Disabled in Action v. Bd. of Elections in the City of New York, et

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that “deterrence constitutes an injury under the ADA” (quoting Kreisler v. Second Ave. Diner Corp., 731 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir. 2013))
• holding that the proper analysis in considering an ADA claim is whether there was a “systemic failure to provide meaningful access to individuals with disabilities”
• holding that a plaintiff could not cast a private ballot because her polling site failed to maintain BMDs in working condition
• holding that participation in a voting program “includes the option to cast a private ballot on election days”
• holding that, under the Rehabilitation Act, an allegation that a polling site failed to maintain working BMDs unlawfully precluded disabled individuals “from casting a private ballot on election day”
• concluding that blind voters lacked meaningful access to the program of voting because accommodations did not allow them to cast ballots in private, which was core to the voting program

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).