When an Email Appeal Isn’t Accepted: An ADA Title II Access Case Study (Irondequoit, NY)

This post documents a narrow ADA Title II access issue involving the Town of Irondequoit’s process for submitting FOIL-related appeals.

This is not about the merits of the underlying records request. It is about what occurred after a disability-based request for a reasonable modification was made.

The Procedural Requirement

In 2025, the Town stated in correspondence that FOIL appeals must be submitted by mail with a physical (“wet”) signature rather than being accepted by email.

For individuals who cannot submit paper-mailed documents due to disability, that requirement can function as a barrier to accessing the Town’s process unless a reasonable modification (or an equally effective alternative) is provided.

The Reasonable Modification Request

A disability-based reasonable modification was requested: acceptance of submissions by email in lieu of mail-only wet-signature submission, or the provision of an equally effective accessible alternative.

As of this publication, no written decision has been issued granting or denying that request, and no alternative accessible process has been proposed.

Why This Is a Separate Issue

Whether or not the underlying records dispute is eventually resolved, the access issue remains independent.

An unanswered reasonable modification request leaves an unresolved access barrier. If a public entity does not grant, deny, or provide an alternative, the barrier remains in place for the next person who encounters it.

The issue here is structural:

• A barrier was identified.
• A modification was requested.
• No decision was issued.

ADA Coordinator Information

The Town’s website was searched using its built-in search function and by reviewing logical sections (Clerk, Human Resources, FOIL, Supervisor pages). ADA Coordinator contact information was not located.

The Town was asked directly to identify the ADA Coordinator and provide contact information. As of this publication, that information has not been publicly identified in response to those requests. (See 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a).)

Public Notice (Exhibit A)

On February 11, 2026, a focused ADA Title II notice was sent to the Town Clerk and Town Supervisor separating the access issue from the underlying FOIL dispute and requesting a written determination within ten business days of that date.

The notice stated, in part:

“To date, the Town has not granted, denied, or proposed any alternative.”

The full text of that notice is available here:

Exhibit A – ADA Title II Notice of Nonresponse (PDF)

This post serves as public documentation of that notice.

What an Accessible Process Looks Like

This issue is straightforward to correct. An accessible administrative process should include:

• Clear publication of ADA Coordinator contact information
• A defined method to request reasonable modifications
• A written determination on modification requests
• An equally effective alternative where a physical signature requirement is imposed
• An accessible grievance procedure

Public processes must be accessible in practice, not only in theory.

Status

As of publication, this matter remains open. If the Town provides a written decision or publishes ADA Coordinator contact information, this post will be updated to reflect that outcome.

In 2025, the Town of Irondequoit required that certain FOIL appeals be submitted by mail with a physical “wet signature.”

This post is not about the merits of the underlying records request. It is about what happened when a disability-based modification was requested to access that appeal process.

The Process Requirement

After a FOIL appeal was submitted by email, the Town responded that appeals must be:

• Mailed
• Signed with a physical “wet signature”
• Submitted in a specific format

No regulation was provided establishing this requirement.

The Modification Request

On July 23, 2025, a reasonable accommodation was requested due to disability. The request was narrow:

Acceptance of the appeal by email (or provision of an equally effective accessible alternative), rather than requiring mailed paper submission with a wet signature.

Email submission imposes no meaningful administrative burden. It is commonly used by public entities for official correspondence.

The Response

No decision was issued.

The Town did not:

• Grant the modification
• Deny the modification
• Propose an alternative accessible process

Subsequent correspondence continued to reference procedural requirements, and later stated that no appeal had been received.

The modification request itself was never addressed.

ADA Coordinator Information

Separately, the Town’s website was searched using its built-in search function and by reviewing logical sections (Clerk, Human Resources, FOIL, Supervisor pages). ADA Coordinator contact information was not located.

The Town was asked directly to identify the ADA Coordinator and provide contact information. Instead, general third-party ADA training materials were produced, which did not identify the Town’s designated ADA Coordinator or provide contact details.

No grievance procedure was provided.

Why This Matters

Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, public entities must respond when a reasonable modification is requested to ensure equal access to public services and processes.

The issue here is not the underlying FOIL dispute.

The issue is procedural:

• A barrier was identified.
• A modification was requested.
• No decision was issued.

Public processes must be accessible in practice, not only in theory.

When a modification request receives no response, the access barrier remains unresolved.