Litigation & Enforcement

Learn about the process of resolving accessibility issues, from addressing concerns with businesses and conducting accessibility audits to taking legal action when necessary. We also discuss the importance of accessibility audits for businesses to avoid legal disputes and highlight resources for both businesses and individuals to comply with ADA requirements.

Why Lawsuits?

But first... Why the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted, people with disabilities were often ignored, pushed to the side, and even abused, both in the workplace and the marketplace. They didn't have a voice—no voice and no power to change their circumstances. It is sufficiently challenging for people with serious disabilities to be able to get through their day without having to suffer from the thoughtlessness or intentional discrimination of others, and at some point the need for legislation protecting them became obvious. A few enlightened individuals in Congress helped to push legislation protecting the disabled from being short-changed by others who saw the disabled as less than themselves, and thus came forth different iterations of disability rights legislation, which has culminated in what we have today in the ADA. 

There are no "ADA Police," so a business, municipality, hospital, school, or other organization that is not abiding by the rules and regulations promulgated by the ADA are encouraged through mediation to make modifications to their policies, practices, or procedures so that the disabled can participate in an equal manner as those who are not disabled. Enforcement of this legislation comes via the United States Department of Justice, as well as the disabled themselves. When mediation breaks down, litigation is the ONLY other vehicle available to the disabled for enforcing this law.   

People, including our own veterans, who live with severe disabilities every day do not understand why, after 30 years since the passage of the ADA, they still cannot get into a business, find a decent seat at a movie theater, use a public restroom, get a cab, or even get through a restaurant entrance as anyone else can. Sometimes, after having being excluded from a special event they really wanted to attend or a meal they were looking forward to, they decide that they will exercise their legal rights if the venue will not cooperate in making their business or facility accessible to people with disabilities—thus, you get lawsuits.

Litigation is a last resort and only happens when the offending business or organization refuses to compromise to provide handicapped accessibility or to remove barriers to handicapped access. Since the ADA is federal legislation, litigation often takes place in federal court, and it is very expensive to defend against a lawsuit alleging violations of the ADA in federal court. Attorneys and expert ADA witnesses with very specialized skills need to be retained, and they are costly. Often, the defendant will be found to be at fault and will be court-ordered to pay the complainant’s attorney fees and expert witness fees, as well as their own. At the end of many lawsuits, the business will be court-ordered to provide more access to the disabled anyway.  

For business owners faced with the prospect of litigation, you might consider other options instead. It makes good business sense to try to work out a resolution that doesn’t involve a year or two of litigation costs and headaches. When a business is willing to compromise by increasing the accessibility of its facility, it will enjoy additional sales and can offset the costs by taking advantage of available tax credits. Best of all, you will know that you have done the right thing in protecting and assisting the disabled community. 

The photo below showing the stairs and ramp that are supposed to provide access to someone in a wheelchair is an exaggerated example of what takes place in many businesses every day. You may feel your business is accessible enough, but if you are not the person needing the access, you probably don't know just how inaccessible your business is. The only way to know for sure and avoid problems is to get an accessibility audit. They are much cheaper than hiring attorneys, and they will help you to accommodate ALL your customers, as the law requires.

Litigating in Federal Court

A federal case usually begins once a document called a "complaint" is filed in a federal court. Once it is filed, the defendant (the business owner or landlord) receives a copy of that complaint along with instructions on how their attorney is to proceed. A business owner often cannot defend their own business in court; they must hire an attorney who has been admitted to practice before the federal bar. Attorneys' fees can cost more than $500 per hour, and there is no guarantee how long each case may take to reach a resolution. Some cases take years to be resolved if a settlement is not reached. 

The Expense of Federal Litigation

ADA legislation is known as "fee-shifting legislation," as the attorneys’ fees for the plaintiff (the disabled person) can be "shifted" to the defendant business or other entity to pay (in addition to their own attorneys’ fees). This is an inducement for the disabled to bring a lawsuit which may eventually have a beneficial impact for many people other than the person initiating the lawsuit. Defending against an ADA case can quickly become very expensive, as expert witnesses may be needed to verify or identify certain information necessary for the prosecution and/or the defense of the case, and as with attorneys’ fees, the defendant business could be held liable for both parties’ fees and costs.   

Defendants may also be required to produce information regarding their personal and business financial information, such as federal income tax returns, state income and sales tax returns, cash register receipts, bank account information, and so on.

Many defendants (business owners or landlords) will either settle their case or run the risk of being held liable for the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs, as well as their own. Cases litigated under the ADA can cost tens of thousands of dollars, with some costing over one hundred thousand dollars. It is much less expensive to make sure your business is providing access as required by law. Tax credits are available to businesses for making their facilities more accessible.

Mediate Instead of Litigate

It is usually preferable to mediate these cases to reach a resolution which is fair and equitable for everyone. Attorneys try to reach an out-of-court settlement that will be cost-effective for a business and protect disability rights. Some businesses that do not understand the law or refuse to compromise on a resolution have to defend their position in court when they are sued. 

The attorneys who work with A4EA are talented, ethical, and committed to disability rights. They know they are serving both the disabled and the broader community by prosecuting these cases, and they are determined to make a difference for those who need the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Litigation is an expensive alternative to mediation. 

USDOJ Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Cases

The U.S. Department of Justice regularly publishes updates on enforcement actions, settlements, and landmark cases that advance disability rights across the country. Stay informed about ongoing efforts to uphold accessibility and equal opportunity under the Americans with Disabilities Act by joining A4EA. Below are a few recent examples that underscore how the ADA’s Title III is being upheld in practice:

United States v. Uber Technologies, Inc. In September 2025, the DOJ filed a Title III ADA lawsuit against rideshare giant Uber Technologies, Inc., alleging that the company discriminated against riders with disabilities, including people who use mobility devices such as stowable wheelchairs, by denying service, charging improper fees, and failing to make reasonable policy modifications to prevent discrimination.

Flix North America, FlixBus, and Greyhound In August 2025, the DOJ opened an investigation into FlixBus and Greyhound to determine whether they violated Title III of the ADA by discriminating against passengers with disabilities. Complaints reported broken or unusable lifts, lack of assistance, and abandonment or inadequate help for disabled passengers during trips. If you believe you have been a victim of disability discrimination by FlixBus or Greyhound, please file a complaint with the DOJ.

Sea Mar Community Health Centers and Subsidiaries In April 2025, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington reached a Title III ADA settlement with Sea Mar Community Health Centers, which operates 28 dental clinics in the region. The agreement requires Sea Mar to improve access for patients with disabilities, including those needing help transferring to or from dental chairs or other equipment.

U.S. v. Fitness International, d.b.a. LA Fitness In October 2024, the United States filed a Title III ADA lawsuit against Fitness International, doing business as LA Fitness, alleging that its facilities include barriers preventing members with disabilities from accessing pools, equipment, and other areas, and that the company imposed additional fees on those members. The government asserts that the complaint demonstrates a consistent pattern of discrimination through multiple examples of accessibility barriers across its gyms.

U.S. v. Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation In September 2024, the United States filed a Title III ADA complaint against Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, alleging that it denied patients with disabilities equal access to medical care by barring necessary support persons such as family members or aides. The affected individuals included patients with mobility challenges, dementia, autism, and mental health disabilities. That same day, the government also filed a proposed consent decree requiring Johns Hopkins to pay $150,000 to affected patients, revise its support-person policies, train staff on ADA requirements, and report future related complaints to the DOJ.

Good Times, Inc. In July 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee reached a Title III ADA agreement with Good Times Restaurants, Inc., following the exclusion of a youth wheelchair basketball team and their families from a Bad Daddy’s Burger Bar in Murfreesboro, Tennessee over fire-safety concerns. Under the agreement, Good Times will pay $352,000 in damages and civil penalties and implement a non-discrimination policy with staff training.

Marriott International, Inc. In June 2024, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado reached a Title III ADA agreement with Marriott International, Inc. to address obstacles in reserving accessible rooms at Marriott-branded hotels nationwide. The agreement requires Marriott to improve its reservation systems, ensure accurate accessible-room listings on all platforms, train call-center staff, track guest complaints, and monitor compliance with ADA standards. Marriott will also pay a $50,000 civil penalty.

Happy Feet Nails and Spa In June 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona reached a Title III ADA resolution with a SunTan Valley nail salon following allegations that it discriminated against a customer with paraplegia who uses a wheelchair and has limited hand function. The agreement requires the salon to adopt a non-discrimination policy, train staff, and pay compensatory damages to the customer.

Tufts Medical Center In February 2020, the United States reached a Title III ADA settlement with Tufts Medical Center to improve physical access for patients with disabilities and add accessible patient rooms. A two-year extension and addendum were agreed upon to allow completion of room accessibility upgrades and verification of compliance, delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

U.S. v. Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center, PC In December 2021, the United States filed a Title III ADA lawsuit against Barnet Dulaney Perkins Eye Center, PC (BDP), alleging that the company required patients who use wheelchairs to hire third-party personnel for transfers to surgical and exam tables, effectively blocking access to care. In April 2022, the United States amended the complaint to include Medical Management Resources Group, LLC, d.b.a. American Vision Partners Holdings, LLC (AVP), which partners with nearly 80 eye-care facilities in several states, and added allegations that some patients were denied eye surgery outright if they required transfer assistance. In January 2023, the United States filed a proposed consent decree resolving these allegations. Under the agreement, the defendants will revise their anti-discrimination and transfer-assistance policies, train staff on these policies and safe transfer techniques, and pay $950,000 to affected patients and a $50,000 civil penalty.

Northwind, Inc. In November 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Michigan reached a Title III ADA settlement with Northwind Investments, Inc., owner of a Burger King restaurant, resolving claims that the facility, including its restrooms, was not readily accessible to people with disabilities. The agreement requires physical accessibility improvements, annual reporting to the DOJ, and $3,000 in compensatory damages to the affected individual.

Oasis Texas Brewing Company In August 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas reached a Title III ADA settlement with RHS Interests, LLC, Comanche Canyon West Commercial Partners, LP, and Travis County Brewing Company, LLC, following allegations that an inoperable elevator prevented access for people with mobility disabilities. The agreement requires the elevators to be operable, properly maintained, regularly inspected, and promptly repaired when needed.

United States v. Chicago Baseball Holdings, LLC In July 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois filed a Title III ADA lawsuit against the ownership of the Chicago Cubs, alleging that additions and alterations at Wrigley Field were not designed or constructed to be accessible to people with disabilities. The complaint cites violations of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, including issues with wheelchair seating, accessible routes, and other facility features and amenities.

LA Nail Spa In June 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana reached a Title III ADA settlement with LA Nail Spa following allegations that a customer was denied service due to an inability to transfer from a wheelchair. The agreement requires the spa to adopt a non-discrimination policy, track modification requests, report any disability discrimination complaints to the DOJ, and pay $500 in compensatory damages to the complainant.

Holiday Inn Columbus Ohio - Badrivishal, LLC In May 2022, the United States reached a Title III ADA agreement with Holiday Inn Express Hotels & Suites in Columbus, Ohio. The agreement requires Badrivishal, LLC, the hotel’s owner, to make physical modifications to ensure accessibility for customers with disabilities, including wheelchair users, throughout parking areas, entrances, restrooms, service counters, drinking fountains, and accessible rooms and bathrooms. Hotel staff must also receive ADA training, and the hotel will pay $20,000 in damages to the affected couple.

Canopy Airport Parking and Propark, Inc. In February 2022, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado reached a Title III ADA settlement with private transit company Canopy after allegations that it failed to provide an accessible shuttle when complainants arrived, despite prior notice. The agreement requires Canopy to implement an approved plan for equivalent service, acquire and retrofit two wheelchair-accessible vehicles, train employees on ADA requirements, update its website, and submit annual reports to the DOJ.

JCR Companies In June 2021, the United States resolved a Title III ADA allegation that three building owners in Washington, D.C., failed to make their facilities readily accessible to people with disabilities. Two buildings had steps at the entrances, and one lacked sufficient space for wheelchair users to enter independently. The agreement requires all 19 building owners to hire an architect to assess their properties in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia for accessibility compliance.

Migyanko v. Aimbridge Hospitality, LLC In June 2021, the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest clarifying that even when a specific barrier, such as a hotel bed’s height, is not covered by the ADA Standards, Title III’s general nondiscrimination provisions still apply, requiring reasonable modifications to ensure access for people with mobility disabilities.

For a full list of disability rights cases handled by the DOJ, see their official Disability Rights Cases page.

Resources

Avoiding ADA Lawsuits by Joan Stein — This article from the former president of ADA, Inc. explains that ADA compliance is not optional or grandfathered for older buildings. Because enforcement is complaint-driven, many lawsuits arise from overlooked barriers. Stein advises property owners to conduct professional ADA audits, correct barriers where readily achievable, include compliance clauses in contracts, and document all improvements. Proactive action, she argues, reduces legal risk and supports equal access.