a disabled employee.

Smith v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. · filed 1996-12-17(a), (b)

The goals of the ADA are to “assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for . . . individuals [with disabilities].” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a). To achieve these goals, Congress has attempted “to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b). Nothing in the ADA's express provisions or goals compels liability in this case.

Under Titles II and III of the ADA, a plaintiff must connect alleged disability-access noncompliance to the plaintiff’s own deprivation of a public benefit, good, or service.

Douris v. Dougherty · filed 2002-03-15

In the absence of some connection between Plaintiffs’ observance that the Borough of Doylestown’s parking facilities are not in compliance with the various implementing regulations of the Code of Federal Regulations and his own deprivation of a benefit, good or service offered by a public entity or owner of a place of public accommodation, we cannot find that a valid cause of action has been pled under either Title II or III of the ADA.

The ADA does not make illness from a hamburger or eviction from a hotel room, without more, sufficient allegations for an actionable claim.

Williams v. Holiday Inn Washington, DC on the Hill · filed 2003-09-24

Becoming ill from a hamburger and being evicted from a hotel room are not sufficient allegations, even if true, to give rise to a claim under the ADA or Title VII, let alone to warrant the grand jury investigation he seeks for alleged attempted murder.

Title I of the ADA applies to covered entities such as employers and requires an employment relationship, assessed by the common-law touchstone of control, for an employment-discrimination claim.

Doe v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania · filed 2021-03-31

Title I of the ADA makes it unlawful for a “covered entity to discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to,” among other things, “terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). A covered entity “means an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee.” Id. § 12111(2). ... The existence of an employment relationship under the ADA similarly “focus[es] on the common-law touchstone of control.” ... In sum, Doe fails to state Title VII, ADA, and PHRA claims against Highmark because Doe does not plausibly allege an employment relationship with Highmark. ... We therefore dismiss Doe’s Title VII, ADA and PHRA claims against Highmark with prejudice.

The ADA protects employees from disability discrimination but does not cover independent contractors; employee status is determined under the common-law agency test.

Lerohl v. Friends of Minnesota Sinfonia · filed 2003-03-06

In both Title VII and the ADA, Congress adopted a circular definition of “employee” -- an employee is an “individual employed by an employer.” See 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(f), 12111(4). In such cases, the Supreme Court applies the general common law of agency to determine whether a hired party is an employee or an independent contractor. See Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 323-25 & n.3 (1992) (ERISA), followed in Birchem, 116 F.3d at 312-13 (ADA), and in Wilde, 15 F.3d at 105-06 (Title VII). ... Here, the Sinfonia’s professional musicians retained the discretion to perform elsewhere and accepted payments structured in a manner that confirmed their independent contractor status. In such a case, we are loath to destroy the parties’ freedom to choose that form of relationship by deciding, after the fact, that they were required to contract as employer and employees, particularly when Congress remains free to extend Title VII and the ADA to this kind of independent contractor relationship if it determines that to be in the public interest.

Section 12101(a)(7) supports requiring employment decisions about disabilities to be based on particularized facts rather than stereotypes, myths, or assumptions.

Smith v. Chrysler Corporation · filed 1998-09-15(a)(7)

As noted earlier, the ADA requires an employer to make a stereotype-free assessment based on facts rather than mythology in reaching employment decisions.

Under the ADA, volunteer directors and independent producers without a traditional employment relationship are not counted as employees when determining whether an entity meets the statute’s employee threshold for coverage.

Fichman v. Media Center · filed 2008-01-14

In sum, the district court properly held that members of the Board of Directors and independent producers could not be considered “employees” within the meaning of the ADA and ADEA.

The ADA does not impose individual liability on supervisors or co-employees for discrimination by the employer.

Camacho-Albert v. MENDEZ & CO., INC. · filed 2008-06-18

Nonetheless, this Court has consistently held that ADA provides no individual liability against supervisors or co-employee defendants. ... Since Thurin is Plaintiffs supervisor, he cannot be held liable under the ADA.

The ADA does not require a plaintiff to provide pre-litigation notice before bringing suit.

Hager v. Karkhanechin · filed 2008-08-05

The ADA does not contain a pre-litigation notice requirement, and we have expressly declined to imply one.

Section 12101(a)(5)'s finding that disability discrimination includes overprotective rules and policies supports requiring individualized, objective assessments before an employer invokes the direct-threat defense.

Bennett v. Nissan North America, Inc. · filed 2009-03-27(a)(5)

This requirement aims to prevent workplace paternalism or sham protection where an employer claims to act for the good of the disabled individual in reliance on untested and pretextual stereotypes. ... 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5). Therefore, “the direct threat defense must be ‘based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence,’ and upon an expressly ‘individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job,’ reached after considering, among other things, the imminence of the risk and the severity of the harm portended.”

Section 12101(b) identifies the ADA's principal purposes as eliminating disability discrimination through a clear national mandate and enforceable standards.

Equal Rights Center v. NILES BOLTON ASSOCIATES · filed 2010-04-19(b)

The principal purpose of the ADA is to "(1) . . . 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). ... Under these principles, it is clear that, like the securities laws at issue in Baker, Watts & Co., the regulatory purposes of the FHA and ADA would be undermined by allowing a claim for indemnity.

The ADA does not apply to the federal judiciary.

Griffin v. Hooks · filed 2023-08-30

Neither the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., nor the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act), 29 U.S.C. § 791, et seq., apply to the federal judiciary.

The ADA's employment-discrimination provisions do not treat the United States as an employer.

Wine v. U.S. Department of the Interior · filed 2022-08-29

Next up is Wine’s ADA claim. Wine claims that Interior violated the ADA, see 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., by refusing to restore him to his previous position within the Service after his medical leave. See Compl. at 4. But this claim fails as a matter of law because the federal government is not an “employer” under the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (“The term ‘employer’ does not include . . . the United States.”); see also Williams v. Brennan, 285 F. Supp. 3d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2017).

The ADA does not provide the remedy for disability-discrimination claims by USPS employees; the Rehabilitation Act is their exclusive remedy.

Verkade v. United States Postal Service · filed 2010-05-27(5)(B)(i)

The Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq., rather than the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., provides the exclusive remedy for USPS employees asserting a claim of disability discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(B)(i); Jones v. Potter, 488 F.3d 397, 403 (6th Cir. 2007).

The ADA does not apply to federal government employers.

Marley v. Donahue · filed 2015-09-23

Nevertheless, the Court need not belabor Plaintiffs ADA claim, because the ADA does not apply to the federal government employers, as here, and therefore provides Plaintiff no basis for relief.

The ADA does not permit federal employees to bring disability-discrimination claims; the Rehabilitation Act is their exclusive remedy.

Zblewska v. Wilkie · filed 2019-07-29

Count II alleges that Defendant’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation and removal of Plaintiff from her position violate the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). The ADA, however, does not allow federal employees to bring disability discrimination claims; their “sole remedy” for such claims is the Rehabilitation Act. Mannie v. Potter, 394 F.3d 977, 982 (7th Cir. 2005); Atiogbe v. Brennan, 2017 WL 2215017, at *5, n. 14 (N.D. Ill. May 19, 2017). Plaintiff was a federal employee at all times relevant to her suit. In the suit, Plaintiff alleges that her employer, a federal agency, discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. Therefore, Plaintiff may not bring a claim under the ADA, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment [25] must be granted with regard to Count II.

The ADA does not provide a cause of action for federal employees' employment-discrimination claims.

Wallace v. McCarthy · filed 2019-09-30

First, Wallace’s ADA claim must be dismissed because, as a federal employee, the ADA does not provide her with a cause of action.

The ADA is not the proper vehicle for a federal employee's disability-discrimination claim against a federal agency; § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act is the exclusive remedy.

Hernandez v. United States Postal Service · filed 2020-05-28

Although Plaintiff purports to bring his claim for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., this claim is properly brought under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act because Plaintiff is a federal employee and alleges this claim against a federal agency.

For federal employees alleging workplace disability discrimination, the Rehabilitation Act—not the ADA—provides the exclusive judicial remedy.

Husain v. Warren · filed 2021-02-19

Because “the Rehabilitation Act provides the exclusive judicial remedy for federal employees who allege that they are victims of workplace discrimination based on disabilities,” Husain I, 2016 WL 4435177, at *4 (citing Richardson v. Yellen, 167 F. Supp. 3d 105, 118 (D.D.C. 2016)), the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim and will consider Plaintiff’s claim under the Rehabilitation Act alone.

The ADA does not apply to federal agencies or their employees.

Perdue v. Post Master · filed 2021-09-03

Furthermore, the ADA does not apply to federal agencies or employees. See Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1155 (9th Cir. 2002).

The ADA does not provide a remedy for federal employees’ disability-discrimination claims; the Rehabilitation Act is the exclusive vehicle for those claims.

Lozada v. United States Postal Service · filed 2022-03-28

“Finally, the ADA provides no remedy to federal employees. … Instead, the Rehabilitation Act covers those employees.” Dorsey v. Kelly, No. CV 17-1542 (PAD), 2017 WL 571268, at *4 (D.P.R. Nov. 28, 2017) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, the Court finds that the proper and only vehicle to seek redress from discrimination and retaliation is by the federal employee filing his claim under the Rehabilitation Act, as prescribed by Congress when approving the applicable statutes.

The ADA does not provide an employment-discrimination remedy to federal employees; federal employees must seek relief under the Rehabilitation Act.

Arana-Allende v. United States Department of Agricultural Development Agency · filed 2023-01-31

Although Plaintiff raises claims under the ADA, as Defendant correctly argues, it is the Rehabilitation Act which applies to federal agencies, contractors and recipients of federal financial assistance. ... The ADA only applies to private employers with over 15 employees and state and local governments, and as Plaintiff was a federal employee, she must seek relief under the Rehabilitation Act. ... Although the ADA does not apply to the present case, the case law construing the ADA, in its applicable part, pertains equally to discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act.

The ADA does not apply to federal employees’ disability-based employment-discrimination claims; the Rehabilitation Act is their exclusive remedy.

Austin v. Becker · filed 2024-04-03

Plaintiff asserts that her lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. See Complaint at 3. However, the ADA is not applicable to employment discrimination claims brought by a federal employee, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 791, et seq., is a federal employee’s exclusive remedy for employment discrimination claims based on a disability. Jones v. Potter, 488 F.3d 397, 403 (6th Cir. 2007); Plautz v. Potter, 156 F. App’x 812, 815 (6th Cir. 2005). Because pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed and because claims brought under both acts are largely analyzed in the same manner, the Court views Plaintiff’s complaint as being brought under the RA. Plautz, 156 F. App’x at 816 (construing ADA claim as a Rehabilitation Act claim).

The ADA does not provide a claim based solely on an improper medical-treatment decision.

Shelton v. ARKANSAS DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES · filed 2012-05-15

The district court correctly held that a claim based upon improper medical treatment decision may not be brought pursuant to either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. ... We believe, therefore, that the physician's decision to remove Brenda from suicide watch in this case is properly characterized as a medical-treatment decision and that the district court properly dismissed the statutory claim.

The ADA does not make an inmate's denial of dental treatment, including prosthodontics, a violation by itself.

Wood · filed 2026-02-03

A defendant does not violate the ADA by denying dental treatment (prosthodontics) to an inmate.’

The ADA requires a fact-specific inquiry into whether a job function is essential; physical presence at a specific time is not automatically essential for every job.

McMillan v. City of New York · filed 2013-03-04

Physical presence at or by a specific time is not, as a matter of law, an essential function of all employment. While a timely arrival is normally an essential function, a court must still conduct a fact-specific inquiry, drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Such an inquiry was not conducted here.

The ADA requires a plaintiff asserting employment discrimination, harassment, or retaliation to allege a protected disability classification and exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.

Velasquez · filed 2025-11-14

If Plaintiff intended to plead a claim for hostile work environment, discrimination, or retaliation, then he would need to allege membership in a protected classification under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 45 the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),46 or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).47 But Plaintiff has made no such allegations: he does not identify his race or age, any disability, or any other protected classification, nor does he make any complaint about discrimination or harassment. ... Claims for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA require that a plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit.49 Accordingly, his claim(s) for hostile work environment, discrimination, or retaliation must be dismissed.

The ADA requires an employee bringing an employment-discrimination claim to exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before suing the employer.

Crist v. The Denver Post · filed 2023-12-21

Mr. Crist alleges that DP Media discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 24-34-401 et seq. (“CADA”). The problem for Mr. Crist is that employment discrimination claims brought under either statute must first be administratively exhausted. Under the ADA, before an employee may bring a discrimination lawsuit against their employer, the employee must first exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Wickware v. Manville, 676 F. App’x 753, 767 (10th Cir. 2017).