Shelbi Hindel v. Jon Husted, 875 F.3d 344

Background

Plaintiffs (blind Ohio absentee voters) sued under Title II of the ADA, alleging Ohio’s paper-only absentee system forces them to rely on sighted assistants and deprives them of private, independent voting.
Plaintiffs requested implementation of online absentee ballots and screen-reader–compatible ballot-marking tools (similar to systems used in Maryland, Oregon, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and Alaska) as reasonable accommodations.
Defendant (Ohio Secretary of State) raised the ADA affirmative defense of “fundamental alteration,” arguing that adopting uncertified voting tools would violate Ohio’s statutory certification process and thus fundamentally alter the State’s election system; he moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).
The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for defendant, concluding plaintiffs made a prima facie ADA claim but that the requested accommodations would be unreasonable and would waive Ohio’s pre-certification protections.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held that the fundamental-alteration defense is fact-intensive and the Secretary’s mere allegation—without evidence—was insufficient to resolve that defense at the pleadings stage; the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ohio’s absentee voting scheme violates Title II of the ADA by denying blind voters private, independent absentee voting	Ohio: paper-only absentee voting forces blind voters to seek sighted assistance; online ballot-marking tools are reasonable accommodations	Ohio: state law requires certification; adopting uncertified tools would contravene certification rules and fundamentally alter elections	Court found plaintiffs plausibly alleged ADA claim; remanded for fact-specific resolution of fundamental-alteration defense rather than deciding on pleadings
Whether the Secretary can obtain judgment on the pleadings based on a fundamental-alteration affirmative defense	Plaintiffs: factual inquiry required; discovery and evidence needed before court can conclude alteration	Ohio: procedural noncompliance (lack of certification) justifies rejection of proposed tools as unreasonable	Court: rejecting defense on pleadings was error—defendant must produce evidence to carry burden on affirmative defense
Whether compliance with state certification rules can be dispositive against an ADA claim	Plaintiffs: procedural rules cannot automatically excuse a substantive ADA violation; ADA can supersede conflicting state rules	Ohio: certification requirement prevents immediate implementation of tools	Court: procedural certification alone insufficient; substantive proof required to show accommodation would undermine state interests
Whether plaintiffs must be treated as vendors subject to Ohio’s certification scheme	Plaintiffs: they are not vendors and have no statutory duty to submit tools for certification	Ohio: certification regime applies to equipment and software used in elections	Court: plaintiffs are not required to be vendors; certification statutes do not automatically bar ADA relief

Key Cases Cited

Nat’l Fed’n of the Blind v. Lamone, 813 F.3d 494 (4th Cir. 2016) (upholding ADA claim where accessible ballot-marking tools were found reasonable after factual inquiry)
Mary Jo C. v. N.Y. State & Local Ret. Sys., 707 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013) (fundamental-alteration is a factual inquiry unsuited to resolution on pleadings)
Radaszewski ex rel. Radaszewski v. Maram, 383 F.3d 599 (7th Cir. 2004) (discussing difficulty of resolving fundamental-alteration on pleadings)
Anderson v. City of Blue Ash, 798 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2015) (reasonableness inquiries under the ADA are highly fact-specific)
Jones v. City of Monroe, 341 F.3d 474 (6th Cir. 2003) (waiver of generally applicable rule requires case-specific analysis of whether waiver undermines rule’s purposes)
Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 814 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2016) (recognizing state interests in election integrity and voter protection)
Keith v. Cty. of Oakland, 703 F.3d 918 (6th Cir. 2013) (defendant bears burden to prove ADA affirmative defenses)