{"id":19787,"date":"2025-05-22T22:39:39","date_gmt":"2025-05-23T05:39:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=19787"},"modified":"2025-05-22T22:40:16","modified_gmt":"2025-05-23T05:40:16","slug":"telecom-industry-not-required-to-accommodate-people-sickened-by-cell-tower-radiation-courts-rule","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/?p=19787","title":{"rendered":"Telecom Industry Not Required to Accommodate People Sickened by Cell Tower Radiation, Courts Rule"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/h1>\n
\n

Wireless companies don\u2019t have to make accommodations or changes to their practices or policies under the Americans with Disabilities Act when their towers make people nearby sick, even in their homes, a panel of judges ruled.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

by<\/span> Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.<\/a><\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
MAY 19, 2025<\/span><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Wireless companies don\u2019t have to make accommodations or changes to their practices under the Americans with Disabilities Act<\/a> (ADA) \u2014 even when their towers make people sick in their homes, a federal appeals court ruled<\/a>.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

The ruling came as a blow to plaintiff Henry \u201cHank\u201d Allen<\/a>, who alleged the radiofrequency (RF) radiation<\/a> emitted by a cell tower installed next to his home triggered more than 15 episodes of atrial fibrillation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Allen told The Defender the ruling confirms the \u201cdeeply troubling reality\u201d that there is \u201cno legal remedy for Americans being injured by wireless infrastructure.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cUnder the current interpretation of the ADA, people like me who are disabled by involuntary exposure to cell tower<\/a> radiation are simply left behind,\u201d Allen said. \u201cIn effect, the wireless industry has been given a license to harm and a \u2018get out of jail free\u2019 card. They can place harmful towers next to homes, schools, and businesses without consequences \u2014 even when people are getting sick.\u201d<\/p>\n

In late 2023, Allen sued Verizon<\/a> and other companies involved in the operation of the tower, alleging Verizon\u2019s tower triggered a slew of health symptoms, including life-threatening cardiac events<\/a>, extreme fatigue, impaired memory and vision, sleep disruption and flu-like symptoms.<\/p>\n

Children\u2019s Health Defense (CHD) funded the suit. Allen\u2019s case was the first in CHD\u2019s strategic line of cases<\/a> seeking relief for people disabled by RF radiation under the ADA, a federal law that \u201cprotects people with disabilities<\/a> in many areas of public life.\u201d<\/p>\n

The complaint argued that the space on the tower leased to the telecommunications companies and associated infrastructure that are necessary to access the internet constitute a physical \u201cplace\u201d subject to compliance with the ADA.<\/p>\n

However, the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho dismissed the case<\/a>, ruling that wireless companies\u2019 cellular networks are not a \u201cplace of public accommodation\u201d under the ADA.<\/p>\n

On May 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court\u2019s ruling.<\/p>\n

W. Scott McCollough, lead litigator for CHD\u2019s Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) and Wireless<\/a> cases, called the outcome \u201cterrible\u201d because it means wireless companies don\u2019t have to make ADA-mandated accommodations or modifications to their practices or policies when their towers make people nearby sick.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe District Court, and now the 9th Circuit appeals panel, have ruled that wireless companies are not subject to the ADA at all with regard to how they deliver their wireless service,\u201d McCollough said. \u201cTheir stores are covered, but not the product sold at the stores.\u201d<\/p>\n

In other words, a Verizon store could be required to install a ramp to accommodate wheelchair-bound individuals under the ADA. However, Verizon couldn\u2019t be required to alter the RF radiation emitted by its tower so that RF-disabled individuals like Allen\u00a0could access the company\u2019s internet service without getting sick.<\/p>\n

Miriam Eckenfels, director of CHD\u2019s EMR and Wireless Program, said Allen\u2019s case shows it\u2019s nearly impossible to get relief for people suffering from RF radiation exposure<\/a> symptoms once a tower goes up near them.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese rulings emphasize the importance of fighting cell towers before they go up through our Stop 5G<\/a>program and toppling the ridiculous regime of federal preemption that leaves people exposed and vulnerable with no recourse,\u201d Eckenfels said.<\/p>\n

Allen agreed. \u201cThere are only two meaningful legal paths forward. We must change our local wireless zoning codes to restore control at the community level, and we must repeal the preemption laws \u2014 both state and federal \u2014 that strip that control away.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s why I\u2019m asking everyone to join the #704NoMore movement. This is how we turn our pain into purpose,\u201d Allen said.<\/p>\n

CHD\u2019s 704 No More<\/a> initiative is raising money<\/a> to legally challenge Section 704 of theTelecommunications Act of 1996<\/a>, which prohibits local authorities from denying cell tower applications based on health and environmental effects.<\/p>\n

Eckenfels said people who experience negative symptoms from RF radiation may sometimes feel hopeless, but CHD will continue to fight on their behalf.<\/p>\n

Allen said, \u201cWe\u2019ve been forced to the margins, made to feel invisible, and left with no legal protections. But we are not alone \u2014 and we are not powerless.\u201d<\/p>\n

CHD files appeal in related case on behalf of woman who suffered strokes<\/strong><\/p>\n

Two days after the 9th Circuit issued its ruling in Allen\u2019s case, CHD filed an appeal<\/a> in a related lawsuit on behalf of a Minnesota woman who alleged she suffered over 50 strokes<\/a> after AT&T put up a cell tower near her home.<\/p>\n

In March 2024, Marcia Haller sued AT&T<\/a> and other companies operating the tower in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Duluth), alleging the companies must provide her with a \u201creasonable accommodation\u201d and\/or modify their \u201cpolicies, practices or procedures\u201d to comply with federal disability law.<\/p>\n

In addition to suffering dozens of strokes, Haller has suffered vision and hearing loss<\/a>, headaches<\/a>, sleep disruption<\/a>, chronic fatigue<\/a> and cognitive impairment<\/a> since AT&T \u201cupgraded\u201d the tower in 2019. She also experiences ongoing issues with balance, orientation and mobility.<\/p>\n

On Feb. 18, the District Court dismissed the suit<\/a>, ruling that wireless companies weren\u2019t discriminating against people like Haller as long as they made the same wireless service available to everyone.<\/p>\n

CHD\u2019s appeal, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, argues that the District Court erred and that the wireless companies are engaging in \u201cseveral forms of discrimination\u201d against Haller, McCollough said.<\/p>\n

The appeal asks the 8th Circuit court to vacate the District Court\u2019s judgment and send the case back to the District Court. Alternatively, Haller should be allowed to amend her suit.<\/p>\n

McCollough said the exact issues in the Haller and Allen cases differ, but the outcome of their rulings is the same regarding the ADA.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe bottom line is that wireless companies can\u2019t be forced to make ADA-mandated accommodations or modifications to their practices or policies when their towers make people nearby sick, even in their homes,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

McCollough declined to comment on the planned next steps in either case.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe do think the panel got it wrong in Allen\u2019s case, and we\u2019ve appealed the Haller District Court decision, so we obviously hope the 8th Circuit will agree with us on the problem with that decision,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

\u2018I didn\u2019t choose this battle \u2014 I tried to avoid it\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

Allen said he didn\u2019t go out looking for a legal<\/a> battle with telecommunications companies.<\/p>\n

He was diagnosed with electromagnetic sensitivity<\/a> \u2014 now called EMR Syndrome<\/a> \u2014 in 2014 while working as a licensed general contractor in California on job sites with high RF radiation.<\/p>\n

\u201cI didn\u2019t choose this battle \u2014 I tried to avoid it,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

After realizing how exposure to RF radiation was exacerbating his symptoms, he and his family relocated to a small farm in Idaho, roughly two miles away from a cell tower.<\/p>\n

Allen also changed careers to minimize his exposure to RF radiation by getting licensed as a real estate broker and working from his home, which he had hardwired for internet access.<\/p>\n

With these changes, Allen was able \u201cto successfully live and work normally from home despite his disability\u201d \u2014 until April 2021, when Verizon built a cell tower next to his property.<\/p>\n

Shortly after Verizon turned on the tower, Allen\u2019s health \u201ctook a dramatic downturn\u201d as he suffered atrial fibrillation and was rushed to the emergency room, \u201cunsure whether he would live,\u201d the complaint<\/a> said.<\/p>\n

A doctor did an echocardiogram, ran a full blood panel, did a cardioversion<\/a> to restore a regular heartbeat and administered intravenous drugs to slow his heart rate.<\/p>\n

Two days later, it happened again.<\/p>\n

In March 2022, Allen had invasive heart surgery \u2014 cardiac ablation<\/a> \u2014 to treat the recurrent heart rhythm problems.<\/p>\n

However, Verizon, AT&T and Dish in 2022 added additional antennas to the tower.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis equipment \u2026 also triggers Mr. Allen\u2019s severe and in some instances life-threatening symptoms associated with his recurring and ongoing disability,\u201d stated Allen\u2019s lawyers in an August 2023 letter to Verizon, AT&T and Dish<\/a> in which they asked the companies to provide disability accommodations\/modifications.<\/p>\n

Allen \u201cexhausted all available self-help options,\u201d according to the complaint, including painting his house with RF-blocking paint, tinting the windows with RF-blocking tint, utilizing wire screens and wearing special clothing that blocks RF.<\/p>\n

The RF emitted by the transmitting equipment threatens the plaintiff\u2019s life. \u201cHis condition<\/a> is such that he may die as a result of the next cardiac event caused from RF exposure,\u201d the complaint alleged.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m deeply grateful to Children\u2019s Health Defense and the McCollough Law Firm,\u201d Allen said. \u201cThey stood by my family at our darkest hour, when no one else would. Their courage and commitment reminded us that we weren\u2019t alone in the fight.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D.<\/a><\/h4>\n

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

source : https:\/\/childrenshealthdefense.org\/defender\/telecom-industry-not-required-accommodate-people-sickened-cell-tower-radiation-courts-rule\/<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Wireless companies don\u2019t have to make accommodations or changes to their practices or policies under the Americans with Disabilities Act when their towers make people nearby sick, even in their homes, a panel of judges ruled.   by Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. MAY 19, 2025 Wireless companies don\u2019t have to make accommodations or changes to their […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[345,357,5,602,349,161,968],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19787","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4g","category-5g-antenna","category-ehs","category-electrohypersensitivity","category-electromagnetic-sensitivity","category-legal-action","category-stroke"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19787","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19787"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19787\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19789,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19787\/revisions\/19789"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19787"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19787"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emrabc.ca\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19787"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}