The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. One of the key provisions of the ADA is the right of individuals with disabilities to file complaints or lawsuits against organizations that violate the law. However, recent court rulings have clarified and, in some cases, limited the scope of this right.
The ADA grants individuals with disabilities the right to file complaints with federal agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). These agencies are responsible for investigating complaints and enforcing the ADA. In addition, individuals with disabilities have the right to file lawsuits against organizations that violate the ADA.
One recent court ruling had to do with the time limit for filing ADA complaints. The ADA requires individuals to file complaints within 180 days of the alleged violation. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. For example, if the individual was not aware of the violation when it occurred, they have 180 days from the time they became aware of the violation to file a complaint.
In the case of Hamer v. City of Trinidad, the plaintiff, a former city employee, claimed that the city had discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. She filed a complaint with the EEOC, but the city argued that the complaint was untimely because it was filed 400 days after the alleged violation occurred. The plaintiff argued that she was not aware of the violation until well after it occurred, and therefore the 180-day deadline did not apply.
The court in Hamer v. City of Trinidad sided with the plaintiff, stating that the 180-day deadline did not begin running until the plaintiff became aware of the violation. This ruling is important because it clarifies that individuals with disabilities have a reasonable amount of time to discover that they have been discriminated against and file a complaint.
Another recent court ruling had to do with the use of mandatory arbitration agreements in ADA cases. Arbitration is a process in which disputes are resolved outside of the court system, by a neutral third party who is authorized to make a decision. Some employers and other organizations use mandatory arbitration agreements to prevent employees or customers from filing lawsuits. Instead, disputes must be resolved through arbitration, which can be less favorable to individuals with disabilities.
In the case of Gentry v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., the plaintiff, an employee of Circuit City Stores, claimed that the company had violated the ADA by failing to accommodate her disability. However, Circuit City had a mandatory arbitration agreement that required all disputes to be resolved through arbitration. The plaintiff argued that the agreement was invalid because it prevented her from exercising her rights under the ADA.
The court in Gentry v. Circuit City Stores, Inc. ruled that mandatory arbitration agreements are generally enforceable, but that they cannot be used to waive important statutory rights, such as the right to file an ADA complaint or lawsuit. Therefore, the court determined that the mandatory arbitration agreement was invalid in this case, and the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with her ADA claim in court.
This ruling is important because it clarifies that mandatory arbitration agreements cannot be used to prevent individuals with disabilities from exercising their rights under the ADA. However, it is also important to note that there are some limitations to this ruling. For example, if the arbitration agreement is narrowly tailored to address only certain types of disputes, it may still be considered valid.
A third recent court ruling had to do with the scope of ADA lawsuits. Typically, when an individual files an ADA lawsuit, they are seeking compensation for a specific incident of discrimination or a specific failure to accommodate their disability. However, a recent ruling in the case of Stoutenborough v. National Football League clarified that ADA lawsuits can also seek broader injunctive relief, which means that the court can order an organization to make broader changes to its policies and practices.
In Stoutenborough v. National Football League, the plaintiff, a fan with a mobility disability, claimed that the NFL had violated the ADA by failing to provide adequate accommodations for fans with disabilities at the Super Bowl. The court ruled that the plaintiff could not only seek compensation for her individual damages, but could also seek broader injunctive relief, such as requiring the NFL to implement better policies and practices for accommodating fans with disabilities.
This ruling is important because it clarifies that ADA lawsuits can be used to seek broader changes that can benefit not only the plaintiff, but also other individuals with disabilities. It also sends a message to organizations that they must take their obligations under the ADA seriously and make sure that their policies and practices are inclusive and accessible.
In conclusion, recent court rulings have clarified and, in some cases, expanded the rights of individuals with disabilities when it comes to filing complaints and lawsuits under the ADA. These rulings reinforce the idea that individuals with disabilities have the right to equal treatment and access, and that organizations must take proactive steps to ensure that their policies and practices are inclusive and accessible.