U.S. Congress Wants To Make Americans with Disabilities Second-Class Citizens Again - U.S. Sen. Tammy Duckworth

President George H.W. Bush signs the Americans with Disabilities Act during a ceremony at the White House on July 26, 1990. Joining Bush are Rev. Harold Wilke, rear left; Evan Kemp, chairman of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, left; Sandra Parrino, chairman of the National Council on Disability; and Justin Dart, chairman of the President's Council on Disabilities. (Barry Thumma/Associated Press)

Opinion By Senator Tammy Duckworth as published in The Washington Post | October 17, 2017
On May 28, 1988, Lisa Carl went to her local movie theater, something millions of Americans can do with ease and comfort. Yet when Lisa tried to go into the theater, the manager refused her ticket, denying her entry because Lisa had cerebral palsy and used a wheelchair. When an advocate called the theater owner about the incident, the manager coldly stated, "I don't want her in here, and I don't have to let her in."

Lisa later testified before Congress, "I was not crying on the outside, but I was crying on the inside. I just wanted to watch the movie like everyone else." While the cruelty is heartbreaking, the true outrage was that in 1988, the law actually sided with the theater owner, who was free to legally discriminate against Lisa and deny her access to a public theater because she was born with a disability.

Fortunately, millions of Americans with disabilities and their families refused to accept this discrimination. They shared their stories and pushed and prodded a bipartisan coalition of legislators to end decades of legally sanctioned discrimination through passage of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

At the signing ceremony, President George H.W. Bush noted that before the ADA, "tragically, for too many Americans, the blessings of liberty have been limited or even denied. The Civil Rights Act of '64 took a bold step toward righting that wrong. But the stark fact remained that people with disabilities were still victims of segregation and discrimination, and this was intolerable." Bush declared, "Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down."

Decades later, the forces of discrimination are working hard to rebuild that wall. Led by the hospitality and retail industries, special interests want to shift the burden of ADA compliance away from business owners and onto individuals with disabilities.

They're backing a bill that has already passed the House Judiciary Committee, the so-called ADA Education and Reform Act, which would reward businesses that fail to comply with the law. The bill would allow businesses to wait until they are notified of their failure to meet legal obligations before they even have to start removing barriers that prevent Americans with disabilities from leading independent lives.

This offensive legislation would segregate the disability community, making it the only protected class under civil rights law that must rely on "education" — rather than strong enforcement — to guarantee access to public spaces. As the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Rights Task Force and other civil rights organizations wrote in opposing this bill, "We know of no other law that outlaws discrimination but permits entities to discriminate with impunity until victims experience that discrimination and educate the entities perpetrating it about their obligations not to discriminate."

For decades, from enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through passage of the ADA, Congress has worked to enshrine the principle in law that no American should be denied access to a public space because of who they are, be it their race, nationality, religion, gender or disability. The ADA Education and Reform Act betrays this bipartisan legacy.

Businesses have had 27 years to comply with the ADA public-access protections. Yet rather than investing time and energy to achieve this goal, they are waging a propaganda campaign to convince Congress that their own lack of accessibility isn't the problem — so-called drive-by lawsuits are. Notably, supporters of the ADA Education and Reform Act often do not dispute that they are violating the law. Rather, they simply resent being sued for what they believe are "minor" ADA infractions.

Ever since I lost my legs when an RPG tore through the cockpit of the Black Hawk helicopter I was flying over Iraq, getting around has been difficult. I can't always enter restaurants or other public spaces. I have to spend a lot of time planning how to get from one place to the next.

An incline that is a few degrees too steep or an entrance that is a few inches off the ground can determine whether I am able to access an area without assistance. Being unable to independently enter a movie theater, store, hotel or restaurant is not only humiliating, it also limits the freedom to pursue certain jobs, to access necessary services and to enjoy basic conveniences that most Americans don't think twice about.

I understand that not everyone thinks about these things because, for most of my adult life, I didn't either. But the truth is that everyone, whether they realize it or not, is just one bad day away from needing accessible options to help them get around their community.

While I understand people might not think of some ADA violations as significant at first glance, I can assure you they are more significant for those of us with disabilities than you know.

If Congress passed this misguided legislation, it would send a disgraceful message to Americans with disabilities that their civil rights are not worthy of strong enforcement. It is not too late to defeat this dangerous legislation and keep every American living with a disability from becoming a second-class citizen.

source: This commentary was distributed by Washington Post News Service with Bloomberg News

Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat, represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate. 

Registration for the 2018 Disability Equality Index is Now Open! The Disability Equality Index (DEI) is a unique, joint initiative of American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) and the US Business Leadership Network (USBLN). It serves as the nation’s most trusted annual benchmarking tool allowing America’s leading corporations to self-report their disability policies and practices. This evolving index objectively scores each corporation on a scale from 0 to 100—100 representing the most inclusive. The DEI was developed by the two national leaders in consultation with the appointed DEI Advisory Committee, a diverse and voluntary group of experts in business, policy, and disability advocacy.   Regardless of score, each participating company is: Given a complimentary copy of the 2018 DEI Report, which consists of detailed aggregate results and benchmarking information. Presented a scorecard outlining areas in which they excel, as well as those in need of improvement. Invited to exclusive networking opportunities with other participating DEI companies at the USBLN Annual Conference. Offered customized DEI consulting services specifically geared towards increasing their DEI score.

Eligible companies must register by January 12, 2018 to participate in the 2018 survey. All registered companies will receive access to the 2018 DEI the week of January 22, 2018 to begin submission of responses.  Final company DEI responses are due back on April 13, 2018.  DEI scores will be finalized by late June 2018. SOURCE: American Association of People with Disabilities

U.S. House Voting on Bill That Will Weaken its Disability Laws and Protections

House to Vote on Bill Protecting Businesses Over Persons with Disabilities
article by 

Carlos Ríos Espinosa

Senior Researcher and Advocate, Disability Rights DivisionHuman Rights Watch
Sept, 13, 2017 - A bill that would very deliberately undermine the protections afforded under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) could come to a vote in the US House of Representatives soon.

The ADA requires owners of businesses open to the public – like restaurants, hospitals, and hotels – to make sure they were accessible for people with disabilities. If they fail to do so, a person with disabilities can enforce their rights either by taking the business to court, or by filing a complaint with the US Department of Justice. However, the dangerous ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620), which the House Judiciary Committee approved last week, would dramatically increase the burden on any person with a disability who seeks to vindicate their rights.

This is how the new bill would look: If someone in, say, a wheelchair comes to a movie theater without a ramp or elevator, they would be required to give the business owner a written notice. Then, the business owner would have two months to respond and another four months to take some steps to address the violation. Only then, half a year later, could the person whose rights are at stake try to force the business to comply with the ADA and be held accountable.

This new bill would incentivize businesses dragging their feet to comply with the ADA’s accessibility obligations. It would also act as a profound deterrent to people looking to enforce their rights under the ADA. Already under existing law, the onus is mostly on them to trigger enforcement and accountability. Under H.R. 620, that burden would be compounded by months of delay and new bureaucratic hurdles. Many people would likely give up rather than put themselves through all that – and perhaps that’s exactly the point.

The United States has the obligation to ensure businesses do not discriminate against people with disabilities. Yet H.R. 620 would actually create more obstacles for them to access justice.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/09/13/will-us-weaken-its-disability-laws

City of Chicago's New Accessibility Regulations for Businesses go into effect July 1, 2017

The Chicago Human Rights Ordinance requires that Chicago businesses ensure that their facilities, products and services are available to individuals with disabilities. On July 1, 2017, new disability rights regulations passed by the Chicago Commission on Human Relations go into effect. These regulations specify what Chicago businesses must do in order to make their goods and services accessible to people with disabilities.

This compliance requirement is for existing as well as new businesses and no business is "grandfathered." Non-compliance is punishable by up to $1,000 per incident paid to the City of Chicago, with damages and attorney fees paid to the complaining party. Investigation of accused violators will be prompted by filing a complaint with the City of Chicago.

Two Previous attempts to implement were on Jan 1, 2016, and Jan. 1, 2017.

Starting in July 1,  2017: 

Private businesses must be accessible to individuals with disabilities, when readily achievable. The regulations provide varying standards, both structural and practical, depending on what is required, including: 

• The construction and alteration of facilities.
• The removal of architectural barriers that interfere with accessibility in existing facilities.
• The removal of criteria that screen out individuals with a disability.
• The revision of policies necessary to provide full and equal enjoyment.
• The provision of auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective communication. 

The new regulations set forth very specific requirements for private businesses covered by the Ordinance. These requirements are nearly identical to those found in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal disability rights law that applies to private business.

Examples of compliance situations

• Customers with disabilities must be able to maneuver within your business safely and efficiently.
• Exterior entrances must provide for a customer in a wheelchair to enter where a step or steps are present with a lift or ramp or provide an alternative entry.
• If restrooms are provided, the must be accessible to all customers with disabilities, including those using a wheelchair or those with a visual impairment.
• Restaurant and bar menus should be available in large print or braille. Where unavailable, staff should be prepared to read the menu aloud.
• Restaurants and bars cannot deny entry or service to customers with service animals.
• Cashier and food-ordering counters must be installed at a height that will ensure adequate service to customers in wheelchairs 

Requirements                                                                                                                          

The new regulations clearly specify requirements for private businesses covered by the ordinance are nearly identical to those found in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, according to CCHR. They go on to list  structural accessibility as well as policies, practices and procedures. 

• The regulations provide varying standards, both structural and practical, depending on what is required, including:  
• The construction and alteration of facilities.
• The removal of architectural barriers that interfere with accessibility in existing facilities.
• The removal of criteria that screen out individuals with a disability.
• The revision of policies necessary to provide full and equal enjoyment
• The provision of auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective communication. 

Structural Accessibility Under the New Regulations

• New Construction
• Facilities must be built in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Chicago Building Code, unless a condition of the terrain makes it impossible to comply.
• Alterations to Existing Facilities
• Any physical changes to a facility (build-outs, renovations) must be done so that the altered elements are built in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Chicago Building Code.
• When the primary function area of an establishment is altered (e.g. the dining room of a restaurant), improvements in access to other parts of the facility may be required.
• Existing Facilities
• Any structural barriers preventing access to people with disabilities must be removed where such removal is readily achievable, meaning easily completed without much difficulty or expense (based on the size and resources of the business).
• If removing a barrier is not readily achievable, the business may need to provide alternative means of providing access to their goods and services (e.g. curbside service and home delivery).
• Businesses are under a continuing obligation to remove barriers to access over time. 

Accessibility of Policies, Practices, & Procedures

• Intentional Discrimination
• A business may not deny service to people based on their disabilities.
• A business may not provide to people with disabilities  unequal access to goods and services or access to lesser quality goods or services.
• Eligibility Criteria
• A business may not impose rules that exclude people with disabilities, unless those rules are necessary to provide goods and services, or are related to a legitimate safety requirement.
• Example:  A store requires customers using a credit card to produce a driver’s license, thereby excluding people whose disabilities prohibit them from driving (e.g. people who are blind).
• Modifications to Policies, Practices, and Procedures
• A business must reasonably modify its procedures when necessary to afford goods or services to individuals with disabilities, unless such a modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the business.
• Ensuring Effective Communication
• A business must ensure that it communicates in the most effective manner with customers who have visual, hearing, or speech impairments, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the business or create significant difficulty or expense.
• The most effective auxiliary aid or service to facilitate communication will depend on the context of the business transaction and the disability of the customer.
• Example: A written note might be enough to communicate with a person who is deaf at a donut shop but the same person might require a sign language interpreter when visiting a doctor’s office.  

*This information is meant solely for informational purposes and is not inclusive of all the new regulation provisions. It is not meant as a form of legal advice.

For more information on the City of Chicago new regulations, click on the link below:

Disability Regulations - Effective 07/01/2017
or contact:
City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations
Phone: 312.744.4111740 North Sedgwick Street
Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60654

website: https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cchr.html

Many U.S. Restaurants Haven’t Lived Up to the Civil Rights Promise of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Disabled diners on the issues they most commonly face — and how to fix them

Nice Article by David Perry, published in EATER | May 31, 2017                                                         
Disabled people should get to eat in restaurants. That doesn’t sound like a revolutionary manifesto, but survey the long history of disability and discrimination, and it really kind of is. Thanks to decades of activism, civil rights legislation, and litigation, a person with a disability has a pretty unimpeachable legal and moral right to go into any restaurant and expect to be able to eat with relatively equal access to whatever culinary delights await. Too bad it doesn’t always work out that way.

Chloe Konicki describes herself as having low vision and being hard of hearing, or “deaf with a lowercase ‘d’.” Candace Coleman says one of her favorite pastimes is visiting restaurants. Sometimes she uses a powered wheelchair; sometimes she doesn’t. She just doesn’t want to be stressed about accommodations. “If you’re not stressed, you enjoy the food!” Gary Arnold is a Little Person — actually, he’s the president of Little People of America, but he also runs public relations for Access Living, the local shop for all things disability rights-related in Chicago.

The three of them have joined me for lunch at 25 Degrees, a burger bar just north of the Loop, to talk about the legal rights of disabled Americans under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when it comes to restaurants. Most places are okay, few places are great, and sometimes diners reliant on the ADA still face intensely uncomfortable moments due to stigma or ignorance.

Here, we knew going in that the restaurant would be welcoming. Generally, people with access needs either call ahead or send a scout, because despite the law, you can’t assume access will be possible. Sometimes blithe assurances over the phone about accessibility turn out wrong — and if things go wrong, the ADA requires a disabled customer to personally sue, turning them into the villain — but that’s not the case today. Access Living staff and guests eat here all the time, because there are no steps, the spacing is wide open, the seating flexible, and Alberto, the manager and waiter, is super chill. Sly and the Family Stone sing, “I... am everyday people” over the PA, which Alberto has turned to a lower volume to better accommodate Konicki’s need for relative quiet.

Quickly, though, it becomes clear that every mention of a positive experience or accommodation evokes a litany of negative ones. Konicki, for example, mentions that when she wants a quick lunch she heads down to a McDonald’s with touch-screen ordering so she can avoid the stress of trying to explain to the cashier. “It’s just so much less of a battle,” she says. “When I’m eating out with my family, sometimes the waiter will look to my family members like ‘What is she going to order?’ instead of asking me directly.”

Arnold’s had similar problems. “I like sticking to a place where I feel comfortable,” he says, “whether because of the chairs, or [because] I feel welcome there as a person with a disability [because] they’re going to treat me like any other customer.” His main direct-access need comes from seating, because although he’s used to having his feet hang off the ground, he doesn’t want to have to perform an acrobatic feat to get up to a high table, a booth on risers, or a bar seat.

When Coleman uses her wheelchair, of course, anything elevated becomes inaccessible, and that’s actually an ADA violation. The federal law mandates that 5 percent of eating spaces be accessible, “dispersed throughout the facility.” In other words, some of the seats, tables, and counter space in a restaurant have to be low enough for people with needs similar to Arnold’s or Coleman’s. Arnold describes a local lunch spot where there is a low counter, but it’s always stacked with delivery boxes, rendering the accessible counter useless.

Notice that Arnold and Coleman are very different from each other physically and frequently require quite distinct accommodations, but that their needs converge around the relatively simple issue of having accessible seating. Coleman says it’s not just when she’s in the chair. “I went to a graduation party that was at a bar,” she says. “Most of their seating was on top of the riser and I knew I wasn’t going to be able to maneuver around the restaurant independently, so I was going to sit there the whole night.” She told her friends, “Once I’m up here, I’m up, and once I’m down, I’m down and I’m out!” So she never got up to dance.

Arnold’s pretty adept at negotiating seating and finding spaces where he feels physically comfortable. His worst experiences come from more or less subtle examples of stigma found not in the physical layout, but in employee bias, conscious or not. Arnold describes a big family dinner when he was 10; he was excited to order from a real waitress. As a kid, he loved to order for himself. Instead, “The waitress was going around one by one, then she came to me and she didn’t take my order.” He started sobbing and his mother forced the waitress to come back. He’s clearly never forgotten it, decades later.

Now, as a man in his 40s, he still gets treated like a child far too often, sometimes explicitly so. He tells us about a recent outing to a favorite pizza place with his wife. They went up to the maitre d’ to ask to be seated, and she “looks at my wife and says, ‘would your boy like a coloring book?’” At the table, we all gasp as Arnold continues. “Benefit of the doubt, maybe she wasn’t really looking at me, but then [my wife] says, ‘No, he is my husband.’” So then [the maitre d’] looks directly at me and says, ‘Would you like a coloring book?’”

We all laugh, led by Arnold, but it’s not actually funny. It’s an extreme example of a common problem — professional service staff have no idea how to react to, or engage with, people with disabilities.

After lunch, I called Charles Petrof, senior attorney for Access Living and an expert in the ADA. He told me that the two major categories to consider when it comes to the law are access to the physical space and the ability to communicate with staff. There’s some flexibility, though. “Anything that was built after the ADA was passed [in 1990] has to be accessible,” Petrof says. “If [you’re a business in] an older building, you have to do ‘something,’ but you can have that reflect the conditions the building is in, and [accessibility spending] relates to the amount you’re going to spend overall.”

The more money you make, he tells me, the more the law requires you to invest in accessibility, trying to move beyond bare minimum. In other words, a small “mom-and-pop” restaurant doesn’t have to do as much as a new Chipotle. There’s also a gap between optimal compliance — power doors, ramps at the front door — and technical compliance — a garbage ramp out back that doubles as a wheelchair-accessible entrance.

The key for restaurant owners, it seems, is to start thinking about physical accessibility right from the start. “Think about how someone’s going to get in their front door,” Petrof says. “It needs to be wide enough. If there’s a step, it can completely stop a person in a walker or wheelchair. People don’t like having to go through the kitchen, but it’s better than nothing if there’s really no other option. When they’re inside, everyone needs access to a restroom, including the sink for washing hands.”

This sounds like common sense, but too often accessibility is a late concern in the design process, or not a concern at all, even though when things go wrong, everyone involved is liable. People with disabilities can get stuck in corners as the only “accessible” area, rather than being allowed to use the whole restaurant. Instead, the goal is to “let them feel that they are just as welcome there as anyone else.”

Communication, also regulated by the ADA, matters just as much as physical space, though the ADA merely “encourages,” rather than requires, businesses to comply in this manner (government services, however, must communicate in an accessible way). “Depending on the population you are working with,” Petrof says, “inability to communicate is just as inaccessible as inability to enter the building.” I think about this issue a lot, because my 10-year-old son is “functionally nonverbal,” which means he talks all the time but that all parties have to do a lot of work to understand. I wonder to what extent the rest of the world is going to be willing to do that work as he ages. Konicki’s experiences don’t make me optimistic. She describes her typical experience ordering, saying, “I repeat myself 20 times.”

As our lunch winds up and our plates are cleared away, we realize that we’ve missed one big area of accessibility: the food. Everyone at this particular meal was able to pick up the sandwich with their hands, but that’s not universally true. Coleman says that she has many friends who need smaller portions, or who need their dishes cut up, or need straws. It’s not that every restaurant has to provide everything, but the group agrees that staff should be prepared to adapt their menu to make it easier to eat. Konicki chimes in, “People with disabilities have money they’d like to spend, too.”

Talk to anyone with a disability, especially one related to movement, body type, method of communication, or use of senses such as seeing or hearing, and you’ll hear bad restaurant stories that could have been avoided. Sometimes the stories reveal gross violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. We’re heading toward 30 years since the ADA was passed, so it’s really time to get beyond basic issues like ramps or accessible bathrooms.

The single biggest issue is to change the law so that the government regulates accessibility, rather than demanding that individual disabled people take responsibility for suing businesses. (Imagine if you had to personally sue a place to hold them compliant to health codes.) Beyond that, we could get a lot better about making information about accessibility more... accessible. Disabled people expend huge amounts of energy searching for information on accessibility. It’d obviously be best if everyone could just depend on finding a space for them in every restaurant, but until that happy day, we could do much better at letting potential customers know ahead of time if they’ll be welcome.

But beyond these meta issues, the folks at Access Living have one simple request: power doors. Because no matter how accessible your tables, your menus, or your modes of communication, none of it helps if people with disabilities are stuck outside.

David Perry is a freelance disability rights journalist. Kim Salt is a native New York illustrator with a dual love of plants and coffee.
Editor: Erin DeJesus

https://www.eater.com/2017/5/31/15701042/american-disabilities-act-restaurants-compliance

U.S. Congress Attacking Civil Rights Required In The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

The House Judiciary Committee is currently considering imposing significant limitations to the ADA through the passage of the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017.
Commentary by Robyn Powell, published in Rewire | May 30, 2017                                                      
 

On July 26, 1990, George H.W. Bush (photo) signed the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) into law, proclaiming, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down!” Although I was only 8 years old, I still remember its passage and the increased accessibility that followed.

The ADA has both literally and figuratively opened countless doors for people like me, by requiring entities that are open to the public—such as restaurants, movie theaters, hospitals, hotels, and museums—be fully accessible to people with disabilities. The ADA also requires employers, as well as public and private entities, to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities and prohibits discrimination based on disability.

Of course, passage of the ADA did not make ramps and elevators magically appear; nor did it immediately halt discrimination against people with disabilities. Progress takes time, which, as a wheelchair user, I have witnessed firsthand. Indeed, for several years after the law’s passage, my parents or I would always have to call places in advance to make sure that they were wheelchair accessible. For years, the answer was “no.” But times have changed, and now I no longer feel I need to take these extra steps before leaving my home. Nearly 27 years after the passage of the ADA, I now expect that all businesses will be accessible. And that is liberating.

While we surely have much further to go, the ADA has unequivocally led to much greater inclusion and accessibility and far less discrimination. Now, however, Congress is currently considering imposing significant limitations to the ADA through the passage of the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (HR 620), sponsored by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX).

Currently, if a person with a disability encounters an accessibility barrier at a business, they have two options: They can file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), which will investigate and decide if a violation has occurred. DOJ may enter into mediation with the person and the business, which is a low-cost approach to resolve ADA violations fairly quickly. DOJ may also sue the business on the person’s behalf. Alternatively, people with disabilities may file a lawsuit in court, bypassing DOJ altogether. The cornerstone of current enforcement options is that the violation can often be resolved swiftly.

If the ADA Education and Reform Act is passed, however, a person with a disability would be required to give a written notice to a business owner who has barriers to access. The business owner would then have 60 days to even acknowledge that there is a problem—and then another 120 days to make substantial progress toward correcting the violation. In other words, people with disabilities would be forced to wait 180 days to enforce their civil rights.

The ADA Education and Reform Act is premised on trying to curb “drive-by” ADA lawsuits: that is, frivolous lawsuits brought by attorneys alleging ADA violations. Surely, serial litigators, attorneys who simply bring lawsuits to line their pockets, must be stopped. However, these bills are not the solution.

To be fair, I vehemently oppose frivolous ADA lawsuits, where people seek to use the ADA for their own monetary gain. I cherish this law and hate hearing that some misuse it. However, it’s important to note that they are not as prevalent as some believe. An analysis of ADA lawsuits in 2016 identified just 12 individuals and one organization that have filed more than 100 lawsuits each. But frivolous lawsuits are not an ADA issue; they are a state and court problem. Indeed, ethics rules bar attorneys from bringing frivolous lawsuits. Rather than go after people with disabilities, attention should be focused on stopping these few bad attorneys.

Notably, passage of the ADA and ADA Amendments Act involved the disability community and bipartisan lawmakers working together with the business community. These “notification bills,” however, do not. Rather, they are the result of business owners and their lobbyists.

The disability community is not interested in more lawsuits; we simply want accessibility. There is no such thing as the “ADA police.” Enforcement depends on people with disabilities who know their rights to challenge violations. Filing lawsuits is timely and expensive. Finding an attorney that is knowledgeable about the ADA is very challenging. I say this because I believe it is fairly safe to assume that there are far more ADA violations occurring than we will ever hear of. As a disabled woman, I encounter violations daily.

Nevertheless, there’s a prevailing belief that ADA regulations are overly technical and most alleged violations are “minor.” The regulations concerning accessible parking spots are frequently used to demonstrate how ADA regulations are too specific. What opponents don’t understand is that the width of parking spaces matter for people with disabilities who drive, such as myself. I drive a wheelchair–accessible van. If someone parks too close, I am literally stuck because no one besides me can drive my van. This has happened to me more times than I count, leaving me stranded outside for hours, until the person returns to their car.

Throughout the years, based on a belief that the ADA is being abused and has become a money-maker, Congress has introduced a number of “notification bills.” These bills are problematic and have been strongly opposed by the disability community.

It is also important to dispel the myth that ADA lawsuits can be profitable for plaintiffs; that is plain wrong. When the ADA was being drafted, as a compromise between the business community and the disability community, the disability community gave up the option to obtain damages for a business’s failure to comply with the law by allowing only injunctive relief—meaning the business owner has to change their behavior—and attorneys’ fees.

Settlements or court orders that involve money damages for accessibility violations are based on state laws in a handful of states, not the ADA. Therefore, adding a notice requirement before people with disabilities can enforce their rights will do nothing to prevent businesses from being subjected to money damages. Moreover, if the accessibility violations in question are truly minor, as the proponents of these bills claim, it would not be difficult for businesses to fix the problem and resolve the issue quickly, with minimal attorneys’ fees. Hence, the issue is not an ADA one.

In addition, it’s important to recognize that the ADA includes several provisions that protect businesses from unreasonable requirements. For example, the ADA does not require any action that would cause an “undue burden” or that is “not readily achievable,” which is defined as “easily accomplished and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.”

Adding a notification requirement won’t make serial lawsuits go away. Instead, it simply sends the message to business owners that they don’t have to worry about complying with the ADA until they receive a letter notifying them that they are discriminating against people with disabilities. In other words, instead of complying, they can just “wait and see” if they are caught.

The imposition of a months-long “waiting period,” during which a business may continue to violate the law and deny access to people with disabilities once it has received a notice that it is violating the ADA, is simply not reasonable.

In short, the premise of bills like the ADA Education and Reform Act is that businesses should not be responsible for knowing their obligations to comply with a law that has been in effect for nearly three decades, but people with disabilities should instead be responsible not only for knowing the accessibility requirements of that law, but also for determining when a business is not in compliance and for knowing the specific requirements of the notice that they must provide.

Establishing and running a business involves compliance with numerous laws, including tax laws, property laws, health and safety laws, environmental laws, civil rights laws, and many others. Compliance with these legal obligations is part of the cost of doing business.

Business owners, and society as a whole, have had nearly 27 years to become aware of the ADA. Indeed, I would guess that every business owner knows at least one person with a disability and is at least vaguely aware that the ADA exists. Moreover, there are plenty of resources that provide information on ADA requirements to business owners. Indeed, the DOJ offers free technical assistance as well as several publicly available publications. In addition, there are ADA technical assistance centers across the country that offer information, guidance, and training on how to implement the ADA. There is simply no excuse for noncompliance at this point.

The bill is currently in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee; it has 18 co-sponsors. Never in my life as a disabled woman have I been so terrified of losing my civil rights as I am now. With the stroke of a pen, much that the disability community has fought hard for could be undone. What civil rights law will be on the chopping block next?

https://rewire.news/article/2017/05/30/americans-disabilities-act-attack-congress/

Webinar May 1st: Risk of major ADA Amendments Soon “ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017”

H.R. 620 and similar ADA notification bills are gaining more steam in Congress than ever before. If any passes, it will have a devastating impact on the ADA by denying people with disabilities the power to enforce some of its requirements. 

DREDF and other disability rights advocates are working—and need others to join them!—to counter the business lobby, which wants to make it much more difficult to attain accessibility when businesses such as stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. disregard their ADA responsibilities. 

What would H.R. 620 (ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017) do?

• Remove any incentive for voluntary compliance.
• Require a person with a disability who encounters an access barrier to send a letter detailing the exact ADA provisions that are being violated.
• Reward non-compliance by allowing businesses generous additional timelines, even though the ADA's reasonable requirements are already over 25 years old!
• Perpetuate the myth that the ADA benefits unscrupulous lawyers rather than the truth: that the ADA is the most important civil rights law for people with disabilities.
• Ignores the extensive, free educational resources already available today to any business on how to comply with the law.

Join us for this webinar to learn more about what is happening with this quickly-moving bill, and how you and others can get involved.

WHEN: Monday, May 1, 2017

TIME: 2:00 PM Eastern Time Zone

REGISTER: HERE

Speaker:

Marilyn Golden

Jennifer Mathis

SOURCE: ADA National Network

Chicago Commission on Human Relations Updates 2017 Disability Rights Regulations to Improve Access for All Individuals

Revised Regulations Align with ADA and Provides Clarity for Businesses to Become More Accessible to People with All Types of Disabilities

Jan. 12, 2017 - The Chicago Commission on Human Relations (CCHR) Board of Commissioners today approved updated disability rights regulations under the City's Chicago Human Rights Ordinance (CHRO). These newly revised regulations, effective July 1, 2017, are designed to improve citywide accessibility for all residents and visitors through added clarity to existing disability protections. These changes will, in turn, help businesses make their goods and services more accessible for people with all types of disabilities.

This latest action in a series of reforms and regulations by the Emanuel Administration is designed to ensure that people with disabilities can access the wide array of goods and services offered by Chicago businesses and fully enjoy the amenities our city has to offer.

"Our top priority is to ensure that Chicago is inclusive for all people, and these changes are intended to eliminate confusion on the law to make it easier for businesses to serve people with disabilities," said CCHR Chair and Commissioner Mona Noriega. "We believe the clarity will be embraced by businesses, and we are committed to working with them on implementation so they can better serve all of their patrons."

The revised regulations stand to improve citywide accessibility by spelling out what businesses must do to make their facilities, information, goods and services accessible to people with all types of disabilities. It does so, in large part, by adopting the requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which have applied to these businesses since 1992.

The revised regulations specify requirements for businesses, including:

• Provide auxiliary aids and services where needed to ensure effective communication with customers who are deaf or hard of hearing (i.e. these vary from customer to customer but include things such as sign language interpreters, captioning and use of TTY's and the telephone relay system);
• Allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities into their establishments;
• Provide documents and other information in alternative formats - such as electronic formats, Braille or large print, when needed by people who are blind or have visual impairments;
• Remove any eligibility criteria that would screen out or tend to screen out people with disabilities who want to gain access to the goods and services they provide;
• And, make reasonable modifications to their policies, practices and procedures to ensure that people with disabilities have access to their goods and services. (This may be as simple as reading a menu to a person who is blind, or provided assistance getting objects off high shelves.)

The ultimate goal of this CCHR initiative, developed in partnership with the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities (MOPD), is to help make the City of Chicago more accessible for people with disabilities, By providing businesses with a clear and precise set of local rules that govern the actions of covered businesses, the City hopes to encourage greater compliance with the CHRO and to increase opportunities for businesses to work with customers with disabilities.

"The revised regulations supports our goal of ensuring every single person with a disability living in or visiting our city has the resources they need to enjoy the quality restaurants, retail and other services that makes Chicago a top destination to live and visit," said Karen Tamley, Commissioner to the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities. "By making the laws easier to understand, our businesses stand to improve their service, and in turn, the likelihood for people with disabilities to live more independently."

To prepare for the launch of the revised regulations, the CCHR has been coordinating efforts with MOPD as well as the Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) to reach as many businesses as possible. The revised regulations apply to retail stores, restaurants, theaters, service businesses and commercial entities citywide. Coupled with a comprehensive outreach campaign to help businesses understand and implement the new requirements, the CHRO will better serve residents with all needs, and will avoid adding new or contradictory regulatory burdens to businesses by aligning its mandates with the ADA.

For more information on the new regulations, please visit http://www.cityofchicago.org/humanrelations.

For technical assistance on this regulation and the corresponding requirements of the ADA, residents can contact the MOPD's Accessibility Compliance Unit at (312) 744-4441.

SOURCE: Press Release

###

RELATED POSTS:   

City of Chicago Accessibility Businesses Regulations go into effect January 1, 2017
Chicago ‘Pedway’ Still Full of Obstacles For The Disabled in 2017

Illinois Finally Updates Accessibility Guidelines & Improves Ability for Businesses to Comply

from a Press Release on July 19, 2016.

New Law Updates Accessibility Guidelines & Improves Ability for Illinois Businesses to Comply

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan today announced that her office’s legislation to improve accessibility for people with disabilities in Illinois was signed into law by the Governor and will go into effect Jan. 1, 2017.

“Our commitment to equality for all must extend to making sure people who have disabilities have equal access to facilities within their communities,” Madigan said. “People who have disabilities lead active lives, and our laws should enhance their ability to do so,” Madigan said.

Senate Bill 2956, initiated by Madigan and sponsored by Sen. Linda Holmes and Rep. Ann Williams, updates the Illinois Environmental Barriers Act (EBA). The EBA, which was enacted in 1985, authorizes the Attorney General’s Office to enforce accessibility standards for public buildings and multi-story housing units in Illinois. The law updates the EBA to make sure it aligns with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design and to make it possible for architects working in Illinois to refer to one code in order to comply with both federal and state accessibility requirements.

“I was proud to sponsor this measure because no one living in or visiting Illinois should be prevented from enjoying everything our communities have to offer, simply because they are unable to access businesses, schools, or housing,” Holmes said. “This is an important new law, and I thank Attorney General Madigan for bringing this measure forward.”

“As lawmakers, we have a responsibility to ensure that our laws facilitate equality for all Illinois residents,” Williams said. “I will continue to push for laws that are designed to provide equal access for everyone, and I appreciate the Attorney General’s advocacy.”

In addition to initiating the legislation, Madigan’s office is working with the Capital Development Board (CDB) to update the technical building regulations that correspond with the EBA, known as the Illinois Accessibility Code. Under current state law, the Illinois Accessibility Code must also be updated to incorporate changes to the federal standards. Madigan’s office worked with the CDB and other stakeholders to ensure that SB 2956 reflects the anticipated changes to the Illinois Accessibility Code and aligns the state statute with the federal standards.

“Our members are committed to designs that inspire and are accessible to all, and SB 2956 will help architects ensure that projects meet both state and federal accessibility laws and regulations” said Dan Hohl, director of government affairs for the American Institute of Architects in Illinois. “The AIA appreciates the Attorney General’s efforts to support people with disabilities, which also improves access to good design for all Illinoisans.”

Changes to the Environmental Barriers Act under SB 2956 include:

• Updating the terms and definitions used in the EBA to conform with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and corresponding updates to the Illinois Accessibility Code;
• Replacing an outdated standard for building alterations with an easier-to-use standard that mirrors the ADA;
• Clarifying which version of the EBA and the Illinois Accessibility Code applies to new construction and alterations of existing buildings; and
• Updating the enforcement provisions to reflect the current emphasis on working with businesses to resolve issues and alleviate future barriers for individuals with disabilities.

Attorney General Madigan’s Disability Rights Bureau protects and advances the interests of people with disabilities in Illinois, and works with public and private entities seeking to comply with the disability rights laws. The bureau receives complaints regarding noncompliance with state and federal accessibility laws and works to bring facilities into compliance.

Complaints about accessibility can be submitted to Madigan’s office online, or by contacting her Disability Rights Bureau at (312) 814-5684 (Chicago) or (217) 524-2660 (Springfield).

Source: http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov
# originally posted July 2016

City of Chicago Accessibility Businesses Regulations go into effect January 1, 2017

The Chicago Human Rights Ordinance requires that Chicago businesses ensure that their facilities, products and services are available to individuals with disabilities. On January 1, 2017, new disability rights regulations passed by the Chicago Commission on Human Relations go into effect. These regulations specify what Chicago businesses must do in order to make their goods and services accessible to people with disabilities. 

Overview of New Disability Rights Regulations in Public Accommodations, effective January 1, 2017*

The Chicago Human Rights Ordinance prohibits discrimination against individuals based on 16 protected classes, including disability. Among other things, the Ordinance requires that businesses ensure that their facilities, products and services are available to individuals with disabilities. On January 1, 2017, new disability rights regulations passed by the Chicago Commission on Human Relations will go into effect. These regulations will set out what businesses are required to do to satisfy their obligations under the Ordinance to make their goods and services accessible to people with disabilities.

Between now and January 1, 2017: 

Businesses are required to provide the same level of service and access to their facilities and products to people with disabilities as are offered to the rest of the general public, unless it creates an undue hardship, in which case the business must find a way to offer such services in an adequate alternative manner. For some businesses, this will include making physical alterations to their facilities to make them more accessible (e.g. installing ramps, widening doorways). 

Starting in 2017: 

Private businesses must be accessible to individuals with disabilities, when readily achievable. The regulations provide varying standards, both structural and practical, depending on what is required, including: 

• The construction and alteration of facilities.
• The removal of architectural barriers that interfere with accessibility in existing facilities.
• The removal of criteria that screen out individuals with a disability.
• The revision of policies necessary to provide full and equal enjoyment.
• The provision of auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective communication. 

The new regulations set forth very specific requirements for private businesses covered by the Ordinance. These requirements are nearly identical to those found in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal disability rights law that applies to private business.

Structural Accessibility under the New Regulations 

• New Construction - Facilities must be built in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Chicago Building Code, unless a condition of the terrain makes it impossible to comply.
• Alterations to Existing Facilities - Any physical changes to a facility (build-outs, renovations) must be done so that the altered elements are built in accordance with the accessibility requirements of the Chicago Building Code. - When the primary function area of an establishment is altered (e.g. the dining room of a restaurant), improvements in access to other parts of the facility may be required.
• Existing Facilities - Any structural barriers preventing access to people with disabilities must be removed where such removal is readily achievable, meaning easily completed without much difficulty or expense (based on the size and resources of the business). - If removing a barrier is not readily achievable, the business may need to provide alternative means of providing access to their goods and services (e.g. curbside service and home delivery). - Businesses are under a continuing obligation to remove barriers to access over time.

Accessibility of Policies, Practices, & Procedures 

• Intentional Discrimination - A business may not deny service to people based on their disabilities. - A business may not provide to people with disabilities unequal access to goods and services or access to lesser quality goods or services.
• Eligibility Criteria - A business may not impose rules that exclude people with disabilities, unless those rules are necessary to provide goods and services, or are related to a legitimate safety requirement. - Example: A store requires customers using a credit card to produce a driver’s license, thereby excluding people whose disabilities prohibit them from driving (e.g. people who are blind).
• Modifications to Policies, Practices, and Procedures - A business must reasonably modify its procedures when necessary to afford goods or services to individuals with disabilities, unless such a modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the business. - Example: A café with a “no-animals” policy must modify that policy to allow people with disabilities accompanied by service animals to enter.
• Ensuring Effective Communication - A business must ensure that it communicates in the most effective manner with customers who have visual, hearing, or speech impairments, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the business or create significant difficulty or expense. - The most effective auxiliary aid or service to facilitate communication will depend on the context of the business transaction and the disability of the customer. - Ex: A written note might be enough to communicate with a person who is deaf at a donut shop but the same person might require a sign language interpreter when visiting a doctor’s office.

*This information is meant solely for informational purposes and is not inclusive of all the new regulation provisions. It is not meant as a form of legal advice.

For more information on the City of Chicago new regulations, click on the link below:

Disability Regulations - Effective 1/1/2017

or contact:

City of Chicago Commission on Human Relations
Phone: 312.744.4111

740 North Sedgwick Street
Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60654

website: https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cchr.html

Arizona Attorney General’s Office Files motion To Dismiss 1,000 ADA Lawsuits

Dec 18, 2016 -- The Arizona Attorney General’s Office has filed a 20-page motion to dismiss more than 1,000 civil lawsuits filed by a foundation that accuses area businesses of widespread violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and a similar state law.

article by Jim Walsh, for the Ahwatukee Foothills News             

The controversial suits were filed against many area businesses, and allege mostly technical violations of the ADA, including that handicapped parking signs are too low or that international handicapped symbols are not displayed.

The motion reprises similar pleadings by the Attorney General’s Office, which prompted a Maricopa County Superior Court judge to consolidate more than 1,000 suits into one test case to get them dismissed.

“Plaintiffs complaints must be dismissed for lack of standing. The complaints fail to meet Arizona’s rigorous standing requirement, because they do not allege a distinct and palpable injury and do not present cases involving true adversaries with ripe claims,” the motion reads.

“Plaintiffs never allege they patronized or attempted to patronize any of the businesses, encountered any barriers, and had disabilities incompatible with barriers,” the motion says. “Instead, plaintiffs allege merely that (David) Ritzenthaler and others with disabilities were ‘deterred’ in some vague way from visiting the consolidated defendant’s businesses.”

The suits have been largely based upon inspections of parking lots by the Advocates for Individuals with Disabilities Foundation. Pictures taken in the parking lots purport to show ADA violations and are used to persuade defendants to pay $7,000 or more to settle the case.

The foundation has argued that it is enforcing the ADA through civil suits because the Attorney General’s Office and other government agencies have failed to enforce the landmark civil rights law, first passed in 1991. It says lack of enforcement has created an air of complacency about the ADA.

Peter Strojnik, the attorney representing the foundation in the suits, also is under pressure from a federal judge to prove why the suits do not violate the Professional Code of Conduct that sets ethical standards for attorneys. The two court actions stem from the same group of cases but are not otherwise related.

“Plaintiffs have cried ‘deterrence’ against over a thousand businesses without ever bothering to patronize those businesses, notify those businesses of the alleged non-compliance, or allege that they intend or desire to patronize those businesses,” the motion reads.

Jack Wilenchik, an attorney for the foundation, said his client is filing a special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals, challenging a ruling by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David Talamante that rejected a request to amend the complaint to add a specific injury.

It would be possible for the foundation to merely file new suits against the businesses, adding specific examples of how barriers prevented a disabled person from entering a business, to circumvent the Attorney General’s Office’s argument, Wilenchik said.

He said lawyers are fighting over complicated procedural issues, when the basic issue is a lack of adequate parking spaces to accommodate the disabled.

“A large percentage of these places haven’t done anything, and they won’t,” Wilenchik said.

A driver with disabilities should not have to file a complaint with the Attorney General’s Office or in a court of law to find a place to park, Wilenchik said.

Wilenchik has previously sought a court order, technically called “an order of mandamus,” to force the Attorney General’s Office to enforce the law.

“The Office of the Attorney General has been required by law to conduct periodic inspections of these public accommodations for over two decades, but it has never done so,” Wilenchik wrote in a previous court filing.

http://www.ahwatukee.com/feeds/az_community_politics/article_b00998b6-c3b4-11e6-9d71-7f55f0e7cac6.html