MML Review Magazine Summer 2026

Legal Spotlight

By Bill Mathewson

In the Spring issue of the Review , this column focused on an opinion of the Michigan Attorney General (OAG 7318, February 4, 2022) that addressed Michigan’s Open Meetings Act (OMA) in the context of the requirements of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). While the Opinion was not a new one, League members’ inquiries on the subject prompted it to be the topic for the column. Keeping in mind that opinions of the Attorney General (AG) are controlling on state agencies but not local governments, generally, the AG opines that local boards and commissions must provide reasonable accommodation, including virtual participation, to qualified persons with a disability. That said, the AG also speaks to not requiring a board or commission incurring an undue burden or fundamentally altering the nature of the meetings. And the Opinion states that a fully virtual option, such as all members participating remotely, is more likely to be a fundamental alteration and therefore not required. There is a recent published opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA) that further elaborates on the interplay between the OMA and the rights of disabled persons. The case is Charles Blackwell v. City of Inkster (April 7, 2026). Rather than the federal ADA, this case involves the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (PWDCRA). Here the plaintiff, who was confined to a wheelchair due to a spinal-cord injury that rendered him paraplegic, was, as the COA describes, “a thorn in the side of local officials in the Detroit area” and a “self-styled local government watchdog.” The background is that the plaintiff would have “great difficulty attending meetings of the Inkster city council in person.” The meetings were streamed to the public, allowing anyone to virtually watch them, but virtual participation was not possible. The plaintiff wanted to make comments during the public comment portion of the meeting and asked the city clerk for an accommodation. Specifically, that he be allowed to submit prepared comments to the clerk and city attorney by email that would be read aloud at council meetings. This was done at two meetings. The City then adopted a policy that required public comments to be made in person. The plaintiff sued, claiming a violation of the PWDCRA and seeking an injunction to require the City to provide a reasonable accommodation. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order in favor of the plaintiff’s position.

22 |

| Summer 2026