Private ADA Lawsuits Surge to Record Highs: What Mental Health Practices Need to Know About Rising Legal Risks

Despite recent federal policy changes that have scaled back government guidance on accessibility, private ADA lawsuits continue to surge, creating unprecedented legal risks for mental health practices. Federal data reveals that ADA Title III lawsuits reached record levels in 2024, with over 8,800 federal complaints filed according to legal tracking firm Seyfarth Shaw¹. This represents a significant 7% increase from 2023, demonstrating that accessibility enforcement remains a serious threat regardless of changing government priorities.

For mental health practices, these statistics represent more than just numbers in a legal database. They signal that private individuals and advocacy organizations are aggressively pursuing accessibility violations through the courts, creating substantial financial and reputational risks for practices that haven't prioritized disability inclusion in their service delivery models.

The New Legal Reality: Private Enforcement Drives Risk

While the federal government has recently withdrawn certain ADA guidance documents and scaled back enforcement activities², the legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act remain completely unchanged. Private plaintiffs, not government agencies, file the vast majority of ADA Title III lawsuits, meaning that federal policy shifts have minimal impact on the actual legal risks facing mental health practices.

In fact, private ADA lawsuits have historically increased during periods of reduced government oversight, as advocacy organizations and individual plaintiffs step up enforcement efforts. The number of Title III web accessibility lawsuits actually surged under the previous Trump administration, skyrocketing from 814 in 2017 to 2,523 in 2020³.

Mental health facilities remain particularly vulnerable through ongoing private litigation. Healthcare providers continue to face lawsuits related to physical access barriers, communication accommodations, website accessibility, and policy modifications, with monetary settlements ranging from $35,000 to $250,000 in recent cases⁴.

The Johns Hopkins Health System recently agreed to pay $150,000 to settle ADA violations related to support person policies⁵. While this case involved a major health system, the underlying issues around accommodation policies and staff training apply equally to mental health practices of all sizes.

Digital Accessibility: Higher Risk in Reduced Oversight Environment

Website accessibility lawsuits represent one of the highest risk areas for mental health practices, with California alone seeing 3,252 ADA Title III filings in 2024, representing a 37% increase from the previous year⁶. For mental health practices increasingly relying on digital platforms for patient intake, telehealth services, and appointment scheduling, this trend poses significant and growing risks.

While the DOJ has withdrawn some guidance documents, the legal standards for digital accessibility remain unchanged. Courts continue to apply established accessibility principles, and private plaintiffs continue filing lawsuits against websites that fail to meet basic accessibility standards.

One California law firm recently obtained a class action settlement exceeding $6 million in damages and fees for website accessibility violations⁷. These kinds of settlements demonstrate that digital accessibility is a legal requirement with substantial financial consequences for non-compliance, regardless of government enforcement priorities.

Why Mental Health Practices Face Heightened Vulnerability

Mental health practices face unique vulnerabilities in private ADA litigation for several critical reasons. First, the nature of mental health services requires extensive communication between providers and clients, making effective communication accommodations essential and creating multiple opportunities for violations.

Second, mental health practices often rely heavily on intake forms, assessment tools, and documentation processes that may not be accessible to clients with various disabilities. These operational elements are frequently scrutinized in private lawsuits.

Third, the intersection of mental health and disability creates complex accommodation needs that many practices haven't fully considered. With 43.6% of people with disabilities reporting depression compared to 13.7% of people without disabilities⁸, mental health practices serve a significantly higher percentage of clients with disabilities than many other healthcare specialties, increasing exposure to potential violations.

Private Lawsuit Settlement Patterns Show Common Violations

Analysis of recent private settlements with healthcare providers reveals common violation patterns that mental health practices should address proactively:

Communication Failures: Multiple settlements have involved failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services, particularly sign language interpreters for deaf or hard-of-hearing patients and family members⁹.

Policy Deficiencies: Settlements frequently require healthcare providers to develop and implement comprehensive ADA policies, suggesting many had inadequate or non-existent accessibility policies.

Staff Training Gaps: Nearly all healthcare settlements include mandatory ADA training requirements, indicating that staff education is often inadequate.

Physical Barriers: Traditional architectural accessibility issues continue to generate private enforcement actions, particularly in older healthcare facilities.

The Business Impact Beyond Legal Penalties

The financial consequences of private ADA violations extend far beyond settlement payments and legal fees. Practices involved in ADA litigation often face:

Operational Disruption: Private lawsuits require significant time and resources from practice leadership and staff, diverting attention from patient care and business operations.

Reputation Damage: News of accessibility violations can damage a practice's reputation in the community and with referral sources, particularly problematic for mental health practices that rely heavily on trust and professional relationships.

Ongoing Compliance Costs: Settlement agreements typically require ongoing monitoring, reporting, and training requirements that create long-term operational costs.

Lost Revenue: Inaccessible practices miss opportunities to serve the significant population of potential clients with disabilities who require accessible mental health services.

Current Policy Environment Creates Additional Risks

The recent withdrawal of federal ADA guidance documents and scaling back of government oversight creates additional risks for mental health practices in several ways:

Reduced Clarity: With fewer government resources available to clarify compliance requirements, practices may inadvertently create accessibility violations.

Increased Private Enforcement: Historical patterns suggest that private lawsuit activity often increases when government enforcement decreases.

Higher Settlement Demands: Private plaintiffs may seek larger settlements when they know government oversight is limited.

Compliance Uncertainty: Without clear government guidance, practices may struggle to implement effective accessibility measures.

Taking Action: Proactive Protection in Uncertain Times

The current legal environment requires mental health practices to be even more proactive about accessibility compliance. With reduced government guidance available, practices cannot rely on federal resources to clarify requirements or provide implementation support.

Successful practices are discovering that comprehensive accessibility implementation not only reduces legal risk but often improves service quality for all clients. Universal design principles can improve patient flow, reduce communication errors, and enhance overall service delivery while simultaneously protecting against private litigation.

The key is approaching accessibility as a core component of quality patient care rather than as a regulatory burden. Practices that embrace this perspective often find that accessibility improvements enhance their reputation, expand their patient base, and improve treatment outcomes across their entire client population.

Your Next Steps: Proactive Protection Strategy

With private ADA enforcement at record levels and government guidance reduced, mental health practices cannot afford to take a reactive approach to accessibility compliance. The question isn't whether private litigation will affect your practice, but when.

The most effective approach is an accessibility audit conducted by professionals who understand both ADA requirements and the unique operational needs of mental health practices. This proactive approach allows you to identify and address potential violations before they become the subject of private lawsuits or costly settlements.

In today's legal environment, where private plaintiffs are aggressively pursuing accessibility violations and government guidance is limited, professional expertise becomes even more critical for protecting your practice.

Ready to protect your practice from costly private litigation?

Don't wait for a demand letter or lawsuit to address accessibility compliance. The current legal environment makes proactive action more important than ever.

Click Here! Schedule Your Free Mini Audit- Get Quick Actionable Items to Address Accessibility in Your Practice

Your practice's future depends on accessibility compliance. Private lawsuit data is clear: practices that act proactively avoid costly violations, while those that wait often face significant financial and reputational consequences. Make the smart choice for your practice, your clients, and your community.

*This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; readers should consult with qualified legal professionals for specific compliance guidance and legal questions.

References

1. Seyfarth Shaw LLP. (2025). Our 2024 ADA Title III Recap and Predictions for 2025. Retrieved from https://www.adatitleiii.com/2025/01/our-2024-ada-title-iii-recap-and-predictions-for-2025/

2. Jackson Lewis P.C. (2025). DOJ Withdraws 11 Pieces of Americans with Disabilities Act Title III Guidance. Retrieved from https://www.disabilityleavelaw.com/2025/03/articles/ada-title-iii/doj-withdraws-11-pieces-of-americans-with-disabilities-act-title-iii-guidance-what-covered-businesses-need-to-know/

3. Level Access. (2025). Executive Orders on DEI Do Not Change Digital Accessibility Requirements. Retrieved from https://www.levelaccess.com/blog/digital-accessibility-in-2025-q1-update/

4. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2022). Select List of Resolved Cases Involving Mental Health Conditions Under the ADA. Retrieved from https://www.eeoc.gov/select-list-resolved-cases-involving-mental-health-conditions-under-ada-may-2022

5. U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. (2024). Disability Rights Cases. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/crt/disability-rights-cases

6. Seyfarth Shaw LLP. (2025). Our 2024 ADA Title III Recap and Predictions for 2025.

7. Seyfarth Shaw LLP. (2025). Our 2024 ADA Title III Recap and Predictions for 2025.

8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). Disability and Health Data Now. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/articles-documents/disability-and-health-data-now.html

9. U.S. Department of Justice. (2015). Justice Department Reaches Settlements with Multiple Health Care Providers to Stop Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities Under the Barrier Free Health Care Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-settlements-multiple-health-care-providers-stop-discrimination