Implementing Approaches After Attorney General Opined that Remote Meeting Accessibility is a Reasonable Accommodation for Public Officials With Disabilities
June 30, 2025Last year, the state Office of the Attorney General released an opinion that found the federal Americans with Disabilities Act requires local legislative bodies to allow members with qualifying disabilities to participate in public meetings from a remote, non-public location as a reasonable accommodation. Although the Brown Act’s default rule requires that members convene in person in a single location (with some limited exceptions), the AG concluded that remote participation by decisionmakers with disabilities satisfies the Brown Act so long as their participation simulates in-person attendance. Specifically, the member must 1) use two-way video and audio streaming in real time; and 2) disclose the identity of any adults who are present with the member and the nature of their relationship. The AG opinion paves the way for enhanced accessibility for individuals with disabilities who are members of local bodies covered by the Brown Act. How is it best implemented in practice?
Background on the ADA
The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires reasonable accommodation in employment, government services, and public accommodations for individuals with disabilities. The ADA expressly applies to government entities through the law’s Title I, which governs employment by “covered entities,” including local governments, and through Title II, which forbids discrimination in state and local government programs. Serving as a member of a local agency board may constitute employment under Title I or participation in a program under Title II, depending on the agency.
The ADA defines “disability” as (1) a physical or mental impairment that “substantially limits” a major life activity of the individual; (2) a “record of such an impairment”; or (3) “being regarded as having such an impairment.” Whether an individual has a qualifying disability under one of these prongs is determined on a case-by-case basis.
Examples of impairments that have been found to be “disabilities” under the ADA include drug and alcohol addiction; hearing impairments; mobility issues; and mental health problems that severely limit brain function. The key question is whether the impairment limits a major life activity in a significant way.
Local agencies must provide “reasonable accommodations” to “qualified individuals” with disabilities. In the employment context, a qualified individual is someone who can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Employers must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would “impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity.”
Determining what constitutes a “reasonable accommodation” is fact-intensive and determined case-by-case. The ADA specifies that reasonable accommodations include making existing facilities physically accessible, allowing for modified or part-time work schedules, and adjusting policies as needed. “Undue hardship” means an action that requires “significant difficulty or expense,” taking into account factors such as the nature and costs of the accommodation, and the employer’s size and financial resources.
In the context of government programs and services, a qualified individual is someone who meets the essential eligibility requirements necessary to participate in the program, with or without reasonable accommodation. An accommodation is not reasonable if it would cause undue administrative or financial burden to the agency or would fundamentally alter the program.
Update to Previous AG Guidance
Notably, in 2001 the AG had determined that remote attendance at public meetings could not be deemed a “reasonable accommodation” because in-person meeting attendance was an “essential function” and an “essential eligibility requirement” of serving on a legislative body. That prior opinion found that remote participation would fundamentally alter the nature of the decisionmaker’s role, potentially exposing the democratic process to outside influence and undermining the state’s legitimate interest in public attendance and participation in the decision-making process.
In its 2024 opinion, the AG reconsidered this reasoning in light of recent COVID-era amendments to the Brown Act, particularly AB 2449 (2022), which currently allows members to attend meetings remotely for “just cause” or “emergency circumstances.” Given these recent legislative developments, the AG determined that remote participation could no longer be considered outside the scope of a “reasonable accommodation.” The improvement of teleconferencing technology and changing cultural norms surrounding remote work during the last two decades also rendered the AG’s prior opinion obsolete. The modern opinion overturns the 2001 opinion and harmonizes today’s interpretation of the Brown Act with the ADA.
Accommodating Remote Meeting Requests Under the ADA
In light of the AG’s current guidance, agencies may now be faced with disability-related requests for remote accommodations. While no formal process for reviewing accommodations requests is required, agencies may find it helpful to adopt policies for determining whether the individual requesting accommodations has a qualifying disability that precludes their in-person attendance at meetings, and whether remote accommodations are appropriate.
At least one agency—the City of Berkeley—has already done so. Chapter II of Berkeley’s Boards and Commissions Handbook provides that board members and commissioners with disabilities may make requests for accommodations to the City’s ADA Program Coordinator. The ADA Program Coordinator evaluates each request. Requests for remote attendance should be made at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting, and the City will make a good faith effort to provide remote attendance accommodations. Individuals may be granted remote accommodations on a permanent or temporary basis in accordance with their needs. The City also provides an attestation form that individuals should use to request remote accommodations and explain why accommodations are needed.
While Berkeley’s guidelines provide one example of how agencies can approach remote accommodations requests, there is no one way to approach this issue. Agencies interested in developing remote accommodations policies are encouraged to consult with legal counsel to create policies tailored to their needs and preferences.
Future Developments
In May 2025, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved SB 239. If enacted, the bill would authorize some local advisory bodies (those not authorized to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, grants, permits, or other entitlements) to allow teleconferencing for board meetings—subject to certain requirements. The body would need to post an agenda at a designated physical meeting location, and at least one member would need to be present. Any member appearing remotely would need to appear visibly on camera and be listed in the meeting minutes. Certain bodies—including law enforcement, budget oversight bodies, and elected officials—would be excluded. Moreover, the bill would only remain in effect until January 1, 2030.
If SB 239 is adopted into law, qualifying advisory bodies could allow remote attendance broadly, removing the need to consider requests under the ADA—at least until 2030. The bill was ordered to the inactive file in July, but we will watch to see if it moves forward again.
By Maria Trubetskaya, law clerk, and Shanthi Chackalackal, fellow
For more information about ensuring that your public bodies are complying with legal requirements, contact Seph Petta.