Tag: Americans with Disabilities Act

Accessibility Behind Bars: ADA Compliance in Prisons

Among the limited rights of incarcerated individuals, those ensuring fair and human treatment are often the subject of debate and frequently go unenforced. In the past few years, complaints have arisen concerning the poor and unequal treatment of inmates with disabilities, sparking lawsuits and questions over whether U.S. prisons are complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which aims to protect individuals with disabilities in various areas of public life.

Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act) to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities in federal employment, federally funded programs, and programs conducted by federal agencies, including federal prisons. The ADA, applicable to state prisons, was initially passed in 1990 and updated in 2010 to include official standards for accessible design. The 2010 standards require at least 3% of cells to be accessible to people with mobility disabilities, and at least 2% to be equipped with communication accommodations for people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The ADA furthermore states integrated setting policies which assert that inmates or detainees with disabilities should not be placed in facilities that do not offer the same programs as where they would otherwise be held. Additionally, they should not be denied access to available programs and activities, including education, work release, visitation, and vocational opportunities.

Although the ADA and Rehab Act intended to accommodate incarcerated individuals with disabilities, without enforcement, they are rendered ineffective. In 2022, a lawsuit was filed against the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department for their detention facilities failing to comply with the ADA. A deaf inmate at a San Diego County jail reported that he was taken to the jail’s dentist for tooth pain, but could not communicate with the dentist or jail staff because he was not provided an interpreter. Fourteen other disabled plaintiffs testified that they experienced similar treatment, including two wheelchair users who were given inaccessible bunk bed assignments, one of whom was told he had two options, “sleeping on the floor, or trying to climb up to the third bunk.”

Similar violations of the ADA have occurred in detention facilities across the country. In Georgia, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Georgia, and the National Association of the Deaf brought a lawsuit on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates overseen by the Georgia Department of Corrections. The suit, initially brought in 2018, is still ongoing, and as of April 2025, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is pending. The plaintiffs claim that because the communication events are not accessible, they are not given notice of the prison’s rules and procedures, subjecting them to disciplinary actions for failing to comply with unexplained rules. Furthermore, the plaintiffs have been unable to attend activities and educational opportunities required for prerelease because of the lack of accessibility for the deaf and hard-of-hearing.

A similar complaint was filed in 2023 against the Minnesota Department of Corrections for failing to notify individuals with disabilities about modifications to GED courses, practice tests, and exams, preventing them from applying for accommodations, such as extended time and breaks. Participation in educational courses can lead to a reduced sentence; therefore, by denying inmates accommodations, prisons could be keeping them incarcerated longer than they would have been had accommodations been provided. The Minnesota Department of Corrections subsequently agreed to comply with the ADA and provide accommodations so that inmates with disabilities can participate in GED courses. They also agreed to require training for facility personnel on the ADA and disability discrimination and pay over $70,000 in compensatory damages to the individuals affected by the discrimination.

Recently, additional claims have surfaced regarding ADA compliance in prisons, including denial of proper medical care to incarcerated individuals with disabilities. Although courts uphold ADA standards for equal access to public services, the claims must be specifically applicable to the ADA or the Rehab Act, and incarcerated people must adhere to a standard form for filing civil rights lawsuits. Given that many incarcerated individuals with disabilities lack general resources, let alone information on how to file a complaint, it is likely that many ADA and Rehab act violations go unchallenged.

Domino’s Pizza May Deliver the Supreme Court a Chance to Modernize the ADA

The Supreme Court of the United States could soon provide
greater clarity to the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) jurisdiction
over websites and mobile apps.

Domino’s Pizza is reportedly preparing a petition for certiorari to appeal a Ninth Circuit decision, Robles v. Domino’s (913 F.3d 898), which held that blind plaintiff, Guillermo Robles, could proceed with a lawsuit against Domino’s after alleging the pizza purveyor’s website and mobile app were inaccessible to him using screen-reading software. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court and held that the ADA applies to the website and mobile application as services of a place of public accommodation. If the Supreme Court accepts Domino’s “cert petition” for Robles, the Court would have the opportunity to rule on the issue of whether websites and mobile apps must comply with ADA standards.

The ADA was passed in 1990 under
President George H.W. Bush as the “world’s first comprehensive declaration of
equality for people with disabilities.” Since
then, the ADA has been further refined and empowered by a mix of
legislation and landmark Supreme Court cases.
The ADA, at its core, is a law
that “prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all
areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public
and private places that are open to the general public.”

Although the ADA’s jurisdiction over those places listed
above is clear, its claim over the internet has been tenable at best. The ADA still
does not address digital or online compliance specifically, even as our
lives become increasingly digitized. The current state of the law regarding
online compliance to ADA standards is made up of a patchwork of federal appellate
court decisions, which often have different
or contradicting standards. This legal uncertainty was highlighted in
2018, in which over 2,250 website accessibility lawsuits were filed in the
U.S., increasing from 814 the year before. Still, the Supreme
Court has yet to take up one of these cases to provide clarity in the law
and relief to lower courts. A ruling by the Court on a website accessibility
case could replace the appellate patchwork of case law with a single federal
standard.

In Robles, the district court granted Domino’s summary judgment motion and dismissed the case holding that “imposing […] standards on Domino’s without specifying a particular level of success criteria and without the Department of Justice (DOJ) offering meaningful guidance on this topic … fl[ew] in the face of due process.”

The case was then appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which
reversed the district court’s dismissal, holding
that the ADA applied to websites and mobile apps for operators of places of
public accommodation. This holding reaffirmed the standard “that, to be covered
by the ADA, a website or mobile app must have a
nexus to a physical place of public accommodation.” The court expounded
upon this noting that the ADA applies to services “of a place of public accommodation,” not “in a place of public accommodation.” The distinction by the court broadens
the applicability of the ADA from beyond the physical space to websites and
mobile apps.

The Ninth Circuit stated
there was such a nexus, as the “alleged inaccessibility of Domino’s website and
app impedes access to the goods and services of its physical pizza franchises –
which are places of public accommodation.” Additionally, the Ninth Circuit held
that due process did not require DOJ to issue specific guidelines as Domino’s had
been on notice “since
1996 of DOJ’s position that its website and app must provide effective
communication.”

After the decision by the Ninth Circuit, Domino’s requested
a sixty-day extension to file a petition of certiorari with the Supreme Court,
which was subsequently granted
by Justice Kagan; the petition must now be filed by June 14, 2019. In the
request, Domino’s
states, “[t]he Ninth Circuit’s decision in this case presents important and
complex issues concerning the scope of the ADA, the resolution of which will
have a significant impact on all businesses and institutions seeking to
maintain an online presence.”

The stage is set for an overdue landmark determination of
the extent of ADA’s jurisdiction over websites and mobile applications if a
“cert petition” is filed and granted. A decision
by the Supreme Court, in this case, could have immediate and far-reaching
implications for both businesses and individuals covered under the ADA. Thus, lawyers,
industry leaders, and ADA-covered individuals are closely watching
this case as it develops.