The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[ADA] American's with Disability Act: the other TLA that the GOP is making DOA.
DevoutlyApathetic
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
This is gobbling up the healthcare thread and I fear the wave of red bars while still thinking this is an important topics we should pay attention to so....
The American with Disability Act, current law since the nineties, means that businesses must make sure they are accessible to folks with disabilities like being in a wheelchair. The GOP, in a sterling example of their morality, think that businesses shouldn't have to do something until after a specific person has complained about a specific issue. Because as everybody knows, you should be planning and scouting your movements six months ahead, especially with regards to bathroom access. As you may have guessed, I'm not even pretending to be neutral or fair on this.
The ACLU isn't either, they're more focused on being right.
Equal time, here's the devil pro-business argument.
This is HR 620 and the full text.
Bill Text, badly formatted:
The American with Disability Act, current law since the nineties, means that businesses must make sure they are accessible to folks with disabilities like being in a wheelchair. The GOP, in a sterling example of their morality, think that businesses shouldn't have to do something until after a specific person has complained about a specific issue. Because as everybody knows, you should be planning and scouting your movements six months ahead, especially with regards to bathroom access. As you may have guessed, I'm not even pretending to be neutral or fair on this.
The ACLU isn't either, they're more focused on being right.
Equal time, here's the devil pro-business argument.
This is HR 620 and the full text.
Bill Text, badly formatted:
115th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 620
To amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to promote
compliance through education, to clarify the requirements for demand
letters, to provide for a notice and cure period before the
commencement of a private civil action, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 24, 2017
Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself, Mr. Peters, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Bera, Ms.
Speier, and Mr. Conaway) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to promote
compliance through education, to clarify the requirements for demand
letters, to provide for a notice and cure period before the
commencement of a private civil action, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``ADA Education and Reform Act of
2017''.
SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE THROUGH EDUCATION.
Based on existing funding, the Disability Rights Section of the
Department of Justice shall, in consultation with property owners and
representatives of the disability rights community, develop a program
to educate State and local governments and property owners on effective
and efficient strategies for promoting access to public accommodations
for persons with a disability (as defined in section 3 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12102)). Such program may include
training for professionals such as Certified Access Specialists to
provide a guidance of remediation for potential violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
SEC. 3. NOTICE AND CURE PERIOD.
Paragraph (1) of section 308(a) of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12188(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(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 to make substantial progress in
removing the barrier during the period
beginning on the date the description is
provided and ending 120 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, the specific sections of the
Americans with Disabilities Act alleged to have been
violated, 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.''.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. MEDIATION FOR ADA ACTIONS RELATED TO ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS.
The Judicial Conference of the United States shall, under rule 16
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other applicable law, in
consultation with property owners and representatives of the disability
rights community, develop a model program to promote the use of
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including a stay of
discovery during mediation, to resolve claims of architectural barriers
to access for public accommodations. To the extent practical, the
Federal Judicial Center should provide a public comment period on any
such proposal. The goal of the model program shall be to promote access
quickly and efficiently without the need for costly litigation. The
model program should include an expedited method for determining the
relevant facts related to such barriers to access and steps taken
before the commencement of litigation to resolve any issues related to
access.
1st Session
H. R. 620
To amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to promote
compliance through education, to clarify the requirements for demand
letters, to provide for a notice and cure period before the
commencement of a private civil action, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 24, 2017
Mr. Poe of Texas (for himself, Mr. Peters, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Bera, Ms.
Speier, and Mr. Conaway) introduced the following bill; which was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
A BILL
To amend the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to promote
compliance through education, to clarify the requirements for demand
letters, to provide for a notice and cure period before the
commencement of a private civil action, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``ADA Education and Reform Act of
2017''.
SEC. 2. COMPLIANCE THROUGH EDUCATION.
Based on existing funding, the Disability Rights Section of the
Department of Justice shall, in consultation with property owners and
representatives of the disability rights community, develop a program
to educate State and local governments and property owners on effective
and efficient strategies for promoting access to public accommodations
for persons with a disability (as defined in section 3 of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12102)). Such program may include
training for professionals such as Certified Access Specialists to
provide a guidance of remediation for potential violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
SEC. 3. NOTICE AND CURE PERIOD.
Paragraph (1) of section 308(a) of the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12188(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:
``(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 to make substantial progress in
removing the barrier during the period
beginning on the date the description is
provided and ending 120 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, the specific sections of the
Americans with Disabilities Act alleged to have been
violated, 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.''.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act take effect 30 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. MEDIATION FOR ADA ACTIONS RELATED TO ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS.
The Judicial Conference of the United States shall, under rule 16
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or any other applicable law, in
consultation with property owners and representatives of the disability
rights community, develop a model program to promote the use of
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including a stay of
discovery during mediation, to resolve claims of architectural barriers
to access for public accommodations. To the extent practical, the
Federal Judicial Center should provide a public comment period on any
such proposal. The goal of the model program shall be to promote access
quickly and efficiently without the need for costly litigation. The
model program should include an expedited method for determining the
relevant facts related to such barriers to access and steps taken
before the commencement of litigation to resolve any issues related to
access.
Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
DevoutlyApathetic on
0
Posts
Smaller cities tend to do something along those lines, but they also tend to not really have fixed route transit, or many taxis, in the first place. For moderate to large cities it just doesn't scale in a way that's cheaper. Some are trying to force all/large percentage of new cabs to be ADA accessible, but Uber and Lyft are already eating taxis lunch without the added cost of a more expensive and less efficient vehicle. It's mostly just a big cost that has to be eaten so people with disabilities aren't forced to be shut ins.
Fortunately, we do eventually perform maintenance/ replace things, so transit systems become more accessible over time. The L should be fully accessible in Chicago in ~20 years, and already over 2/3rds of stations are. The invention of the low floor bus was a huge advancement, and that was decades ago. At this point pretty much all transit buses and rolling stock across the country are compliant. Things could be better, commuter rail/amtrack should have platforms the same height as the railcar instead of needing a lift. But at least you can get on the train in the first place.
We just built a building. Cost of ada compliance was basically 0 (had to give up a few square feet of floor space for a bigger bathroom). The cost of redoing a smaller bathroom to current standards would be in the thousands of dollars easilly. It makes no sense to allow people to build to lower standards then expect it to be fixed later.
Oh, they don't have to implement they have to "to make substantial progress in removing the barrier" and that's just within a 120 day period. So long as they make progress you can't get the courts involved.
Yeah.
Did you see what happened with the push to adopt the UN disability access treaty - which was based on the ADA and was being championed by Bob Dole?
Yeah, they would happily eliminate it.
Eliminate? What the GOP are not heartless monsters. We are merely improving the compliance process so we don't impose a harsh government oversight on virtuous businesses that are the drivers of the economy!
That'd be the spin. It isn't an actual repeal it is just changing the enforcement method to make it a de facto repeal.
the thing about ADA is that it is also integrated into life safety code more or less
edit: it should also be noted that most states (if not all), have codes that basically integrate the ADA building constraints. maryland is COMAR (Code Of MAryland Regulations).
for example: http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/09/09.11.06.07.htm
07 Facilities.
Each classroom in which courses are given shall:
A. Meet all fire, safety, zoning, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements;
B. Be of sufficient size to comfortably accommodate all enrolled students;
C. Provide an appropriate learning environment; and
D. Be free of distractions that would disrupt class sessions.
The important parts there are fire, safety, and the ADA. There is no way that the state, county, town, architect, engineer, builder, and owner will ALL open themselves up to lawsuits by not designing to allow for everyone.
But the businessmen paying for the building might. "What are all those ugly ramps out front? Cut them and put some nice fountains in. And a statue of my father!"
Did they do that out of the goodness of their hearts? Or because regulations made them?
There are a lot of utopians in architecture. Also, a lot of people critiquing how your idea "defies gravity" or don't work for ___ and old people with walkers/wheelchair bound people is part of it.
depends. Life safety is a thing. for example, if you get in a building, you HAVE to be able to get back out in an emergency. You can't bar entry to a HDCP person, which means you have to be prepared to get them out if there's a fire or other emergency.
edit: at this point it's way more of a hassle for literally everyone to do away with the building restrictions of the ADA than to just keep them. additionally, they'd be back the second a democratic congress or president popped up anyway. also, state codes would dictate (more than likely) that the ADA building restrictions remain.
This doesn't necessarily correlate into disability-friendly. There's lots of ways of being utopian. For instance, an architect might design a building with a lot of small staircases to unconsciously force sedentary office workers to exercise, but not remember this meant that people in wheelchairs could not access half the building.
Without the ADA, *yes you can*. Barring state or local laws.
best of luck to whoever tries it.
Anyway, long story short is that they talked like they were going to hire her, said they were really impressed with her qualifications, and then...sent her an e-mail to let her know that they wouldn't be hiring her because they "don't have the resources to train you outside-the-box." So, basically putting in writing that her disability was explicitly the reason she wouldn't be hired.
And there's nothing we can do, because this place is our only source of income, and in today's "right to work" environment, it's hard to make anything stick without a lot of luck. I let her log in on my account into the company system so we could make sure that it was screen-reader compatible, and it is. She didn't have any trouble navigating the company software, or extracting/inputting information with it. This is a job she can do. But because they're not willing to take an extra 10 minutes thinking about how to train someone verbally instead of visually, or shell out a little IT budget for a screen-reader license, she has to put up with yet another rejection, this time from a place that we can't just cut out of our lives and never think about again.
The thing you (the general "you", not anyone specific in this thread) need to understand is that when an employer rejects someone for their disability, it's not a rejection like any other job rejection. It's not like losing an opportunity because "there was a better candidate, try again later/next time". It's not like losing an opportunity because "we're looking for somebody with a degree/a little more experience". It's a repeated litany that can in some cases last your entire life, of people looking you in the eye and saying, "You can do this job, but we won't let you, because of something you have no control over."
The ADA is a half-measure at best. What we really need is a culturally (or legally, though I'm not sure how you'd do that?) established positive preference for hiring disabled workers as a priority in positions where they can do the work. I'm not saying we need blind police snipers or security guards without arms or anything, but the way disabled people are treated in the workforce is fucking shameful.
Literally every State and Locality has laws incorporating (typically International Building Code-20whatever year we wrote this) building code standards, though...
What you describe it basically the problem with every initiative that requires people to go to the courts for redress after the fact. Shit just doesn't work.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/374034-house-votes-to-add-requirements-for-americans-with-disabilities-act
Because they were worried they weren't looking quite evil enough lately I guess.
I don't know what they're hoping to accomplish but it's already been done for years
They're hoping to eliminate or undermine to the point of uselessness all of the protections granted by the ADA.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
They're adding "additional restrictions" to the law that already exists.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Everything listed in the posts up above already exists though. Or if it doesn't specifically exist, it's addressed in state or local codes.
The big thing is that right now the business is responsible for making sure they're ADA complaint. If the GOP got their evil wish the business would be responsible six months after a specific person complained about a specific issue. That is a huge shift in the burden from the capital rich to those who are not renowned for having lots and lots of spare cash.
Also, a remedy in six months does nothing to help the person who is about to shit themselves right now.
It isn't even a new business in the space, you have to be undergoing substantial remodeling in order to be required to come up to compliance. Which...you should put ADA compliance into your massive renovation, and everyone knows it so that gets budgeted for. You can argue that this means places go longer without updates because of the added cost, which is true, but that is a value judgement over not providing access. I'm fine with the current cost/benefit equilibrium since it will eventually result in universal access over time.
The CTA should have the L 100% compliant in another 20-30 years. Including over century old stations. It shouldn't have taken ~50 years from the law being enacted, but it would have never happened without it. So...
Would that also be building in a political trap where companies get to whine about having to make massive renovations based on a one-time complaint by a person who isn't around and/or doesn't care anymore?