This week’s blog entry focuses on what happens if assuming for the sake of argument, renovations are not readily achievable at a place of public accommodation, whether that ends the analysis. The answer is no. The case also discusses just how the burden of proof works with respect to claiming that an accommodation is readily achievable. Our case of the day is Lopez v. Catalina Channel Express Inc. 10, 974 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2020), here. This case also sets an Understanding the ADA record for being decided six years before blogging on the case. Even so, the case
Continue Reading Showing that Removal of Architectural Barriers is not Readily Achievable Doesn’t End the Analysis
Kitchens New Cleghorn Blogs
Latest from Kitchens New Cleghorn
Work Product Privilege and AI an Issue Just Not Going Away
This week is disability awareness week. I suppose every week is disability awareness week for me😊. In keeping with the spirit of the week, we have another blog entry. Previously, we have blogged on whether the work product privilege is jeopardized by the use of AI. In that blog entry, here, we talked about two cases that seemingly came up with irreconcilable approaches. I am not sure if those cases can be reconciled even if one was pro se and the other wasn’t considering the language in the two decisions. Now, we have a third case dealing with a pro
Continue Reading Work Product Privilege and AI an Issue Just Not Going Away
The Rapidly Evolving World of Service Animals and Emotional Support Animals in Housing
I hope everyone had a happy Easter and had or is having a good Passover.
Also, congratulations to UCLA on their women’s Division I basketball national championship and to Michigan on their men’s Division I basketball national championship.
This week’s blog entry dives into the rapidly evolving world of emotional support animals and persons with disabilities. It turns out it is getting really complicated. We will actually discuss two cases. First, Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities Ex Rel. Wendy Pizzoferrato v. The Mansions LLC, decided by the Connecticut Supreme Court on March 31, 2026, here. This
Continue Reading The Rapidly Evolving World of Service Animals and Emotional Support Animals in Housing
Looking for Clues: Is a Failure to Accommodate an Adverse Action Post Muldrow?
I hope everyone is enjoying the start of baseball season. The NCAA’s women tournament is about to get very interesting now that they are in a situation where the likelihood, though you never know for sure, is that the top seeds from each region will be in the final four. On the men’s side the UConn v, Duke game will likely go down in history as one of the all-time great sports moments. Turning to the blog entry of the week, it is a published decision from the First Circuit, Walsh v. HNTB Corporation, decided on March 13, 2026, here,
Continue Reading Looking for Clues: Is a Failure to Accommodate an Adverse Action Post Muldrow?
Lost Opportunity as a Substitute for Emotional Distress Damages in Title II Cases
Before getting started on the blog entry for the week, if anybody is interested in the journey I took to get to my law and consulting practices, I discussed that journey in this article.
This week’s blog entry is an update on a case that we previously blogged on here, Payan v, Los Angeles Community College District. Since that blog entry, it was sent back down to the trial court where a trial occurred and was then subsequently appealed back to the Ninth Circuit after that with the Ninth Circuit issuing a published decision on March 11,
Continue Reading Lost Opportunity as a Substitute for Emotional Distress Damages in Title II Cases
Under What Circumstances May a State Chill Federally Protected Statutory Rights
I had a moment while my daughter, who is in for spring break, is out doing something with my wife. Writing blog entries is the most favorite part of my practice. So, I figure I would write a blog entry. This blog is pretty short. I will say that there will not be a blog entry, outside of this one, for the week of March 16. The next blog entry after this one will be the week of March 23.
Turning to the blog entry for the week, the Georgia House passed HB 1470 and it is now in
Continue Reading Under What Circumstances May a State Chill Federally Protected Statutory Rights
Point Counterpoint: Does AI Use Waive Work-Product Privilege?
Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, a housekeeping matter. My daughter is coming in for spring break at the end of this week and then leaving at the end of the following week. So, it is unlikely I will have a blog entry next week. I certainly plan on a blog entry for the week after. Recently, we blogged on the case of U.S. v. Heppner, here, where the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York held that a person faced with criminal proceedings who used AI as a tool for getting
Continue Reading Point Counterpoint: Does AI Use Waive Work-Product Privilege?
Client Use of AI as an Organizing/Focusing Tool Blows Up Attorney-Client and Work Product Privileges
Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, an update/supplemental information on a couple of prior cases that we have discussed previously. First, EEOC v. William Beaumont Hospital, which we discussed here, resulted in a consent decree. The hospital has to pay the plaintiff $30,000 in noneconomic and compensatory damages. Also, within 90 days after the decree and thereafter on an annual basis, the hospital must provide mandatory training on disability discrimination under the ADA to its Human Resources team members and its Talent Attraction staff. The training must be interactive and in person or through Microsoft
Continue Reading Client Use of AI as an Organizing/Focusing Tool Blows Up Attorney-Client and Work Product Privileges
Major Questions Doctrine Gets Shape
Previously, we had blogged on the Supreme Court decision that set forth the major questions doctrine, here. In reviewing that blog entry, there really wasn’t much meat on the bone so to speak in terms of just when the major question doctrine would be employed. That decision suggested that it could be employed any time desired since just about everything is a major question. That said, on February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, here. From that majority opinion as well with the concurrences, we now have some idea as to how the
Continue Reading Major Questions Doctrine Gets Shape
Attorneys Representing Federal Employees With Disabilities Need to Prepare for a Lot More Business
Before getting started on the blog entry of the week, an update on the Beaumont Hospital case that we have blogged on twice before. See this blog entry. The update is a consent decree was signed requiring training and a $30,000 payment to the plaintiff. It also has a length of 18 months. I always wonder who does the training when lawsuits get resolved and how serious of an effort is made to ensure that the trainer is qualified to do the training. Turning to this week’s blog entry, it discusses the latest guidance issued jointly by the EEOC and
Continue Reading Attorneys Representing Federal Employees With Disabilities Need to Prepare for a Lot More Business
Motion to Dismiss Denial of a Service Animal Goes Down in Flames
The Society of Human Resources Management is not the only employer facing litigation for denying a service animal. On January 13, 2026, the Flaming Gorge Resort saw its motion to dismiss with respect to its denial of a service animal for an employee go down in flames (pun intended). The case is O’Connor v. Colett’s Mountain Resorts, Inc., here, decided by the United States District Court for Utah. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: facts; O’Connor’s ADA failure to accommodate claim survives a motion to dismiss; O’Connor’s ADA wrongful termination claim on the
Continue Reading Motion to Dismiss Denial of a Service Animal Goes Down in Flames
What’s a Program and ADA Rehabilitation Act Causation Are Not the Same
This week’s blog entry deals with what is a program under Title II of the ADA, and it also discusses the distinction in causation between the ADA and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The case of the day is Decker v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, here, a non-precedential decision decided by the Third Circuit on January 15, 2026. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: facts; court’s reasoning that the equal protection claim does not survive; court’s reasoning that the ADA claim does survive but the Rehabilitation Act claim does not; and
Continue Reading What’s a Program and ADA Rehabilitation Act Causation Are Not the Same
SHRM Service Dog Litigation: Answer and Possible Defenses
This week’s blog entry considers the Society for Human Resource Management answer to the complaint of Fiona Torres in her case saying SHRM violated the ADA by not allowing her to have her service dog when it rescinded a conditional job offer. In the interest of full disclosure, many years ago I did speak to a SHRM conference in Rochester, Minnesota. I am also a member of SHRM as I like to keep up with what they say with respect to the ADA, though I am not active. I also do not have any SHRM certifications, though as readers know
Continue Reading SHRM Service Dog Litigation: Answer and Possible Defenses
Eviction Notices Must be Accessible to Persons with Disabilities and other Stuff
Congratulations to the Indiana Hoosiers on an undefeated season culminating in the national championship. Also, congratulations to the remaining teams in the NFL playoffs. My Bears lost, but that play to send the game to overtime was incredible. This week’s blog entry is a non-precedential decision from the Third Circuit decided on October 8 of 2025, which was on my birthday. Before getting to that, a brief update on Nawara v. County of Cook, which we discussed here. The update is that the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, so the case went back down to the trial court
Continue Reading Eviction Notices Must be Accessible to Persons with Disabilities and other Stuff
Does an Employer Have the Ability to Not Engage in the Interactive Process if the Reasonable Accommodation Request is Facially Unreasonable and Other Stuff
It’s time to get back to the grind after the holiday season. I hope everyone had a great holiday season. Today’s blog entry deals with the implications of what happens when a reasonable accommodation request of a plaintiff is facially unreasonable. What does that mean for a plaintiff’s reasonable accommodation claim? What might that mean for a plaintiff’s claim that the employer failed to engage in the interactive process? The case of the day is Bowles v. SSRG II, LLC, dba Chicken Salad Chick, a published decision decided by the Sixth Circuit on December 17, 2025, here. As usual, the blog
Continue Reading Does an Employer Have the Ability to Not Engage in the Interactive Process if the Reasonable Accommodation Request is Facially Unreasonable and Other Stuff
Inflexible Return to Work Policies: Granas Update
Welcome to the new year everyone. This week’s blog entry is an update on Granas v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, which we blogged on here. Subsequent to that blog entry, Union Pacific moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The court, here, was having none of it. Since we blogged on the case previously, we don’t need to explore the facts. So, the categories for this blog entry are: when can a jury verdict be overturned by a post-trial motion; when can a bench trial decision be overturned by a post-trial motion; the jury
Continue Reading Inflexible Return to Work Policies: Granas Update