ADA Lawsuits and Auto Dealerships
ADA lawsuits and auto dealerships: What dealers need to know about compliance risk
ADA lawsuits and auto dealerships: What dealers need to know about compliance risk
You run a dealership. You've got 300 cars on the lot, a service bay full of lifts, and a website that shows your inventory. You also have a legal obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act that most dealers don't think about until they get sued.
The question isn't whether dealerships are covered. They are. The ADA lists "sales establishments" as public accommodations in 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E). That's been clear since 1990. The question is what you actually have to do, how much it costs, and whether the lawsuits making news right now should keep you up at night.
Here's what's happening in courts, what's changed in the last year, and where dealers actually get sued.
The physical dealership: test drives and hand controls
The most common physical access issue at dealerships involves test drives. If a customer uses a wheelchair or has mobility impairments, can they actually drive the car?
In 1998, the Department of Justice sent a letter to Trish Farmer at the Tennessee Committee for Employment of People with Disabilities . General Motors had asked for guidance. The letter, signed by John Wodatch who ran the DOJ's Disability Rights Section, laid out the rules that still apply today.
Dealerships must provide hand controls for test drives if it's "readily achievable." That's the key phrase in the ADA. Readily achievable means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."
The DOJ letter noted that an experienced mechanic takes about 10 to 15 minutes to install hand controls. If you have a mechanic on site during showroom hours, the customer waits a few minutes and drives. If you don't have a mechanic available, you might need a short notice period. But you can't just say no.
The expense argument doesn't work well. Hand controls cost a few hundred dollars. Compared to the price of a new truck, that's nothing. Courts have not been sympathetic to dealers who claim they can't afford a set of portable hand controls.
The CarMax case. In 2014, Scott Schutza, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, went to a CarMax in California to test drive a vehicle . CarMax told him they don't install hand controls for test drives. Schutza sued.
CarMax tried to get the case dismissed. They argued that installing hand controls would "alter the nature of the goods" and that different types of hand controls might expose them to liability. The court denied the motion in April 2015. Judge M. James Lorenz wrote that installing hand controls is specifically listed in ADA regulations as an example of barrier removal.
The case settled, but the order denying dismissal is still good law. Dealerships can't just refuse.
The limitation: You don't have to install hand controls on every car. Just the ones the customer wants to drive. And if a particular model genuinely can't be fitted safely, you're off the hook. But you need actual evidence, not a general policy.
July 2025 brought a new case dealers should watch. The EEOC filed a federal lawsuit against Criswell Chevrolet in Maryland .
Here's what happened according to the complaint. A parts department worker, a military veteran, told the dealership he had service-related PTSD. His doctor recommended a service dog at work. He asked his supervisor for permission to bring the dog.
The EEOC claims the dealership didn't follow up. The employee followed up with HR. HR denied the request, allegedly without offering any alternative accommodations or even discussing it further. The employee's symptoms worsened. He felt forced to resign.
The case was filed May 21, 2025. Criswell Chevrolet had until late July to respond. It's early. We've only heard the EEOC's side. But the allegations show how quickly an accommodation request can become a lawsuit.
The lesson isn't complicated. When an employee asks for an accommodation, you talk to them. You figure out what they need and whether it creates an "undue hardship" for your business. You document the conversation. You don't just say no and move on.
The EEOC's four-step guide for dealers is straightforward: update your policies, create a compliance procedure, train management, document everything . None of this is expensive. It just requires paying attention.
Website accessibility: the new frontier
Physical access is well understood. Website access is where the law gets messy.
The Domino's problem. In October 2019, the Supreme Court declined to hear Domino's appeal in a website accessibility case. That left in place a Ninth Circuit ruling that the ADA applies to Domino's website and app. The practical effect: no clear technical standard exists, but lawsuits keep coming.
Ed Barton, CEO of fusionZONE Automotive, put it bluntly in a recent announcement about their ADAPT compliance toolkit. "The recent refusal by the United States Supreme Court to hear the Domino's ADA case means there will be no consistent legal standard to meet ADA requirements" .
This creates a problem for dealers. You can't look up "the rule" and follow it. There is no rule. There are guidelines called WCAG, now at version 2.1, but they're not law. Courts use them as evidence of what accessibility looks like, but meeting WCAG doesn't automatically mean you're safe.
What's different about dealership websites. Automotive sites change constantly. New inventory arrives. Third-party content gets added. OEM marketing materials get posted. Dealership staff edit pages. Each change can break accessibility features .
Alex Papadopulos, chief technology officer at fusionZONE Automotive, said something worth quoting. "Full compliance is difficult, if not near impossible, to achieve. But reasonable and timely efforts must be continually made" .
That's the standard: reasonable and timely efforts, not perfection.
A new California case. On August 18, 2025, Jeremy Holland filed a lawsuit against Kyrillos Auto Sales in the Central District of California . The case number is 2:25-cv-07708. Holland is represented by Jason Kim at the So Cal Equal Access Group, a firm that files many ADA cases.
The complaint isn't publicly available in full yet, just the docket. But the nature of suit is listed as "Civil Rights - Amer w/Disabilities - Other" under 42:12101. This is almost certainly a website accessibility case. California is a hotbed for these lawsuits because plaintiffs can also sue under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which provides for money damages.
Kyrillos Auto Sales now has 21 days to respond. They'll need a lawyer who understands ADA litigation, not just general business counsel.
Employment: where the big money is
Physical access and website cases usually seek injunctions. You have to fix the problem, but you're not paying the plaintiff millions. Employment cases are different. They come with back pay, compensatory damages, and attorneys fees.
The Len Stoler case. In September 2023, the EEOC sued Len Stoler Inc., which runs Len Stoler Lexus in Towson, Maryland . The facts: A woman was hired as a service adviser in 2017. In June 2019, she suffered a traumatic brain injury in a motorcycle crash. She was in a coma for several weeks.
She went through extensive rehabilitation and returned to work in November 2019. But she still had significant mobility issues. Her left side was completely numb. Her right lung had collapsed, making her short of breath easily.
The EEOC alleges the dealership demoted her to a lower-paying cashier position, denied her request for a parking spot closer to the building, and eventually fired her.
The case is still pending. The dealership's attorney declined to comment when the Baltimore Business Journal asked. But Debra Lawrence, the EEOC's regional attorney, made a statement worth remembering: "The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified disabled workers based on unfounded stereotypes, fears, and assumptions about those workers' ability to perform their jobs" .
The Pete's Car Smart settlement. March 2024 brought a resolution in a Texas case. Pete's Car Smart in Amarillo agreed to pay $145,000 to settle an EEOC lawsuit .
The allegations: The dealership forced an employee to retire after she had heart surgery. The owner reportedly didn't believe she could do her job. He also allegedly made comments about her "grey hair," said she had "old-timers disease," and told her she was "old enough to be his mother."
The settlement covered monetary damages for the employee and required the dealership to change its employment and training practices. The EEOC's trial attorney, Brooke López, said she hoped the case would "create ripples of positive change" in Amarillo .
$145,000 is real money for a dealership. And that's just the settlement, not the legal fees to get there.
Compliance tools: what works, what doesn't
Several companies now sell accessibility tools specifically for auto dealers. Team Velocity's Apollo platform, for example, integrates with accessiBe and ComplyAuto to handle accessibility and privacy compliance . FZA Digital's ADAPT toolkit offers real-time rendering tools, screen readers, accessibility policy statements, and monthly audits .
These tools can help. But they come with limitations.
The integration problem. Many compliance tools don't talk to each other. Your website might be accessible, but your third-party widgets might not be. Your inventory feed might show one price while your paid search shows another. Each gap creates risk .
The widget problem. Accessibility overlays and widgets are controversial. They sit on top of your site and try to fix problems in real time. Some work well. Others don't. And plaintiffs' lawyers know how to test them. If the overlay claims to make your site accessible but actually doesn't, you've created evidence against yourself.
The maintenance problem. Compliance isn't a one-time fix. FZA Digital notes that their ADAPT technology rescans and re-analyzes websites every 24 hours . That's the level of attention required because things break constantly.
The FTC and the CARS rule
Not directly ADA, but related. The FTC's CARS rule (Combatting Auto Retail Scams) was supposed to take effect. It's currently stayed pending litigation .
The National Independent Automobile Dealers Association filed an amicus brief arguing the rule would harm small dealerships. More than 80 percent of NIADA's dealer members employ fewer than 10 people . The additional disclosure and recordkeeping requirements, they argue, would impose considerable costs.
Oral arguments were scheduled for October 2024 in the Fifth Circuit. The case is ongoing. For dealers, it's another reminder that federal regulation of dealerships isn't going away.
Should dealers be worried
Yes and no.
If you refuse test drives to customers with disabilities, you should be very worried. The law is clear. The DOJ said so in 1998. Courts have said so since.
If your website is completely inaccessible to screen reader users, you're at risk. The number of lawsuits filed by serial plaintiffs is high, especially in California and New York. The Holland case against Kyrillos Auto Sales was filed August 18, 2025 . There will be more.
If you fire employees because they develop disabilities, you're looking at six-figure settlements. Pete's Car Smart paid $145,000 . That's real money.
But if you make reasonable efforts, document them, and actually engage with accommodation requests, your risk is manageable. Most ADA cases against dealers don't result in huge judgments. They result in settlements requiring website fixes and policy changes.
The trade-off. The same tools that protect you from lawsuits cost money and require ongoing attention. They're not set-and-forget. You have to train staff, monitor websites, and actually follow through when employees ask for help. Dealers who treat compliance as a checkbox exercise get sued. Dealers who treat it as part of running a business usually don't.
Practical steps
First, get a set of portable hand controls. Train your mechanics how to install them. Tell your sales staff that when a customer needs them, you say yes and make it happen. The DOJ said 10 to 15 minutes. That's less time than it takes to run a credit check.
Second, look at your website. Run it through basic accessibility checkers. Better yet, watch a screen reader user try to navigate it. The experience is humbling. Fix what you can. Document what you fix.
Third, when an employee asks for an accommodation, talk to them. Don't make assumptions about what they can or can't do. Don't make jokes about gray hair or old age. Just talk, figure out what they need, and decide whether it's reasonable. Write it down.
Fourth, if you get sued, call a lawyer who actually defends these cases. Not your cousin who does real estate closings. Someone who knows the difference between standing and mootness, who's read Camacho and Schutza and can tell you whether the plaintiff in your case has a real problem or just a photocopied complaint.
The ADA has been law for 35 years. Dealerships have been covered the whole time. The only thing that's changed is that plaintiffs' lawyers have figured out how to enforce it. You can complain about that, or you can adapt.