Examples of ADA lawsuits fall into a handful of recognizable patterns: an employee fired after asking for accommodation software, a wheelchair user blocked by a too-steep ramp, a blind customer locked out of a pizza chain’s website, a passenger refused a ride because of a service dog, and a transit agency running broken bus lifts for months. Federal courts handled more than 3,100 website-accessibility filings alone in 2025, and the EEOC regularly recovers six-figure settlements in employment cases. The cases below show what each category actually looks like, what the plaintiffs recovered, and where liability tends to come from.
Workplace Accommodation and Firing Cases
Title I of the ADA covers private employers, state and local governments, and labor unions with 15 or more employees.1U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The ADA: Your Responsibilities as an Employer Most employment lawsuits come down to one problem: the employer either refused a reasonable accommodation or fired someone because of a disability rather than actual job performance.
The EEOC’s 2024 case against The Results Companies is a textbook example. The company hired a blind woman as a phone-based customer service representative, then failed to make her screen-reader software work properly. When she suggested they contact the software publisher or her vocational counselor for technical help, the company refused and fired her instead. The settlement cost the company $250,000.2U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The Results Companies to Pay $250,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Lawsuit
Walmart’s experience shows how a rigid internal policy can create liability even when the employer isn’t acting with obvious hostility. An employee who had worked at a Maine store since 1999 developed a disability that limited which roles she could fill. Fitting-room positions were available at two nearby Walmart locations, and she was willing to transfer. But Walmart’s policy only searched for openings at the employee’s current store, so the company never offered the transfer. The EEOC sued, and the settlement required $80,000 in damages plus a nationwide policy change allowing disabled employees to request job searches at up to five additional stores.3U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Walmart to Pay $80,000 and Implement Nationwide Accommodation Policy Change
What sinks employers in these cases more than anything else is a failure to genuinely engage with the accommodation request. The law expects an interactive back-and-forth: the employee explains the limitation, the employer explores solutions, and both sides work toward something that lets the employee do the job without placing an undue burden on the business.4U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the ADA Saying “that’s too difficult” or ignoring the request altogether is where liability starts. Courts look at whether the employer took concrete steps: analyzing the job’s essential functions, consulting with the employee, identifying potential accommodations, and documenting the process. Employers who skip those steps have a very hard time in court.
How Much a Plaintiff Can Recover
Federal law caps combined compensatory and punitive damages in intentional-discrimination cases, and the cap depends on how many people the employer has on payroll:
- 15 to 100 employees: $50,000
- 101 to 200 employees: $100,000
- 201 to 500 employees: $200,000
- More than 500 employees: $300,000
These caps apply per complaining party and cover emotional-distress awards and punitive damages combined. They do not include back pay or front pay, which are calculated separately and have no statutory ceiling.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S. Code 1981a – Damages in Cases of Intentional Discrimination That distinction matters. In large cases, the back-pay component alone can dwarf the capped damages.
Physical Barrier Cases at Businesses
Title III covers private businesses open to the public, including restaurants, hotels, retail stores, medical offices, and entertainment venues. Lawsuits in this space almost always target architectural barriers that physically block people who use wheelchairs, walkers, or other mobility devices from entering or using a space.
Common violations involve ramps that are too steep, aisles that are too narrow, and counters that are too high. Federal accessibility standards require ramps to have a slope no steeper than 1:12, meaning one inch of rise for every twelve inches of horizontal length.6U.S. Access Board. Guide to the ADA Accessibility Standards – Ramps and Curb Ramps Accessible routes through a building must maintain a minimum clear width of 36 inches.7ADA.gov. ADA Standards for Accessible Design Title III Regulation 28 CFR Part 36 Service counters must include a section no higher than 36 inches above the floor and at least 36 inches long so a person using a wheelchair can conduct a transaction.8U.S. Access Board. Chapter 9: Built-In Elements Settlements in these cases typically require the business to complete renovations on a court-supervised timeline of six to twelve months, with periodic inspections to confirm compliance.
Here is where physical-barrier cases differ sharply from employment cases: a private plaintiff suing under Title III cannot recover compensatory or punitive damages. The available remedy is injunctive relief, meaning a court order directing the business to fix the barrier. The court may also award the winning plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs.9ADA.gov. Americans with Disabilities Act Title III Regulations Those fees add up quickly, often running well into five figures even for straightforward disputes, which is why many businesses choose to settle rather than litigate.
When the DOJ steps in, the stakes rise. The Attorney General can file suit when there is a pattern of discrimination or when a case raises issues of general public importance, and DOJ actions can seek civil penalties on top of injunctive relief.10Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 12188 – Enforcement
Website Accessibility Cases
Digital accessibility litigation has climbed sharply. Federal courts saw roughly 800 website-accessibility filings in 2017; by 2025, that number had climbed above 3,100. The core legal theory is straightforward: if a business operates a website that functions as a gateway to its goods or services, that website is a place of public accommodation and must be accessible to people with disabilities.
The case that cemented this principle for many businesses was Robles v. Domino’s Pizza. Guillermo Robles, who is blind, sued Domino’s after he could not order food through its website or mobile app using screen-reading software. Domino’s argued the ADA doesn’t apply to websites because the DOJ hadn’t issued specific regulations. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument, holding that Title III requires public accommodations to provide auxiliary aids and services, which includes accessible digital technology, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the service or impose an undue burden.11Justia Law. Robles v. Dominos Pizza LLC, No. 17-55504 (9th Cir. 2019) The Supreme Court declined to hear Domino’s appeal, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in place.
Most website suits target the same recurring problems: images without alternative text that screen readers can’t interpret, checkout flows that require a mouse and can’t be navigated by keyboard, and video content without captions. The technical benchmark courts look to is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, and courts routinely treat WCAG conformance as the measuring stick even though no federal regulation yet sets a specific standard for private businesses under Title III.12World Wide Web Consortium. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 Settlement agreements typically require the business to hire an accessibility consultant, remediate the site to meet WCAG standards, and conduct ongoing audits. Legal costs to resolve even a straightforward web-accessibility claim often run between $20,000 and $50,000 before trial.
Service Animal Denial Cases
Businesses that refuse entry to someone with a service dog remain a persistent source of ADA litigation, often because staff confuse service animals with pets or emotional support animals. Under federal rules, a service animal is a dog individually trained to perform a task directly related to a person’s disability, such as guiding someone who is blind, alerting someone to an oncoming seizure, or interrupting a psychiatric episode like a panic attack.13ADA.gov. ADA Requirements: Service Animals Emotional support animals, which provide comfort through companionship but aren’t trained to perform specific tasks, do not have the same access rights under Title III.
Staff are allowed to ask only two questions when it isn’t obvious that a dog is a service animal: whether the dog is required because of a disability, and what task it has been trained to perform. They cannot request medical documentation, demand a demonstration, or ask about the nature of the person’s disability.14ADA.gov. Service Animals Violations of these narrow rules become evidence in court.
The highest-profile service-animal case in recent years is the DOJ’s lawsuit against Uber. The Justice Department alleged that Uber drivers systematically denied rides to passengers who use wheelchairs or travel with service dogs, sometimes canceling trips, charging fees, or making passengers wait significantly longer. The lawsuit sought $125 million for affected individuals.15U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Sues Uber for Denying Rides to Passengers with Service Dogs and Wheelchairs That figure alone shows that service-animal violations aren’t a minor compliance issue for companies operating at scale.
Government Services and Public Transit Cases
Title II requires state and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to people with disabilities. That obligation covers everything from public transit systems and government buildings to voting locations and emergency services.16ADA.gov. Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Regulations
Transit cases are among the most common Title II lawsuits. When bus lifts are broken or subway elevators are persistently out of service, the practical effect is that people with mobility disabilities cannot get to work or medical appointments. The DOJ’s settlement with the County of Hawaii’s Mass Transit Agency illustrates the pattern. The agency had failed to ensure bus lifts worked, paratransit pickups were timely, and bus stops were accessible. The settlement required the county to fix all of those issues, retrain drivers on ADA requirements, establish a disability-complaint process, and report to the DOJ on compliance progress.17U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Enters Agreement to Ensure Public Transportation Passengers with Disabilities Have Equal Access
Title II lawsuits also target government agencies that fail to communicate effectively with people who are deaf or have other communication disabilities. Federal rules require government entities to provide auxiliary aids, such as qualified sign language interpreters, when needed to make communication equally effective. Whether an interpreter is necessary depends on the nature, length, and complexity of the interaction. A brief exchange at a front desk may not require one; a court hearing or medical consultation at a public hospital almost certainly does.18ADA.gov. ADA Requirements: Effective Communication Polling places are another recurring target when a voting location lacks an accessible entrance or offers no accessible voting machine. Settlements in government-service cases frequently include multi-year monitoring to verify that the agency actually follows through on promised changes.
Retaliation as Its Own Case
A category that often catches employers off guard involves retaliation. Federal law prohibits anyone from punishing a person for opposing disability discrimination, filing a complaint, or cooperating with an ADA investigation.19Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 12203 – Prohibition Against Retaliation and Coercion The protection extends to coercion and intimidation, so an employer who pressures a worker to drop an accommodation request, threatens consequences for filing a charge, or issues a blanket policy that discourages employees from invoking their rights can face a separate retaliation claim on top of the underlying discrimination charge.
Retaliation claims can succeed even when the original discrimination claim fails. If an employee requests an accommodation, the employer denies it for legitimate reasons, but then demotes the employee for having asked, the retaliation claim stands on its own.
Deadlines That Decide Whether Any of These Cases Survive
Knowing that a violation occurred is only half the battle. ADA claims have strict procedural requirements, and missing a deadline can kill a case before it starts.
Employment Claims Under Title I
Before filing a federal employment-discrimination lawsuit, you must first file a charge with the EEOC. The deadline is 180 calendar days from the date the discrimination happened. If your state has its own agency that enforces a disability-discrimination law, the deadline extends to 300 calendar days.20U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Time Limits For Filing A Charge Weekends and holidays count toward those totals, though if the final day falls on a weekend or holiday, you get until the next business day.
Once the EEOC finishes investigating or decides not to pursue the case, it issues a Right to Sue notice. You then have 90 days to file your own federal lawsuit. If you want to move faster, you can request a Right to Sue notice after the EEOC has had at least 180 days to investigate, but you cannot skip the EEOC step entirely for Title I claims.
Public-Accommodation Claims Under Title III
Title III works differently. There is no administrative exhaustion requirement, meaning you can go directly to federal court without filing a complaint with any agency first. You still need standing: the plaintiff must show that the discriminatory barrier affects them personally and that there is a real likelihood of encountering it again. Courts have dismissed cases where plaintiffs couldn’t demonstrate a concrete plan to return to the business or use the service in the future.