ADA Matters Because All People Matter

A DISABLED DAD’S ADA MATTERS
Georgia on My Mind
STATE BAR OF GEORGIA • CITY OF BROOKHAVEN • GIRMA, GMA, AND GALLAGHER BASSETT • GEORGIA POST • STATE ADA COORDINATOR’S OFFICE

John J. Shiptenko Asked for “a description of your disability” Twice

As of October 17, 2026. Times are Eastern.

On May 4, 2026 John J. Shiptenko granted me written only communication and asked me to describe my disability. On May 7 Shiptenko asked for the description again, and invited a phone call.

Ask, and ask again.

At 10:56 AM on May 4, 2026, John J. Shiptenko, Senior Assistant General Counsel of the State Bar of Georgia, wrote to me: “If you feel comfortable providing me with a description of your disability, please do so. Having that information may help us efficiently engage in an interactive process as we consider and implement accommodations.”

The same email granted me this: “Written-only accommodation. All OGC communications with you regarding this matter will be in writing because of your disability-related communication limitations. No telephone-only communications.”

Three days later, at 10:01 AM on May 7, 2026, Shiptenko asked again: “If you feel comfortable providing me with a description of your disability, please do so. Having that information may help me efficiently engage in an interactive process as we consider and implement accommodations.”

And in the next sentence: “Also, please call me if you think a phone call will help clarify your ADA-related issues.”

The Bar had already granted my requests on May 4. It did not need my diagnosis to do it. The federal Department of Justice’s Title II guidance says a public entity “may not make unnecessary inquiries into the existence of a disability.” The Bar says that rule does not reach it. Yet Shiptenko wrote on May 7 that “A public entity can have numerous ADA coordinators.”

The grant did not depend on it. I did not owe it.

What I Allege:

  1. The first ask. I allege that on May 4, 2026, at 10:56 AM, John J. Shiptenko wrote, “If you feel comfortable providing me with a description of your disability, please do so.”
  2. In the same email, the grant. I allege that the same email granted “Written-only accommodation” and “No telephone-only communications.”
  3. Ask again. I allege that on May 7, 2026, at 10:01 AM, Shiptenko asked again, in nearly the same words, for “a description of your disability.” Two asks in three days, as of 2026-10-17.
  4. The phone call. I allege that in the May 7 email Shiptenko wrote, “Also, please call me if you think a phone call will help clarify your ADA-related issues,” three days after granting written only communication because of my disability.
  5. It appears to me that the Bar’s ADA contact asked a disabled man to explain his disability after the Bar had already granted what he asked for, and that the only purpose the email gives is efficiency for the Bar.

What It Did to Me:

Every time someone asks me to describe my disability, I have to decide how much of my private life to hand a stranger, to get something already granted. I write with assistive technology. That is why I asked for writing. A phone call was not the answer.

Is this how they would treat their own family or friends that were disabled?

Back to John J. Shiptenko · What Is ADA Title II?

ADA Matters welcomes documented corrections. Write to info@adamatters.com with the correct fact and its source.