Larry McAfee (January 30, 1960 – June 13, 1995) was an American disability‑rights activist whose lawsuit against the State of Ohio, McAfee v. State of Ohio (1992), became a notable early case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Early life and injury
McAfee was born in Dayton, Ohio. In 1978, at the age of eighteen, he was involved in a motorcycle accident that resulted in a spinal cord injury, leaving him a paraplegic. He subsequently used a wheelchair for mobility and required extensive medical care.
Legal action
In 1990, McAfee filed a suit against the State of Ohio alleging violations of the newly enacted ADA. The complaint centered on the state's failure to provide an accessible vehicle that could accommodate his wheelchair, as well as broader deficiencies in state‑provided services for individuals with disabilities. The case was heard in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and, in 1992, the court ruled in favor of the state, finding that the ADA did not impose a direct duty on the state to provide a specific vehicle to McAfee.
Although the judgment was unfavorable to McAfee, the case drew national attention to gaps in the implementation of the ADA and highlighted the challenges faced by wheelchair users in accessing public services. Advocacy groups cited the litigation as prompting legislative and administrative reviews of state compliance with accessibility standards.
Later years and legacy
Following the lawsuit, McAfee continued to advocate for disability rights and participated in public speaking engagements. He died by suicide on June 13, 1995. Posthumously, his case has been referenced in scholarly analyses of early ADA litigation and is often mentioned in discussions of the law’s evolving interpretation regarding state obligations to individuals with disabilities.
Significance
Larry McAfee’s legal challenge is considered an early, high‑profile test of the ADA’s reach. While the court’s decision did not establish a precedent obligating states to provide personalized transportation solutions, the case contributed to broader public awareness of accessibility issues and informed subsequent policy reforms aimed at improving compliance with federal disability‑rights legislation.
