FILTERS



Find by DATE
Reset

Latest Cases & Developments


  • Date:

    Department of Energy Direct Final Rule Rescinding New Construction Requirements Related to Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs or Activities (May 16, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Energy (the Department) issued a Direct Final Rule (DFR) rescinding certain provisions related to “New Construction” in the section “Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs or Activities” stating that the provision is unnecessary and unduly burdensome. Based on general prohibition on discriminatory activities and related penalties, the Department found the additional provisions of 10 C.F.R. 1040.73, which require that each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of a recipient of federal financial assistance must ensure each facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and useable by handicapped persons, is unnecessary and unduly burdensome. The Department reiterated its policy to give private entities flexibility to comply with the law in the manner they deem most efficient and stated that one-size-fits-all rules are rarely the best option. The DFR takes effect July 15, 2025, “unless significant adverse comments are received” on or before June 16, 2025. 

    Topics:

    Accessible Facilities | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

  • Date:

    U.S. Dept. Of Education, Office for Civil Rights Resource for Individualized Assessments for Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education (Jan. 3, 2025)

    U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights resource regarding Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 “Individualized Assessments for Students with Disabilities in Postsecondary Education.” The Resource reiterates Section 504’s prohibition against one size fits all accommodations, and the requirement that recipients of federal financial assistance must individually assess each student’s need for accommodation via the requisite interactive process. It cautions against inflexibility and rigid adherence to past practice while providing examples of potential individualized academic adjustments.  

    Topics:

    Accessible Facilities | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity

  • Date:

    Ostrowski v. Ind. Univ. (Ind. App. May 28, 2024)

    Memorandum Decision affirming denial of worker’s compensation benefits. Appellant, a former employee of the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University who experienced atrial fibrillation and hip arthritis, filed a work injury claim and a federal Rehabilitation Act claim against the University after she found it too difficult to walk from the closest parking area to the campus building housing the Institute. After the parties settled the federal case, the Worker’s Compensation Board of Indiana affirmed the University’s denial of her work injury claim, finding that her symptoms did not constitute a compensable injury because they were “temporary and could have occurred anywhere.” In affirming the denial, the Court of Appeals of Indiana held that neither the Board’s factual conclusion that the walk on the hilly campus was routine and everyday, nor its legal conclusion that her symptoms were temporary and did not worsen her pre-existing medical conditions were clearly erroneous.  

    Topics:

    Accessible Facilities | Compliance & Risk Management | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Indemnity & Insurance

  • Date:

    Sierra-Morales v. Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez Incorporado (D. P.R. Apr. 13, 2023)

    Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff, a graduate of Sistema Universitario Ana G. Mendez who uses a wheelchair, brought an ADA discrimination claim against the University after her wheelchair turned over on March 21, 2017, due to uneven floor tiles in a campus building. Borrowing the one-year statute of limitations from Puerto Rico’s disability discrimination statute, the court held that plaintiff’s claim was time barred. Though she filed suit on March 20, 2018, she asserted in deposition testimony that she felt discriminated against based on the general condition of the tiles as early as 2014. 

    Topics:

    Accessible Facilities | Disability Discrimination | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity