Plaintiff, Ronald Migyanko, on behalf of a proposed class of individuals with disabilities who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices, alleges that Defendant, Aimbridge Hospitality, has violated Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-12189, by denying equal access to its hotel rooms. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that many of Aimbridge’s hotel rooms have beds that are too high for guests with disabilities to transfer onto from a wheelchair. Plaintiff explains that it can be virtually impossible for a wheelchair user to independently transfer from a wheelchair onto the bed surface because of the difference in height of a typical wheelchair (18-20 inches) and that of increasingly high hotel bed surfaces (25-30 inches or higher).
Aimbridge argues that because its hotel rooms comply with the ADA Standards, Plaintiff’s general allegation of unequal access fails to state a claim under the ADA.
A young man with intellectual disabilities (ID) filed a complaint with the Justice Department alleging that Maine imposed restrictions that placed him at serious risk of having to move from his own home into a congregate setting in order to receive the services he needs. Congregate settings are multi-person homes or facilities where residents receive needed services. This agreement will help ensure that Mainers with ID and autism can receive the personal assistance they need in their own homes.
While Maine’s Medicaid program allows unlimited personal assistance services for people living in congregate settings, the state’s community service program for people with ID and autism limits those same services when they are provided in a person’s own home. As a result, people with disabilities who need more personal assistance, like the young man who filed the complaint, may be forced to leave their homes and move to a segregated setting.
A blind Winn-Dixie customer who couldn’t refill a prescription using a computer wants the full Eleventh Circuit to throw out a decision that marked the first time a federal appeals court said websites aren’t covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Other federal circuit and district courts have taken a more expansive view of whether and when the 1990 disability anti-bias law applies, saying “places of accommodation” goes beyond just the physical places specifically recounted in the federal law. And the Covid-19 pandemic, which drove a surge of people to e-commerce, highlights the importance of clarifying and expanding accessibility standards, Joshua M. Entin, one of plaintiff Juan Gil’s attorneys, told Bloomberg Law.