Green ADA lettering with pink squiggly background on a board with super large 3 of spades and 3 of diamonds playing cards glued on at upper left.
Happy 33 ADA

I wanted to get up a blog entry today because it is the 33rd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Happy birthday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


A short blog entry for today. It is possible I might have another blog entry this week that would be more detailed on something, but I wanted to be sure to get a blog entry up today. So here goes. It is a very short triple play so to speak, so you will not see the typical categories that my blog entries are divided into.



DOJ Title II Web Accessibility and Mobile Accessibility Rules Are Imminent.


Yesterday, DOJ announced that it has submitted a proposed rule to the Federal Register discussing their view of what title II websites for both the PC and mobile/cell phones might look like in terms of regulatory requirements to achieve meaningful accessibility for persons with disabilities. You can bet that will be a blog entry of mine when it comes out and no doubt will be widely blogged on by others.




Arizona State Law Prohibiting Transgender Girls from Participating in Athletics Thrown out with Respect to Transgender Girls Never Having Gone through Puberty.


In Doe v. Horne, here, Judge Zipps of the Arizona District Court held that the Arizona law prohibiting transgender girls from participating in sports where those girls have not gone through puberty or never will, violated the Constitution as well as title IX of the Civil Rights Act. The judge said that there was no rational basis for disallowing such individuals to participate in sports let alone any basis rising to the level of heightened scrutiny. The critical feature here is that all of the plaintiffs were transgender girls yet to go through puberty or were taking hormone blockers so that they never would go through puberty. An appeal has already been filed with the Ninth Circuit. It will be interesting to see what the Ninth Circuit does and ultimately how the Supreme Court deals with this.




In Deciding Whether a Person Is Entitled to SSDI, How a Service Animal Ameliorates the Individual’s Situation Cannot Be Factored in to That Decision


In Bryan H. v. Kijakazi, here, United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert remanded a case back to the Administrative Law Judge because the Administrative Law Judge failed to remove from her analysis of whether the claimant was entitled to SSDI benefits, the fact that the plaintiff needed a service animal in order to do certain jobs and even function in society. As we discussed here, SSDI does not factor in accommodations into deciding whether a person is entitled to benefits. My thanks to Prof. Leonard Sandler, a Clinical Law Professor at the University of Iowa, for sending me the Bryan H. case.


Happy birthday ADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Stay cool everyone.