Cases With Systemic Impact
DLC’s work includes impact litigation in state and federal courts, structured negotiations, and amicus briefs aimed at protecting and enhancing the rights, access, health, safety, and independence of people with disabilities. To maximize the impact of our litigation efforts, DLC focuses on individual, multi-plaintiff, and class actions that challenge persistent, severe, and/or systemic rights violations. Examples of DLC’s current and past cases are described below.
Ongoing Cases:
National Alliance on Mental Illness of Central Mass., et al. v. City of Worcester, No. 4:26-cv-40084 (D. Mass.)
Filed on March 16, 2026 by DLC, the Center for Public Representation, and Nelson Mullins, the federal lawsuit challenging the City of Worcester’s 911 program that discriminates against children, youth, and adults with mental health disabilities by denying them equal access to appropriate emergency response services. The plaintiffs are National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) of Central Massachusetts, NAMI Massachusetts, and the Parent-Professional Advocacy League.
L.K. v. The Renfrew Center of Massachusetts, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-12819 (D. Mass.)
L.K. is a teen who requires intensive treatment for her eating disorder. L.K. is also Deaf. Her primary language is ASL and is diagnosed with dysgraphia, making communication in written English more difficult. L.K. completed a course of treatment with appropriate language access accommodations during the first half of 2024 with The Renfrew Center (Renfrew), an eating disorder treatment provider corporation with 17 locations nationwide. After a resurgence of symptoms in late 2024, L.K.’s parents sought her readmission to Renfrew in December. Renfrew refused to provide L.K. with ASL interpretation and would only admit L.K. to the virtual outpatient program that involves group therapy sessions over Zoom, offering only automatic captioning and the Zoom chat function for communication access. DLC filed a case in the federal district court in September 2025 alleging disability discrimination under Title III of the ADA and cognate state law. DLC successfully opposed a Motion to Dismiss and we are now engaged in discovery.
John Doe 1, et al. v. Massachusetts Parole Board, No. 2384CV01349 (Mass. Super.)
DLC, Prisoners Legal Services, Mental Health Legal Advisors filed a class action complaint in June of 2023 on behalf of all incarcerated people with mental disabilities (inclusive of mental health disabilities, intellectual and development disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and brain injuries) who have been discriminated against by the Board. The suit alleges that the Parole Board’s ongoing failure to provide accommodations at all stages of the parole process constitutes discrimination and diminishes their opportunity to be released on parole. On April 17, 2024, the Court denied the Board’s Motion to Dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The parties subsequently agreed to a framework for negotiations and filed a joint motion to stay the litigation, which the Court allowed. The parties continue to negotiation settlement agreement.
LaBonte, et al. v. Six Flags New England, No. 3:22-cv-30046 (D. Mass.)
DLC filed a suit against Riverside Park Enterprising, Inc., doing business as Six Flags New England alleging discrimination against an 11-year-old boy with Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type II and his parents based on the amusement park’s refusal to allow the child to use his medically approved mobility aid with parental assistance in any areas of the water park, including attractions designed for small children that have shallow or no standing water. Although the family used the mobility aid safely and without incident during a previous visit, Six Flags publicly ejected the child and his parents from an attraction and refused to consider reasonable modifications to the park’s policies and procedures to prevent his outright exclusion. After DLC successfully opposed two Motions to Dismiss filed by Six Flags and completed fact and expert discovery, the parties resolved the matter by settlement. DLC is monitoring implementation of the settlement.
Boston Sidewalks and Curb Cut Access Case, No. 1:21-cv-11080 (D. Mass.)
In 2018, DLC, Dardarian Ho Kan & Lee, and the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center notified the City of Boston that the City’s sidewalk system denied access to residents and visitors with mobility disabilities in violation of obligations under the ADA and other disability access laws. Following three years of productive settlement talks, the parties came to an agreement that requires the City to install or upgrade an average of 1,630 curb ramps each year until a compliant curb ramp is present at every location in the City’s pedestrian right of way where required by law and to maintain those improvements. On November 2, 2021, the Honorable Richard G. Stearns in the District of Massachusetts court granted final approval of this class action settlement. settlement, which he called “a ‘game changer’ for the class (and, indeed, for all residents and visitors of the City).” DLC actively monitors implementation through both document review and onsite inspection on the streets of Boston; the City also provides interim compliance reports to Class Counsel.
Final Judgment and Order Approving Class Action Settlement
Briggs, et al. v. Department of Correction, et al., No. 1:15-cv-40162 (D. Mass.)
Co-counseling with Prisoners’ Legal Services, WilmerHale, and Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, DLC represents a class of prisoners who are deaf or hard of hearing in challenging discrimination by the Department of Correction (DOC). Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that DOC (1) fails to provide access to auxiliary aids and services, such as hearing aids or ASL interpreters, necessary to permit access to educational, vocational, and rehabilitative programming, medical and mental health care, and religious services; (2) denies deaf and hard of hearing individuals adequate, equally effective, and reliable means of communication with individuals outside of prison by failing to provide videophones or other assistive technology; (3) places deaf and hard of hearing individuals at serious risk of harm by not having an adequate emergency notification systems; (4) fails to provide adequate interpretative services and auxiliary aids at disciplinary and classification hearings and (5) discriminates against deaf and hard of hearing prisoners in work assignments. The parties entered into an extensive Settlement Agreement that addressed most claims, which was approved by the Court on November 25, 2019. The sole unresolved issue following settlement was accessible emergency notifications. Following a bench trial, Judge Stearns ruled in January 2024 that DOC violated Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide emergency alarm access. DOC’s May 2024 remedial plan includes immediate pagers for all class members and visual alarm installation over three years.
Finding of Fact, Rulings of Law, and Order After Bench Trial
Past Cases:
Settlement Agreement Establishing City of Boston’s Accessible Remote Voting System
The City of Boston and the Boston Center for Independent Living (BCIL), Bay State Council of the Blind (BSCB), and five Boston voters, represented by the Disability Law Center (DLC), entered into a Settlement Agreement on September 8, 2021 to establish an Accessible Remote Voting System that allows City of Boston voters with disabilities to participate in the absentee voting and vote by mail programs privately and independently. Per the Agreement, the Accessible Remote Voting System must be available “for the 2021 Boston preliminary and regular municipal elections and for every election through December 31, 2025” as an accommodation for Boston voters who have disabilities, such as blindness, low vision, and mobility/dexterity disabilities, that make it difficult or impossible to effectively access standard print materials (“print disabilities”). Key components of this System provide, in lieu of a standard print paper ballot, an accessible electronic ballot that can be marked and officially cast electronically through a web-based platform or other accessible mechanism compliant with current World Wide Web Consortium’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.1, Level AA).
Rivero, et al. v. Galvin, et al., No. 1:20-cv-11808 (D. Mass.)
DLC filed the Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Rivero on October 2, 2020 on behalf of four individual plaintiffs, Boston Center for Independent Living, and Bay State Council of the Blind. Plaintiffs alleged that Massachusetts’ Accessible Vote by Mail (AVBM) program failed to provide meaningful access to the voters with disabilities for whom it was created to accommodate in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Specifically, the AVBM program prevented voters who are blind or have low vision, mobility/dexterity disabilities, or other print disabilities from casting their AVBM electronic ballots without third party assistance by including steps that constitute foreseeable barriers to private and independent voting. These steps included requirements that voters print their electronic ballots, sign an affidavit printed on an envelope in which the ballot had to be placed, and place that envelope into a second outer envelope before placing it in the mail. On October 13, 2020, a federal district court judge approved an agreed upon Judgement negotiated by the parties ordering changes to the AVBM program for the general election, including permitting email submission of accessible electronic ballots along with an accessible electronic affidavit that can be completed with a typewritten signature by voters unable to insert a hand-drawn signature due to a disability.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Charlson, et al., v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, No. SJ-2020-0588 (SJC)
On August 21, 2020, DLC filed an Emergency Petition with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on behalf of six individual petitioners, Bay State Council of the Blind (BSCB), and the Boston Center for Independent Living (BCIL) to compel the Secretary of the Commonwealth to implement a state law passed in July 2020 that requiring creation of accessible electronic vote by mail for the fast-approaching September 1, 2020 primary election. Per “An Act relative to voting options in response to COVID-19,” registered Massachusetts voters with disabilities are entitled to receive access to an accessible electronic vote by mail ballot as an accommodation from the Secretary intended to allow voters with disabilities the opportunity to electronically mark their ballot privately and independently using their own assistive technology, print their marked ballot, and mail or hand-deliver it to their local election official to be counted. As of the date that DLC filed the Emergency Petition, the Secretary had not provided the public with any information concerning the availability of accessible electronic vote by mail or the process for requesting that accommodation. In addition, it was only on the date of filing that the Secretary signed a contract with VotingWorks to create Massachusetts’ accessible vote by mail online system. Following mediation, the Court entered a Judgment in the case on August 26, 2020 establishing an extended deadline and special processes to allow voters with disabilities to access an electronic ballot through the new Accessible Vote by Mail system for the September 1, 2020 primary. On August 27, the Court granted the Parties’ Joint Motion to Amend the first judgment filed to resolve a dispute of interpretation between the parties.
Settlement Agreement Requiring Accessibility Enhancements for HBO Max
Representing American Council of the Blind (ACB), Bay State Council of the Blind (BSCD), Kim Charlson, and Brian Charlson, DLC and Disability Rights Advocates reached a landmark Settlement Agreement with WarnerMedia Direct, LLC addressing screen reader accessibility and audio description of content on HBO Max – HBO’s online streaming platform launched earlier this year. Among other commitments, the agreement required: (1) incremental improvements to made the HBO Max website, mobile applications, and internet-connected TV applications compliant with international web accessibility guidelines by September 2021 and (2) that WarnerMedia provide audio description on at least 1,500 hours of new and existing programming on HBO Max by the end of March 2021, increasing to 3,000 hours by the end of March 2022, and doubling again to at least 6,000 hours in total by the end of March 2023.
American Council of the Blind, et al. v. Hulu LLC, No. 1:17-cv-12285 (D. Mass.)
DLC and Disability Rights Advocates represented the American Council of the Blind, Bay State Council of the Blind, and two individuals in litigation against Hulu, LLC to challenge the lack of accessibility features for individuals who are blind or have low vision to Hulu’s streaming service. On October 8, 2018, the Parties reached an agreement to ensure Hulu’s accessibility and settle the case. As part of a settlement agreement, Hulu made its website and software applications accessible via screen readers and provided audio description tracks for streaming content.
NAD, et al. v. Harvard University, et al., No. 3:15-cv-30023 (D. Mass.)
NAD, et al. v. MIT, No. 3:15-cv-30024 (D. Mass.)
DLC, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC); the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) represent the interests of NAD and four deaf and hard of hearing individuals in federal class action lawsuits against Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), claiming that the schools discriminate against deaf and hard of hearing people by failing to caption the vast and varied array of online content they make available to the general public. The cases were filed in February 2015. Negotiations in each case ultimately resulted in Consent Decrees in 2020, both of which have now been approved by the court. Monitoring of Harvard and MIT’s respective compliance with the terms of the Consent Decrees is ongoing.
Disability Law Center v. Commissioner of Correction, et al., No. 1:07-cv-10463 (D. Mass.)
DLC partnered with Prisoners’ Legal Services, the Center for Public Representation, Bingham McCutchen, and Nelson Mullins to challenge the practice of confining Massachusetts prisoners with mental illness in DOC segregation units, including the Departmental Disciplinary Unit to which prisoner can be sentenced to terms of solitary confinement up to ten years. After almost five years of litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in November of 2011 requiring the DOC to create and maintain sufficient secure treatment units to house prisoners with serious mental illness who would otherwise be in solitary confinement. The settlement agreement sunset at the conclusion of three years of monitoring, but the key parts of the agreement protecting people with mental illness from prolonged solitary confinement have been incorporated into a statute. See M.G.L. c. 127, § 39, as amended in January 2015.
Fleet National Bank Talking ATMs Settlement Agreement
In 2000, DLC and Attorney Lainey Feingold represented Bay State Council of the Blind, the National Federation of the Blind of Massachusetts, and eight blind and visually impaired individuals entered in structured negotiations with Fleet Bank to address accommodations that would allow people with visual impairments to effectively use the public equipment owned by the bank. On February 28, 2001, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in which the bank agreed to install Talking ATMs, give blind people braille bank statements, and make its website accessible to blind and visually impaired persons. It resulted in the first Talking ATMs in New England, a comprehensive alternative formats policy, and was only the second agreement in the United States to require that a bank’s website be accessible. In June 2003, the parties entered into a supplemental agreement. Under this document, the bank agreed to install Talking ATMs at all of its locations. The bank also agreed to give blind people headphones for the talking ATMs. Fleet was later bought by Bank of America, a bank with more than 11,000 Talking ATMs, in 2008.