Recently Asked Questions

In April 2024, the Federal Register published the US Department of Justice’s final rule on Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The rule includes specific requirements for state and local governments to ensure that web content and mobile applications are accessible to people with disabilities. My question is related to the applicability of Title II to the online collections of public academic libraries, and more specifically, to born-digital archival collections, i.e., archival collections consisting of materials originating in a computer environment.

According to the rule, state and local entities must follow the technical standard outlined in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 level AA. However, this rule allows for five exceptions: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/section-35.201.

I understand the updated regulation does not override the existing obligations under Title II to make reasonable modifications on an individual basis, but it is unclear if Title II applies to born-digital archival collections, or if these collections fall under the exceptions linked above.

If a prospective employer specifically asks about a candidate’s physical capacity to do a job and they say they can do all of the tasks required, and then notify us afterwards that they need accommodations for things they said they could do without them, are we:

a) by law required to provide them 

OR

b) can we make a decision that the person is not able to do the essential functions of the job and therefore not be allowed to continue in their employment?

Dishonesty in applying for jobs seems grounds for termination, but when it comes to disabilities, I realize it’s a minefield.

My library knows that service animals provide vital assistance to patrons with disabilities, and that they must be allowed on library premises without pre-approval.

We also know that when a service animal is brought into the library by a visitor, we can only ask if the animal is needed for a disability, and what work or task it has been trained to provide.

We also know that some disabilities are not easily observed, and not every person using a service animal will be perceived as having a “real” disability.

Our library is small and we prohibit all animals—other than service animals—for a combination of reasons (including cleanliness, allergies, and fear).

Our question is this: we have a patron who we think is faking it. The patron sometimes comes in with a dog, and based on a variety of factors, it seems the patron is bringing in the dog not to accommodate a disability but to taunt staff members and dare them to confront this patron. What can we do?

A member of the public called me regarding the trend to switch to LED lighting in many libraries, especially rural libraries applying for NYS Public Library Construction Funding. She told me that she suffers from Photosensitive Epilepsy, and LED lights (among other light sources) cause her to have seizures, which result in injuries. She said this disease has limited access to much of what we all take for granted.

The local library, across the street, was the only place she could go because of the older lighting. The library is about to undergo renovation, and LED lighting may be part of the project because of its cost-savings and environmental impact.

She would like the library board to reconsider and asked why the library has not conducted a “reduction of access survey” because public libraries need to maintain or improve access. Are there reasonable accommodations combined to be fiscally responsible?

Thanks.

Are there any laws around a supervisor or manager telling others the reason for an employee being out on leave? Does the answer change if the employee isn't using sick time, but [has] disclosed why they were unavailable for additional hours during non-contract time?