H.R. 620: Amending the ADA of 1990

JJ Litke

People are not wearing enough hats
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
4,460
Location
Austin
Website
www.jjlitke.com
The one that is occurring a great deal now is people claiming non-service dogs are actually service dogs, so they can bring their pets with them wherever they go. Most of the non-service dogs are disruptive, untrained and problematic.

Link

That has absolutely zero to do with ADA. Unless you're suggesting that ADA should be amended to exclude service dogs because of this—is that what you meant?
 

regdog

The Scavengers
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
58,075
Reaction score
21,013
Location
She/Her
That has absolutely zero to do with ADA. Unless you're suggesting that ADA should be amended to exclude service dogs because of this—is that what you meant?


It has everything to do with the ADA


Originally Posted by JJ Litke
The idea that there are a whole lot of people out there falsely claiming to be disabled is really fucked up. For what purpose?

A whole lot of people are falsely claiming disability to bring their pet where there dog does not belong. They have illegally put their own selfish wants ahead of the needs of disabled people, abusing the ADA regarding service dogs.
 

JJ Litke

People are not wearing enough hats
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
4,460
Location
Austin
Website
www.jjlitke.com
It has everything to do with the ADA




A whole lot of people are falsely claiming disability to bring their pet where there dog does not belong. They have illegally put their own selfish wants ahead of the needs of disabled people, abusing the ADA regarding service dogs.

You're still not making sense. How does this relate to amending ADA?
 

regdog

The Scavengers
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
58,075
Reaction score
21,013
Location
She/Her
You're still not making sense. How does this relate to amending ADA?


It was not regarding amending the ADA. It was specific to a line from your post where you asked about people faking disabilities. That is what I quoted and I addressed. Yes, some people fake disabilities. I used the specific reference of people faking the need for assistance dogs.


Originally Posted by JJ Litke
The idea that there are a whole lot of people out there falsely claiming to be disabled is really fucked up. For what purpose?
 

JJ Litke

People are not wearing enough hats
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
7,993
Reaction score
4,460
Location
Austin
Website
www.jjlitke.com
It was not regarding amending the ADA. It was specific to a line from your post where you asked about people faking disabilities. That is what I quoted and I addressed. Yes, some people fake disabilities. I used the specific reference of people faking the need for assistance dogs.

That was in response to the suggestion that some want ADA amended because of fake disability claims. If you read in context, I'm talking about the assertion that people are faking claims in order to force businesses to make adjustments for them.

If people faking disabilities were a widespread problem (and I don't believe it is), then enforcement is the answer. If people were lying to get a tax break, the IRS would enforce the rules to get the break, not abolish it.

But that's all a sidetrack and not the main point.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Either you're summarizing and not fully explaining how it works, or your college is not implementing the rules correctly. Accommodations are only allowed for students who qualify, which requires official diagnostic documentation and registering through your college's accessibility services office. Your description made it sound as if the testing rules had been changed for all students, and I would really hate for anyone to read that and believe that's actually happening in colleges.

As far as I know the testing rules have not been changed. Students have to go to the accommodations center on campus to be tested and diagnosed. They show up with a slip during the first week or so of classes (ideally, though some do spring it on us right before an exam) that indicates their need for accommodations. The instructor then fills out the form with the particulars about the exam such as the amount of time the rest of the class gets, whether notes or calculators are allowed, whether students are usually allowed breaks, and if breaks are part of the accommodation, if they should be proctored. For lecture exams, the student gets to take the exam at the testing center, where they are given extra time, and possibly a distraction-free environment.

What has changed is that this now applies to lab exams as well as lecture exams. Lab exams are set up in the lab room and feature a series of timed stations where students must rotate through every 1-2 min (time allowed varies) to answer questions about class material (models, charts, specimens under microscopes, and possibly dissections or preserved material). These exams take hours to set up, and already involve instructors getting together outside their normal work hours to do so. The exams remain set up until all lab sections have taken it, then they must be cleared and put away so the next set of labs can resume.

There has never been any way to set them up at the testing center, so in the past, we've allowed every student 2 min per station (when it normally takes one minute to answer) and allow all students 15 min at the end to ask questions and revisit stations (with instructor supervision) if needed. If a student has special needs, we try to be flexible in allowing them to stay a bit longer after others have finished, but this was case by case, and limited by when the next class needed to come in and take their exam.

This is no longer acceptable. The administration decided that we should accommodate lab exams at the testing center. Except there's no way to do this, because we don't have the material, nor the time, to go set a duplicate exam up over there. They suggested that testing center staff could set up and proctor the lab exams after the others have finished, but that would be pretty hard or someone who doesn't teach the class and have knowledge of the materials and questions and would involve input and help from the faculty. Plus the students would be taking the exam after everyone else is finished and the exams are possibly being graded and returned. They suggested we take pictures of the exam and send them to the testing center, but that wouldn't be a fair or equivalent exam for the students taking it over there.

So then they said we just had to give the students as much extra time as the forms required (sometimes twice what the other students get or more), but that doesn't fit into the allotted class time, unless we make the exams much shorter. So they suggested we simply come in at 5 AM or stay past 10:30, or give the exams on weekends. That's when the union got involved, because of course contractual issues, and the administrators had no interest in paying for the extra time.

Throughout all of this, the overall tone was that they had no idea what lab practical exams were, why biology faculty consider them important, or how much time and work they already are to set up and administer. Nor did they care to know.

This is not the ADA's fault. I don't even know if the way the administration on our campus changed their interpretation of the rules was driven by an actual change or ruling re the ADA, a complaint from a student, or some other reason.

My point isn't to rail against the ADA, but to point out that it can be hard to determine what constitutes a reasonable accommodation, and it can make a lot more work for faculty to implement them, even when there is a testing center that is intended to administer the exams. There's also the issue of "invisible" disabilities, where the person in question doesn't fit most people's casual image of disabled, and it can be tempting to think that someone is gaming the system to get special testing conditions. This can create bad feelings by some people that lead to moves to neuter the ADA.

I don't think neutering the ADA is the answer. It would be great, however, if administrators and officials did a better job of listening to the instructors when they try to explain how testing works in their courses with the facilities and materials that are available.

My college has a separate testing center, which some courses use for testing in general, and can be utilized for students who require accommodations. So there is no problem of anyone staying late, instructors can just have students use the testing center. I had thought test proctoring was pretty standard, but if your college isn't doing this yet, that would be the solution.

We do have an accommodations center, and have for many years, but see the above explanation for why lab practical exams can't be administered there. It would cost tens of thousands of dollars, at least, to duplicate all the lab materials (microscopes, charts, models, specimens etc) to administer separate exams over there for starters...

Our guidelines also hold this caveat: accommodations may not change the fundamental nature of the expectations of the field (there is exact wording that I'm probably not getting quite right). So, for my own department, extended time for projects is not an allowable accommodation, because we are a deadline-driven business.

One interesting thing is that the nursing department does not provide testing accommodations for their lab classes. Their rationale is that the expectations of the profession are that nurses have to work in time limited and distracting environments. So far it's held up. For whatever reason, similar assertions regarding the biology department's lab classes (many of which are pre-requisites for the nursing program) have not floated.

Again, I am not against the ADA, and I do not want to see it weakened by the bill mentioned in the OP, or by any other. I just want to point out that it is complicated, and the way different institutions interpret and handle the rules can lead to some people becoming disillusioned or bitter about it.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not de-fanging the ADA. Honestly, I think there are too many violations already, and it's already a lot of work for disabled people to gain access in many cases.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
Update: This has passed in the House and is coming up very soon for a vote in the Senate. I'm going to toss down some more links about this and hope you read them and hope you call your senators and ask your friends to do the same.

H.R. 620 violates basic, human rights of accessibility

Disabled people won’t be able to file lawsuits to get the accessibility needed until after a six month waiting period. The bill requires we become experts in legal code to provide some notice to businesses who are violating the law. Then we have to wait six months. The businesses don’t have to provide accessibility by the end of that time. They simply have to make some kind of ‘progress.’ But minor progress won’t help us. We need accessibility now, not later.

As someone who is deaf, businesses could legally wait months or longer to provide interpreting services, captioning or visual alarm systems for me. This bill has even bigger implications for those with mobile disabilities. They are at risk of losing access to doctor’s offices, schools, pharmacies and grocery stores. Everyone has the right to buy their own groceries and see the doctor when they need to. Accessibility isn’t a privilege — it’s an undeniable right that we, and abled-bodied people, have.



The GOP's H.R. 620 will gut the Americans With Disabilities Act, pushing disability rights back to 1989

One of the most dangerous bills put forth under the Trump administration to date is currently being fast-tracked through the Senate. The problem is, few people have heard of it.


On Feb. 15, while the country had its eye on allegations of Russian election meddling and the senseless murder of 17 people in the Parkland school shooting, the House was quietly gutting the Americans With Disabilities Act, passing H.R. 620 with a vote of 225-192.


The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) grants civil rights to people with disabilities by ensuring that we have equal access to public places and businesses and requiring owners to supply “reasonable accommodation.” Sponsors of H.R. 620, also known as “The ADA Education and Reform Act,” tout the bill as a supplement to that legislation. But in reality, this bill renders the ADA's protections moot by making it much more difficult, and a lot more time-intensive, to force businesses to accommodate the millions of Americans with disabilities.

HR 620 Could Put Disability Rights At Risk

Should the law pass, people would be required to file a written complaint with a violator, who would have 60 days to acknowledge and another 120 to take action before the disabled person could file a suit. While this may be framed as trying to “talk it out” before going to court, disabled people often make accommodation requests repeatedly before filing suit. This isn’t about not making a good faith effort. Instead, it’s a mandatory waiting period for civil rights. “H.R. 620 is just one of the ways the civil rights of disabled Americans are being undermined,” Cortland says.

HOUSE VOTES TO GUT THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT TO NIP 'ABUSIVE LAWSUITS'

The bill would effectively gut the ADA, detractors argue. Without a fear of being sued, businesses might be inclined to ignore ADA compliance rules. Critics of the bill also believe people with disabilities should not bear the responsibility of making sure businesses are compliant with the law.


"Instead of expecting businesses to own the responsibility of complying with civil rights laws, it shifts the burden to the individual who is being denied access," the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote in a letter to congressional representatives on Thursday.


The ACLU called the bill unacceptable. "This scheme removes the business’s incentive to proactively ensure that it is accessible to people with disabilities," it said. "Instead, businesses will simply wait until someone's right to access is violated and notification is received before making the change they were already obligated to make."

I don't believe for a second this is about "frivolous lawsuits." Even if it were, this is not the way to address that. This is going to hurt those with disabilities on several levels.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
And if you read the bill's summary, you find gems like
“(1) AVAILABILITY OF REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subparagraph (B), the remedies and procedures set forth in section 204(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a–3(a)) are the remedies and procedures this title provides to any person who is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of this title or who has reasonable grounds for believing that such person is about to be subjected to discrimination in violation of section 303. Nothing in this section shall require a person with a disability to engage in a futile gesture if such person has actual notice that a person or organization covered by this title does not intend to comply with its provisions.


“(B) BARRIERS TO ACCESS TO EXISTING PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS.—A civil action under section 302 or 303 based on the failure to remove an architectural barrier to access into an existing public accommodation may not be commenced by a person aggrieved by such failure unless—


“(i) that person has provided to the owner or operator of the accommodation a written notice specific enough to allow such owner or operator to identify the barrier; and


“(ii) (I) during the period beginning on the date the notice is received and ending 60 days after that date, the owner or operator fails to provide to that person a written description outlining improvements that will be made to remove the barrier; or


“(II) if the owner or operator provides the written description under subclause (I), the owner or operator fails to remove the barrier or, in the case of a barrier, the removal of which requires additional time as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the owner or operator, fails to make substantial progress in removing the barrier during the period beginning on the date the description is provided and ending 60 days after that date.


“(C) SPECIFICATION OF DETAILS OF ALLEGED VIOLATION.—The written notice required under subparagraph (B) must also specify in detail the circumstances under which an individual was actually denied access to a public accommodation, including the address of property, whether a request for assistance in removing an architectural barrier to access was made, and whether the barrier to access was a permanent or temporary barrier.”.

I have to be able to identify and know whether the "barrier" is temporary or permanent to get my civil rights? Is a door permanent or temporary? Read all that and tell me I should have to do that to get a business to comply with a law that's been on the books for 28 years. Why do so few people care about this?
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,553
Reaction score
6,362
Location
west coast, canada
I have to be able to identify and know whether the "barrier" is temporary or permanent to get my civil rights? Is a door permanent or temporary? Read all that and tell me I should have to do that to get a business to comply with a law that's been on the books for 28 years. Why do so few people care about this?

And why would 'temporary' or 'permanent' be of any importance? For the person with the disability, the barrier is now. It doesn't matter if it will be gone in a month if you're already at the barrier. One can assume that if you've got a disability, it's enough of a problem that you probably went to some trouble to get there. Why should you have to do that twice?

At the very least, if you know that there's an obstruction to entering your place of business - stay alert! Keep an eye out for people who look like they might need a hand, let alone actually struggling. 'Service with a smile' and a hand when needed will bring back a lot of customers.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
It was not regarding amending the ADA. It was specific to a line from your post where you asked about people faking disabilities. That is what I quoted and I addressed. Yes, some people fake disabilities. I used the specific reference of people faking the need for assistance dogs.

Not everyone who smuggles their untrained dogs on board flights are faking disabilities. Some really do have disabilities, but their dogs are not actually trained service animals. There was a gal who was definitely wheelchair bound on our campus, and she brought a sweet golden retriever (in a service vest) with her to all her classes. The dog was not well trained and behaved like a "regular" dog--chasing squirrels, running up to strangers for pets, barking at things etc.

As the ADA rules for service animals currently stand, one must give a person the benefit of the doubt, as you cannot demand what disability they have or ask for papers for the animal in question or demand that they demonstrate their animal's training. People are allowed to train their own service animals (obtaining one via one of the well-known national organization is very expensive), and many disabilities are invisible.

According to the rules circulated recently on our campus, you can ask if an animal is a service animal and you can ask what service it performs. You also have the right to request the removal of a service anima, even a bona fide one, that is behaving in a disruptive or dangerous manner.

Sadly, airlines are starting to adopt more stringent policies, like advanced check in, for people traveling with service animals. This is imposing hardship on people who genuinely need the services these animals provide. I wish the people with fake service animals would cut it out, but I don't see how amending the ADA would help, unless it places more restrictions or hardships on people who need their service animals. For instance, forbidding people to train their own animals (and requiring that they provide paperwork from one of the well-known national agencies) would place a financial burden on. Some do an excellent job of training their own animals for specific tasks, though it can be hard to prepare for all potential circumstances on one's own.

Stiffer penalties for people who are "caught" with fakes (they are already pretty stiff--it's a felony), but even that is hard to do. Not all disabilities are visible, or even documentable, and service animals don't require certification from any specific agency. How does a casual observer differentiate a real service dog who may have not been trained well enough, or one whose handler doesn't adequately reinforce the training, or a well-trained service dog who was simply pushed beyond the parameters of their training (on, say, a long, turbulent flight when there was no way to prepare for that in advance) and one that was never trained at all?
 
Last edited:

AW Admin

Administrator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
18,772
Reaction score
6,283
Yes, some people are claiming dogs etc. are support animals when they aren't officially anything of the kind.

I don't care. I see no point in punishing the thousands of legitimate people for a few miscreants.

Asking someone in a wheelchair to do the legwork to get a building fixed is idiotic.

Almost all the building or infrastructure or online changes needed to accommodate disabled people make the building, place or site better for everyone.
 
Last edited:

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
Yes, some people are claiming dogs etc. are support animals when they aren't officially anything of the kind.

I don't care. I see no point in punishing the thousands of legitimate people for a few miscreants.

Asking someone in a wheelchair to do the legwork to get a building fixed is idiotic.

Almost all the building or infrastructure or online changes needed to accommodate disabled people make the building, place or site better for everyone.
Thank you. I almost never cry. It speaks to how terrible this act is that I am choked up reading this. Thank you.

And, really, if any of you can call your senators this week, you're doing a favor to pretty much anyone who may ever have any kind of mobility issue or disability and for society in general.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Yes, some people are claiming dogs etc. are support animals when they aren't officially anything of the kind.

I don't care. I see no point in punishing the thousands of legitimate people for a few miscreants.

Asking someone in a wheelchair to do the legwork to get a building fixed is idiotic.

Almost all the building or infrastructure or online changes needed to accommodate disabled people make the building, place or site better for everyone.

Absolutely. It's cruel to ask the people who need the accommodations to do the heavy lifting when access is denied for lack thereof. It's also cruel to punish those whose need is genuine for the misdeeds of those who are gaming the system.

There will always be a certain number people who take advantage of any system. Freeloaders and cheaters even exist with other social species in nature. It is inhumane to make things harder for the people who need those benefits just to "get back at" those who maybe don't need them.

I also think it is cruel to make the owners of small businesses financially responsible for upgrades that will drive them out of business. This seems like a common good thing that we should all chip in for (via taxes). Most of us will need those ramps, special bathroom facilities, and other accommodations ourselves someday (and even the able bodied often benefit from elevators, ramps, and larger bathroom stalls sometimes). Being able of mind and body is a temporary state. But even if one is among the lucky few, helping others who are less fortunate through no fault of their own is what we do in a just and compassionate civilization.

When did we turn into such a culture of such stingy people who think everyone else is getting more out of the system than we are, so lets burn everything down?
 
Last edited:

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
I also think it is cruel to make the owners of small businesses financially responsible for upgrades that will drive them out of business.

This has been law for almost thirty years. When we buy a house, we evaluate how much work we'll have to do before making an offer on a house. Now, I want small businesses to thrive and I don't want only the wealthy to be able to launch them. But again, with this act, we're removing incentives for businesses to comply and shifting the burden for making them comply that to the disabled and that's not right.

Also, I don't know how good they are, but there are already incentives and help to bring businesses up to code. Here's one link.

There may be other programs, as there are for those with disabilities who need to remodel. I looked into those briefly, as I've had to remodel our kitchen twice, our three season porch once, and add a ramp. We decided that we were financially able to foot the bill ourselves, so I didn't apply for any help.

Anyone want a sample script? How can I help you do something to help defeat this, because I need you to. Chances are, if you've ever had to fight for your rights in the past forty years, I stood up for you. (Gosh, I hate to beg).
 

Alpha Echo

I should be writing.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
9,615
Reaction score
1,852
Location
East Coast
Anyone want a sample script? How can I help you do something to help defeat this, because I need you to. Chances are, if you've ever had to fight for your rights in the past forty years, I stood up for you. (Gosh, I hate to beg).

I hate that you feel like you have to beg. Thank you for posting all this information and keeping this thread alive. I'm afraid I may not have seen this otherwise, simply because there is so much other crap out there that actual legislation is too...boring?...for headlines. I'm not saying I think it's boring. Only that the media tends to skim over anything real going on in Congress right now in favor of 45's latest tweets and Russia and NK and...there's just so much crap.

I will gladly help get the word out and call my reps. :Hug2:
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
This has been law for almost thirty years. When we buy a house, we evaluate how much work we'll have to do before making an offer on a house. Now, I want small businesses to thrive and I don't want only the wealthy to be able to launch them. But again, with this act, we're removing incentives for businesses to comply and shifting the burden for making them comply that to the disabled and that's not right.

Also, I don't know how good they are, but there are already incentives and help to bring businesses up to code. Here's one link.

There may be other programs, as there are for those with disabilities who need to remodel. I looked into those briefly, as I've had to remodel our kitchen twice, our three season porch once, and add a ramp. We decided that we were financially able to foot the bill ourselves, so I didn't apply for any help.

Anyone want a sample script? How can I help you do something to help defeat this, because I need you to. Chances are, if you've ever had to fight for your rights in the past forty years, I stood up for you. (Gosh, I hate to beg).

I'll admit I'm hazy on the details, but there was a well-publicized case with a beloved local burger joint that went under after being in a location for many years, because they allegedly couldn't afford their share of the costs to bring it into ADA compliance (it required a remodel of the parking lot). A couple other similar businesses (iconic burger stands of antique vintage) were able to move to locations that were more accessible. I got the impression some rules had been changed or updated since the owner of Fordburgers took possession of the property, and they weren't grandfathered or provided with sufficient aid. I could be wrong.

I think one issue is when a business owner is leasing a property that turns out not to be in compliance. I would assume the landlord would be responsible for remodeling the bathrooms or widening doorways or whatever, but evidently this isn't always the case.

I'm not arguing against requiring compliance, though, and I don't think the burden of making claims against business owners should fall to the person who is denied access. I do see how a business owner would prefer to be notified of an issue and given a chance to rectify it before they are sued, though.

One issue is that I lack knowledge of how the system works now when someone is denied access and why the current system we have is considered to be problematic enough to need amending. Do business owners really get sued without first being given a written notice and having a chance to resolve the issue without its going to court?

I've written my congressman previously to voice concerns about this bill, but I would like to know what might work as an alternative. I suspect the issues are often case-by-case with some people knowing they are not in compliance and using the system to avoid making improvements and others not really knowing what is wrong or how to fix it.
 
Last edited:

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
I don't know the alternative, but I am betting those (few) who have the energy for the frivolous lawsuits will also have the energy and drive to jump through all those new hoops that will stop nice people like me from having my civil rights enforced by the agency tasked with doing so. This will help no one except businesses that don't want to bother complying with the law. Thank you for taking action!
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I don't know the alternative, but I am betting those (few) who have the energy for the frivolous lawsuits will also have the energy and drive to jump through all those new hoops that will stop nice people like me from having my civil rights enforced by the agency tasked with doing so. This will help no one except businesses that don't want to bother complying with the law. Thank you for taking action!

I'm more concerned about small business owners who wish to but can't afford to comply than I am about the ones who simply don't care to. When someone goes out of business, no one has access, and sometimes the property sits empty for years.

Then there's those serial filers, such as Scott Johnson in CA (who is a despicable human being in other respects too), who actually use the law to extort extra money (and has been accused of fraud) from business owners who brought their businesses into compliance after a complaint. This kind of thing is probably the motivation for the federal law. This is what makes me crazy, because the action of Johnson and his ilk are creating backlash that is making it harder for people with disabilities.

I'd like for there to be a better way--one that provides access to all and is affordable for small businesses and protects them from serial filers who are doing it for money, not access--but I don't like this bill as a solution. It places more burden on people with disabilities, people who already have challenges facing them every day.
 
Last edited:

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,553
Reaction score
6,362
Location
west coast, canada
What that bill is, is clunky and cumbersome. Laying the burden on people who have enough problems already. And, it provides that smug governmental response: 'Well, we set up a procedure, just follow it to the letter, on your own dime. What's your problem?'
Logically, the proper people to be checking buildings for compliance would be either city building inspectors, or the fire department.
They're not getting a big financial payback, they know the local codes, and this is part of both their jobs - checking buildings for deficiencies and hazards.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,057
Reaction score
10,704
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
What that bill is, is clunky and cumbersome. Laying the burden on people who have enough problems already. And, it provides that smug governmental response: 'Well, we set up a procedure, just follow it to the letter, on your own dime. What's your problem?'

Exactly. You say this much better than I did.
Logically, the proper people to be checking buildings for compliance would be either city building inspectors, or the fire department.
They're not getting a big financial payback, they know the local codes, and this is part of both their jobs - checking buildings for deficiencies and hazards.

This seems like a good idea too. Government agencies should be tasked with inspection and enforcement, just as they do for fire code violations and so on (not that they always do as good a job with that as they should, looking at some of the tragic examples of fires that could have been prevented from recent history). These matters shouldn't have to wait until someone makes a complaint (or brings a lawsuit), whether it's an individual person who has trouble with access, or a lawyer who has made a career out of searching for violations in order to enrich themselves.

As always, the issue comes down to money and our incredibly wealthy but penny-pinching culture in the US.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,553
Reaction score
6,362
Location
west coast, canada
Exactly. Governmental agencies are, supposedly, a neutral party. They're not making any money off inspections, they (presumably) have no axe to grind with any particular business, and they are, one hopes, up on the regulations.
Also, for the firemen, well, better for them if people can get themselves out of buildings quickly, or not fall and need firemen to get them back on their feet.
Big thing: these organizations already exist - no need to invent new infrastructure.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,748
Reaction score
6,435
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
Does anyone have any stats for how often architectural barrier issues go to court, versus not?

I see the very shallow idea that this might reduce such cases. But even if true, I think the proactive requirement as is now is better.

This is just a point of curiosity.
There are a lot of myths out there.

From a company that sells lifts for pools:
Hotel Pools & Other Amenities

The 2010 standards require new constructed or altered pools to be accessible.

From the ADA website:
In 2010, the Department of Justice published updated regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). These regulations adopted the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design (2010 Standards), which, for the first time, contain specific accessibility requirements for a number of types of recreational facilities, including swimming pools, wading pools, and spas....

Three points are especially important. The first is that in response to public comments, we have extended the compliance date until January 31, 2013. The second point is that under the ADA, there is no need to provide access to existing pools if doing so is not “readily achievable.” Providing access is not readily achievable if it would involve significant difficulty or expense. The third point is that the Department will not pursue enforcement of the fixed lift requirements against those who have purchased otherwise-compliant portable lifts before March 15, 2012 as long as they are kept in position for use at the pool and operational during all times that the pool is open to guests.

The solution to abusive lawsuits is not to blame the ADA.

Essential Guide to ADA Title III Enforcement: Private Party Lawsuits
Drive-By Lawsuits
In some cases, a particular plaintiff, plaintiff group, or attorney may bring hundreds ADA Title III lawsuits. These have been termed “drive-by” lawsuits because litigants are driving to different businesses looking for ADA violations. Even though plaintiffs cannot recover damages in federal ADA lawsuits, attorneys who bring serial lawsuits may recover attorneys fees under the ADA. In addition, some attorneys use a federal ADA lawsuit or threat of a lawsuit to pressure business owners into a financial settlement. Sometimes, these settlements do not even require the defending business to remedy the underlying violation.

State laws that allow a plaintiff to collect compensatory damages for ADA Title III violations provide even greater motivation for drive-by lawsuits. Business owners may also be hit with lawsuits brought by different plaintiffs for the same violation. The legal fees to defend a number of lawsuits are often much greater than the cost of remedying the ADA violation.

State Actions to Prevent Drive-By Lawsuits
Increasingly, business owners and policymakers view serial ADA Title III litigants as subverting the ADA’s intent. A number of states are now taking steps to prevent drive-by ADA lawsuits. Arizona has been faced with a dramatic increase in ADA Title III lawsuits, and the Arizona Attorney General has recently tried to control this ADA litigation by attempting to intervene in some lawsuits.

California has adopted several laws to reduce serial litigation. California Senate Bill 1186 was passed in 2012. The law requires that a court consider the reasonableness of a plaintiff’s conduct when determining liability in cases alleging multiple claims for the same violation. The amendments reduced the amount of damages awarded if the business owner corrects the violations within a designated period after being served with the lawsuit. The new law also prohibits alleging a number of claims to increase a potential financial award and a request for money in a demand letter prior to filing a lawsuit.

California Assembly Bill 1521, passed in 2015, attempts to decrease the number of drive-by lawsuits by imposing additional requirements when filing accessibility claims, including disclosing whether the complaint is filed by high-frequency litigant, the number of lawsuits they’ve filed in the prior year, and why they were visiting the defendant’s business.

Proposed Federal Reforms to Prevent Serial ADA Title III Litigation
Several federal bills were introduced in recent years to prevent ADA Title III drive-by lawsuits. The ADA Education and Reform Act of 2015, H.R. 3765, would amend the ADA and imposes a fine on anyone who sends a pre-litigation demand letter without providing certain details about the nature of the ADA Title III violation, including whether there was a prior request to remove the architectural barrier.

The legislation also prevents the filing of a lawsuit unless the potential plaintiff has provided a written notice enabling the business to identify the barrier and the business doesn’t provide written documentation stating how the violation will be remedied in 60 days from the date notice was received or “fails to remove the barrier or make substantial progress in removing the barrier” after 120 days. The last action on the bill was its passage by the House Judiciary Committee in July 2016. A companion bill, S. 3446, was introduced in the Senate but did not progress.

The Correcting Obstructions to Mediate, Prevent, and Limit Inaccessibility Act, H.R. 4719, also requires notice and a 90-day opportunity to correct the violation before a lawsuit may be filed or demand letter sent. These proposed amendments to the ADA, introduced in March of 2016, also have not become law.

Continuing Controversy Over Private Party Lawsuits
Some disability rights advocates are concerned that laws preventing serial lawsuits may create too many obstacles for those who have legitimate claims. Also, various attorney groups oppose reforms to reduce ADA Title III litigation.

However, there is growing support for the belief that serial lawsuits don’t encourage ADA Title III compliance and are unduly burdensome, especially for small business owners. Much of the legislation focused on eliminating the motivation for drive-by lawsuits simply give the opportunity to remove barriers to accessibility, the intended focus of the ADA, before a lawsuit may be filed.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,748
Reaction score
6,435
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
What that bill is, is clunky and cumbersome. Laying the burden on people who have enough problems already. And, it provides that smug governmental response: 'Well, we set up a procedure, just follow it to the letter, on your own dime. What's your problem?'
...
The ADA requires "reasonable accommodations." It's not as insensitive as you imply.
 

blacbird

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
36,987
Reaction score
6,158
Location
The right earlobe of North America
You're a Canadian, Frimble. You just don't understand truth and right and virtue, because you didn't rebel against King George III back in the 18th Century. And your national curling squad ain't any good, neither.

caw