U.S. Department
of Justice
Disability Rights Cases
Cox v. City of Boston
On December 3, 2024, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Cox v. City of Boston, No. 1:22-cv-11009 (D. Mass.) addressing the correct interpretation of the health services exception in the ADA as applied to a police department. The health services exception is an exception to the ADA’s exclusion of individuals who currently illegally use drugs, and states that “an individual shall not be denied health services, or services provided in connection with drug rehabilitation, on the basis of the current illegal use of drugs if the individual is otherwise entitled to such services.” 42 U.S.C. § 12210(c). Under Title II of the ADA, the Exception applies to the denial of health services provided by any public entity covered by Title II, including state and local police departments. The case was brought by the estate of an individual with opioid use disorder, who died of an opioid overdose while in overnight detention after being arrested by the Boston Police Department.
U.S. v. Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation
On September 12, 2024, the United States filed a Complaint against Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation under Title III of the ADA. The complaint alleges that Johns Hopkins denied individuals with disabilities equal access to medical care by excluding their necessary support persons (such as a family member, personal assistant, or other individual knowledgeable about them). As a result, these patients were unable to receive equal care. These patients had disabilities such as dementia, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual and developmental disabilities, and mental health disabilities.
On September 12, 2024, the United States simultaneously filed a proposed Consent Decree to resolve the allegations of the Complaint. Under the proposed consent decree, which the court must approve, Johns Hopkins has agreed to pay $150,000 to compensate multiple affected individuals. Johns Hopkins will also update its support person policies to ensure ADA compliance, train its employees on its support person policies and the ADA, and report to the department on any future complaints regarding support persons.
U.S. v. Spanish Schoolhouse, LLC
On August 29, 2024, the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Texas executed a settlement agreement with the Spanish Schoolhouse, LLC pursuant to Title III of the ADA. The settlement agreement resolved a complaint that the Spanish Schoolhouse denied admission to a child with disabilities because the child had epilepsy and needed assistance with the administration of medication if the child experienced seizures. The agreement requires the company to adopt and implement an anti-discrimination policy, an emergency anti-seizure medication administration policy, training, and reporting.
Utah Department of Corrections
On July 10, 2024, the Justice Department filed its Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the United States' complaint. In our brief, we explained that gender dysphoria is not excluded from the ADA's definition of disability in 42 U.S.C. § 12211(b)(1) because, contrary to Defendants' arguments, gender dysphoria is not a “sexual behavior disorder” or a “gender identity disorder.”
On April 2, 2024, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the State of Utah and the Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) alleging UDOC violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by discriminating against an incarcerated transgender woman on the basis of her disability, gender dysphoria. The complaint alleges that UDOC failed to provide the complainant with equal access to health care services and failed to make reasonable modifications to its policies and practices to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.
On March 12, 2024, the Justice Department issued a letter notifying UDOC that it violated the ADA by discriminating against an incarcerated transgender woman on the basis of her disability, gender dysphoria. The letter outlined the minimum remedial measures UDOC must take to address the violations identified and invited UDOC to work with the United States to reach an appropriate resolution.
U.S. v. MedStar Health, Inc.
On January 30, 2024, the United States filed a Complaint against MedStar Health, Inc., a leading healthcare provider in Maryland and the greater Washington, D.C., region. The lawsuit, filed under Title III of the ADA, alleges that MedStar Health denied people with disabilities equal access to medical care by excluding their necessary support persons. The suit alleges that MedStar Health failed to modify visitor restrictions so that people with certain disabilities, which affected their ability to independently access medical care, could be accompanied by their support persons (such as a family member, companion, or aide). These included individuals with dementia, intellectual disabilities, or autism spectrum disorder whose disabilities prevented them from providing medical history or understanding medical directions. As a result, they were unable to receive equal care without the assistance of their support person.
On January 30, 2024, the United States simultaneously filed a proposed Consent Decree to resolve the allegations of the Complaint. Under the proposed Consent Decree, MedStar Health has agreed to pay a total of $440,000 to compensate affected individuals. MedStar Health will also revise its policies to ensure ADA compliance, train its workforce on the new policies, and report to the Department on any future exclusion of support persons, as defined in the Decree.
Alabama Medicaid
On December 5, 2022, the United States executed a settlement agreement with the state of Alabama's Medicaid Agency (Alabama Medicaid), under Title II of the ADA regarding access to health services. The agreement will ensure that Alabama Medicaid recipients with Hepatitis C (HCV) who also use alcohol or illicit drugs, including those with a substance abuse disorder (SUD), will be provided equal access to medications to treat their hepatitis. Alabama Medicaid previously maintained a sobriety restriction policy that prevented any person with HCV who had used any alcohol or illicit drugs within the six months prior to treatment initiation from receiving potentially life-saving medication to cure their HCV. Alabama Medicaid has withdrawn the policy and the agreement requires notification to Medicaid recipients and Medicaid providers of these changes and prompt remediation of any instances where the prior policy is applied.
On January 24, 2024, the Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services issued a Dear Colleague Letter to state Medicaid administrators urging them to ensure that their Medicaid programs allow access to life-saving medications for people with Hepatitis C (HCV), regardless of whether or not they also have substance use disorder (SUD), in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Doe v. Georgia Department of Corrections
On January 8, 2024, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest explaining that gender dysphoria can be a covered disability under the ADA. The statement of interest was filed in Doe v. Georgia Department of Corrections, a private lawsuit by a transgender woman alleging that she is receiving inadequate medical treatment for her gender dysphoria while incarcerated, in violation of Titles II and III of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Department's statement clarifies that gender dysphoria can be a covered disability under the ADA and is not subject to the ADA’s exclusion of gender identity disorders.
State of Nevada ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections
On June 20, 2016, the Justice Department issued a letter of findings concluding that the Nevada Department of Corrections’ (NDOC) policies and practices for housing and employing inmates with disabilities violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The department found that NDOC’s discriminatory practices have resulted in the illegal segregation and stigmatization of inmates with HIV and the incarceration of inmates with disabilities for longer periods, in more restrictive settings, than inmates without disabilities.
On February 11, 2021, the Department of Justice reached an agreement to resolve its findings that NDOC unjustifiably isolated and segregated inmates with HIV, failed to keep their HIV status confidential, and denied them equal employment opportunities, including in food service positions. The agreement also resolves the department’s findings that NDOC denied inmates with disabilities—including mobility disabilities, HIV, and other physical or mental health conditions—classification and housing at lower-custody levels and facilities. At these lower-custody facilities, inmates have the opportunity to participate in various programs and gradually reintegrate back into the community as well as earn additional credits to reduce the lengths of their sentences. Under the agreement, Nevada will amend its policies, practices, and procedures, train NDOC staff and inmates on HIV and disability discrimination, designate statewide and facility-specific ADA Coordinators, and implement an ADA grievance procedure. On July 7, 2023, the Department and Nevada entered into an 18-month extension and addendum to the agreement. The extension was necessary because the global COVID-19 pandemic required Nevada to take measures to prevent and mitigate the spread of the virus within its facilities and allocate resources to its COVID-19 response.
United States v. Florida
On February 16, 2023, the United States filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the manner in which Florida administers its service systems for children with complex medical needs, children with disabilities are unnecessarily segregated in nursing facilities when they could be served in their family homes or other community-based settings. The lawsuit further alleges that the State’s policies and practices place children with complex medical needs in the community at serious risk of institutionalization in nursing facilities, in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Amended Complaint asks the court to declare that Florida is discriminating against children with complex medical needs in violation of Title II, and to order the State to provide services to such children in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The United States initiated this lawsuit on July 22, 2013, following the issue of a letter of findings in September 2012. On May 30, 2014, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied Florida’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the Attorney General has authority to sue to enforce Title II of the ADA. The court later dismissed the United States’ claims, concluding that the United States does not have authority to sue to enforce Title II of the ADA. The United States appealed, and on September 17, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision and judgment in favor of the United States. Florida petitioned for rehearing en banc on October 29, 2019. The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition for rehearing en banc on December 22, 2021, and remanded the case to the district court on January 11, 2022. On June 15, 2022, the United States filed an Amended Complaint in this ongoing lawsuit against the State of Florida. On August 12, 2022, the United States filed a brief in opposition to the State of Florida's motion to dismiss, which the Court denied.
Tufts Medical Center
On February 28, 2020, the United States executed a Settlement Agreement under Title III of the ADA with Tufts Medical Center to ensure physical access for individuals with disabilities by removing barriers at public and common use areas, providing additional accessible patient rooms, and improving effective communication for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing by adding new policies and procedures. On February 2, 2023, the United States entered into a two-year extension and addendum to the Settlement. The extension was necessary because of the COVID-19 pandemic, to allow Tufts to complete barrier removal to accessible patient rooms and for the United States to verify compliance.
U.S. v. Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center, PC
On December 20, 2021, the United States sued Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center, PC (BDP), an optometry and ophthalmology provider with 24 facilities, for violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by refusing to transfer certain patients with disabilities from wheelchairs onto surgical and exam tables and instead requiring these patients to hire third-party medical support personnel to transport them to and from BDP facilities and to provide transfer assistance at the facilities.
On April 18, 2022, the United States filed an Amended Complaint to add Medical Management Resources Group, L.L.C., d/b/a American Vision Partners Holdings, L.L.C. (AVP) (collectively, Defendants) as a co-defendant. AVP partners with nearly 80 eye care facilities in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Texas including: Southwestern Eye Center, M & M Eye Institute, Retinol Consultants of Arizona, Abrams Eye Institute, Southwest Eye Institute, Aiello Eye Institute, Havasu Eye Center, Visage Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery and Moretsky Cassidy Vision Correction. The Amended Complaint also added allegations that AVP and BDP have also denied eye surgery outright to patients who need transfer assistance.
On January 17, 2023, the United States filed its proposed Consent Decree to resolve allegations that Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center PC and Medical Management Resources Group, L.L.C., d/b/a American Vision Partners Holdings, L.L.C. (collectively, Defendants) violate Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit alleges that Defendants' eye care practices discriminate against patients who, because of their disabilities, need assistance transferring from their wheelchairs for eye surgery. The U.S alleges that Defendants required patients with disabilities who needed transfer assistance to use and pay for third party medical transport and transfer assistance as a condition of surgery, in violation of the ADA. Additionally, the U.S. also alleges that Defendants denied eye surgery outright to some patients who needed transfer assistance. This discriminatory practice delayed needed medical care and resulted in significant harms to individuals who need eye surgery. Under the consent decree, Defendants will change their anti-discrimination and transfer assistance policies to provide for transfer assistance at their facilities. They will also train staff on the new policy requirements and on safe transfer techniques and pay $950,000 to patients and prospective patients who were harmed by its policies and a civil penalty of $50,000.
Helping Hands Caregivers LLC
On September 15, 2022 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin reached a settlement agreement under Title III of the ADA with Helping Hands Caregivers LLC to resolve allegations that the company refused to provide in-home caregiving services to an individual with HIV. The agreement includes adoption of a non-discrimination policy, training of staff, written notification to the Department of future complaints, and $10,000 in compensatory damages for the individual.