Latest news with #AmericanswithDisabilitiesActof1990
Time Business News
5 days ago
- Business
- Time Business News
Understanding ADA Compliance: Essential for Business Success
In today's world, ensuring that your business is ADA compliant is not only a legal requirement but also a moral obligation. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was established to prevent discrimination based on disability and to guarantee that individuals with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else. This blog will delve into the importance of ADA compliance, the steps to achieve it, and the benefits it brings to businesses and society. ADA compliance refers to the adherence to the standards set forth by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This federal law mandates that public and private spaces, including businesses, be accessible to individuals with disabilities. The ADA covers a wide range of areas, including employment, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. Physical Accessibility: Ensuring that physical spaces such as entrances, restrooms, and pathways are accessible to individuals with mobility impairments. Communication Accessibility: Providing accessible communication methods, such as sign language interpreters, closed captioning, and accessible websites. Employment Practices: Implementing non-discriminatory hiring practices and providing reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Public Services: Making public services and facilities accessible to all individuals, including those with disabilities. Businesses that fail to comply with ADA regulations can face significant legal repercussions. Non-compliance can result in lawsuits, fines, and damage to the business's reputation. Therefore, ensuring ADA complaint is crucial to avoid these legal issues. ADA compliance promotes inclusivity and accessibility, allowing individuals with disabilities to participate fully in society. By making your business ADA compliant, you are ensuring that everyone, regardless of their abilities, can access your services and facilities. An ADA-compliant business provides a better customer experience. When customers feel welcomed and accommodated, they are more likely to return and recommend your business to others. This can lead to increased customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth marketing. Employees with disabilities who work in ADA-compliant environments are more likely to be productive and satisfied with their jobs. Providing reasonable accommodations and an inclusive workplace fosters a positive work culture and boosts employee morale. The first step towards ADA compliance is to conduct a thorough audit of your business premises and practices. This involves assessing physical spaces, communication methods, and employment practices to identify areas that need improvement. Based on the audit results, implement the necessary changes to ensure ADA compliance. This may include modifying physical spaces, updating communication methods, and revising employment policies. It is important to prioritize these changes and address the most critical issues first. Training employees on ADA compliance is essential to create an inclusive and accessible environment. Educate your staff on the importance of ADA Website Compliance and how to interact with individuals with disabilities. Regular training sessions can help reinforce these principles and keep employees informed about any updates or changes. ADA regulations may change over time, so it is important to stay informed about any updates or revisions. Regularly review the ADA guidelines and consult with legal experts to ensure that your business remains compliant. By making your business ADA compliant, you are opening your doors to a larger customer base. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 1 in 4 Americans has a disability. Ensuring accessibility means that a significant portion of the population can access your services and products. An ADA-compliant business is seen as socially responsible and inclusive. This can enhance your brand reputation and attract customers who value businesses that prioritize accessibility and inclusivity. ADA compliance goes beyond legal obligations; it reflects a commitment to creating a more inclusive and equitable society. By making your business accessible to individuals with disabilities, you are contributing to a positive community impact and promoting social justice. Ensuring ADA compliance is not just about following the law; it is about creating a welcoming and inclusive environment for all individuals. By understanding the importance of ADA compliance and taking the necessary steps to achieve it, businesses can enhance their customer experience, improve employee morale, and avoid legal issues. Moreover, ADA compliance reflects a commitment to social responsibility and contributes to a more equitable society. CONTACT US to make ADA compliance a priority for your business and start realizing the many benefits it brings. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
MTV Lebanon
12-06-2025
- Politics
- MTV Lebanon
12 Jun 2025 20:44 PM US Supreme Court bolsters school disability protections
The U.S. Supreme Court sided on Thursday with a severely epileptic girl who is pursuing a disability discrimination lawsuit against a Minnesota public school district in a ruling that bolsters protections for students with disabilities in American schools. The 9-0 ruling threw out a lower court's decision that the Osseo Area Schools district had not discriminated against student Ava Tharpe in violation of two federal disability rights laws, as a lawsuit brought by her parents argued. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the ruling, wrote that the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred by requiring students to satisfy a heightened legal standard for disability discrimination claims against schools than is typically required in other contexts. Federal appeals courts had been divided on whether disability discrimination claims arising in school settings require a heightened legal standard, meaning the stricter requirement had applied in some parts of the country but not others. The Supreme Court ruling harmonizes the standard nationally. Claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that are "based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," Roberts wrote. Roberts added that nothing in the relevant text of those laws suggests that "such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis." Roman Martinez, a lawyer for Tharpe, called the ruling "a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country." "We are grateful to the Supreme Court for its decision holding that these children should enjoy the same rights and protections as all other Americans with disabilities," Martinez said, adding that ruling would "protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all." Tharpe suffers from severe epilepsy that prevents her from attending school before noon due to morning seizures but permits her to engage in school work after that until about 6 p.m. At issue in the case was whether the legal standard applied by the 8th Circuit in rejecting Tharpe's discrimination claims was overly strict, and if a less stringent standard should have applied. When Tharpe and her family lived in Kentucky, her public school district tailored an education plan to her disability that included supplemental evening instruction at home, providing her with the same amount of school time as her peers. In 2015, her family moved to Minnesota, and Tharpe began attending the public schools in the Osseo Area Schools district in the suburbs of Minneapolis. For years, the district refused to accommodate a request by her parents that she receive evening instruction, leading Tharpe to receive fewer hours of education per day compared to her peers, according to court papers. Tharpe and her parents in 2021 filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Osseo district of discrimination under two federal disability laws. The lawsuit sought an accommodation from the district giving the girl the equivalent of a full school day, as well as monetary damages. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis in Minneapolis in 2023 ordered the school district to extend Tharpe's instructional day until 6 p.m. and to provide compensatory hours of instruction. But the judge rejected Tharpe's discrimination claims, ruling that her parents had failed to show that the school district satisfied a heightened legal standard of "bad faith or gross misjudgment." The 8th Circuit upheld the judge's ruling, prompting Tharpe and her parents to appeal her disability discrimination claims to the Supreme Court.
USA Today
12-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides with teen with epilepsy in disability discrimination case
Supreme Court sides with teen with epilepsy in disability discrimination case At issue: a student was receiving only about 4 hours of instruction a day, less than her nondisabled peers, because of a lack of accommodation for her disability. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court hears arguments on judges' block on Trump birthright EO The justices heard arguments on whether its ok for judges to universally block President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order. WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 12 unanimously sided with a disabled student trying to sue her school for not doing enough to accommodate her rare form of epilepsy, a decision that could make it easier for families to seek damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The justices said a lower court used the wrong standard when rejecting the discrimination lawsuit. The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, was being closely watched by disability rights groups who say the courts have created a 'nearly insurmountable barrier' for help sought by schoolchildren and their families. But school officials across the country worry that making lawsuits easier to win will create a more adversarial relationship between parents and schools in the difficult negotiations needed to balance a student's needs with a school's limited resources. Seizures prevent attending school before noon In this case, Gina and Aaron Tharpe said they spent years asking Osseo Area School District to accommodate their daughter's severe cognitive impairment and rare form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon. A previous school in Tennessee shifted Ava's school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home. But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school system, where she is currently enrolled, refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, about two-thirds of what nondisabled students received. Judge says school didn't do enough A local judge said in 2021 the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs; instead, they were concerned with a desire to keep employees from having to work past the traditional end of the school day. The district was required to provide more instruction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But while a federal judge backed that decision, the court said the Tharpes couldn't also use the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to seek compensatory damages and court order to permanently set the hours of instruction. Section 504 is the law that started school-based ''504 plans'', a central tool for providing accommodations to students with disabilities. More: For students with disabilities, what's the difference between IEPs and 504 plans? The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits involving educational services for children with disabilities. The Tharpes 'may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that's just not enough,' the appeals court said. More: Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections? School said there was no intentional discrimination Hundreds of district court decisions across the country have been litigated under that standard, with most of them ending in a loss for the families, according to Tharpes' attorneys. Those courts were unfairly using a tougher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases based on educational services, their attorneys argued − with the support of the Justice Department. Attorneys for the school district argued the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination, which is not what happened here. They also say the school did not show 'deliberate indifference.' Although the school declined to provide after-school support at Ava's home, officials said they offered other measures to accommodate her needs while 'effectively utilizing scarce resources shared among all students, including others with disabilities.' The court's decision revives, but does not settle, the Tharpe's lawsuit.
Chicago Tribune
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Griffith student places second in state with doc on disability rights activist
A Griffith High School student recently placed second in Indiana's National History Day competition, which helped her documentary on a disability rights activist advance to the national competition. 'I was so proud of myself and everyone that helped me with it,' Natalie Wadkins, a junior at Griffith High School, said. 'I hope people take away that inclusion starts with them.' In the 10-minute documentary, Wadkins highlights the work of Kitty Cone, who was born with muscular dystrophy, and her fight for federal approval of Section 504 part of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which stated that any program receiving federal funding couldn't exclude or discriminate against people with disabilities, Wadkins said. The law wasn't enforced for four years, Wadkins said, which sparked anger and frustration among people with disabilities, Wadkins said. So, Cone and other activists organized a sit-in at the San Francisco Federal Building, she said. The 504 sit-in began April 5, 1977, and the activists remained in the building for nearly a month, making it the longest sit-in inside a federal building in U.S. history, Wadkins said. Cone was a key component of the sit-in, Wadkins said, as she organized resources, like beds and first-aid, and connected with members of other organizations, like the Black Panthers, to grow the movement for the sit-in and disability rights. Ultimately, on April 28, 1977, the government implemented Section 504, Wadkins said. But, activists like Cone continued to push for expanded rights for people with disabilities, like the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, she said. After the sit-in, Cone went on to advocate for better accessibility, work protections and representation for people with disabilities, Wadkins said. Wadkins, who is the vice president of Griffith High School's Best Buddies program, said she chose to research the 504 sit-in because the topic of disability rights is important to her. As a member of Best Buddies, Wadkins said she spends time with students with intellectual disabilities. 'I see the barriers that they face,' Wadkins said. 'Best Buddies has shown me how important inclusion and advocacy are in real life, just every day. It's made me want to highlight the leaders that made their lives better.' Wadkins worked on the documentary for National History Day as part of her Advanced Placement U.S. History class. Wadkins began researching the 504 sit-in by reading books and articles, and listening to first-hand accounts of the sit-in, she said. Then, she wrote the script for the documentary and began gathering historical photos, video and audio clips, Wadkins said. As she edited the documentary together, Wadkins said she focused on pacing, emotional impact and accuracy. The National History Day competition begins at the district level, Wadkins said, and four students advance to the state level. Wadkins said four students submitted entries for the district level, so they all advanced to state. At the state level, Wadkins said her documentary was up against eight other documentaries. The judges had to choose four documentaries to advance to the final round, she said. When her documentary ended, Wadkins said one of the three judges sat back and said, 'wow.' They told her they liked how she put closed captions in the documentary, which provided accessibility for the hearing impaired. 'They said they enjoyed that I practice what I preach,' Wadkins said. 'They were really inspired by my passion and drive to this topic.' By placing second at the state level, Wadkins advanced to the national competition. Wadkins said she and another student from Indiana will go to the University of Maryland in June to compete. Griffith Public Schools Superintendent Leah Dumezich applauded Wadkins' accomplishment. 'Natalie is an example of a student who achieves in the classroom and out of the classroom,' Dumezich said in an email. 'She has demonstrated integrity, self-discipline, and genuine leadership qualities. We are very proud of her and wish her the best of luck.' Julie Larson, an English and Language Arts teacher at Griffith High School, said she helped Wadkins with editing the documentary. Larson said Wadkins found a topic that's 'really unique to talk about.' 'You can tell that there's passion there for her topic,' Larson said. 'I'm just thrilled for her.' At the national competition, Wadkins and thousands of other students will present their projects in various categories over the course of preliminary and final rounds. Wadkins said she's excited to advance to the national level, and she hopes her documentary will have an even greater impact at that level of the competition. 'I'm really excited. I'm grateful,' Wadkins said. 'Even if I don't win, I just want to educate more people on the topic.' akukulka@
New York Post
30-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Neil Gorsuch scolds Supreme Court litigator in rare, heated exchange: ‘I'm not finished'
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch scolded an experienced lawyer during oral arguments Monday in a case centered on disability discrimination in public schools – a rare and heated exchange that surprised many longtime court-watchers. The tense exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case centered on whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Gorsuch scolded Williams & Connolly lawyer Lisa Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator representing the Minnesota public schools, for accusing the plaintiffs of 'lying' in their assertions before the high court. Plaintiffs in the case are representing the parents of a girl with severe epilepsy, who sued the public school for refusing to provide at-home school during the morning, an accommodation she would receive in other districts in the state. The exchange between Gorsuch and Blatt took place after she accused them of lying about the public school's stance. 4 Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch stands during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021. Getty Images Counsel 'should be more careful with their words,' Gorsuch told Blatt in a warning. 'OK well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect,' Blatt responded. Later, he referenced the lying accusation again. 'Ms. Blatt,' Gorsuch told her, 'I confess I'm still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied.' 4 A general view of the Supreme Court building located at 1 First Street NE in Washington, DC on April 15, 2025. Christopher Sadowski 'OK,' she fired back. 'Let's pull it up. In oral arguments…' Gorsuch cut in, telling her, 'I think we're going to have to, here. And I'd ask you to reconsider that phrase.' 'You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying–' Gorsuch said, before Blatt attempted to interject. 4 Judge Neil Gorsuch is sworn in as an associate justice of the Supreme Court in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, U.S., April 10, 2017. REUTERS 'Ms. Blatt, if I might finish,' Gorsuch said, before continuing: 'But lying is another matter.' He then started to read through page one of their brief, before she interrupted again. 'I'm not finished,' Gorsuch told her, raising his voice. 'Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt,' he then told her of the lying accusation. 4 A general view of the Supreme Court building located at 1 First Street NE in Washington, DC on April 15, 2025. Christopher Sadowski 'Fine, I withdraw,' she shot back. Plaintiffs said on rebuttal only that they would not dignify the name-calling. The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who noted of the exchange on social media, 'I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry.'
