ADA Foibles 7: Policy is Important

Park Rules
ADA Compliance Means Policy Needs to be Compliant too!

Take a look at Rule 6. It includes the text “SELF-PROPELLED VEHICLES PROHIBITED.” Does that include powered wheelchairs? It’s important to be careful with your signs, printed materials, and policies. Discriminiatory verbage hurts your loyal customers — even if they’re too polite or shy to say anything — and can make you look very bad should you ever get sued.

Anyone who does an ADA inspection, especially for Facilities under Title 2 (government) for a full ADA transition plan needs to have their policy looked at! Remember, the ADA also has Title 1 which covers employees. (Any good HR firm, or consultant can advise you on this.) But in terms of access to goods and services you need an experienced ADA consultant to look through your policies. If your consultant thinks that walking through a court house or police station with a tape measure is all it takes, then you need a better ADA consultant, one that won’t get you into a lawsuit.

Have any questions? Call us at 866 982 3212 x2 or email us at

If you want to look directly at what our services cost, or for further information on the topic, you can go to these official ADA sites.

Incomplete ADA Inspections: A Bad Idea

The following quote is from an article on ADA compliance. The quote tells a familiar story, where one owner of a hotel was sued more than once for different ADA compliance issues. The first time he was threatened with a lawsuit, he settled and fixed that one issue. Later, he was sued again, and fought back. At the time of the article, the case was not settled. If anything, this story highlights why a business should get a complete Accessibility Survey.

Many small-business owners, however, worry that paying large settlements to Pinnock would force them to close.

“It sounds like we’re crying,” said Carlos Vasquez, whose three San Ysidro motels near the border were sued. “We’re dealing with the same economy as everyone but add on the fact that people aren’t traveling to Mexico. Add the whole passport-requirements issue.”

Attorney Theodore Pinnock has filed nearly 1,500 lawsuits in California [between 1993 and 2008].

Vasquez’s Frontier Motel on Via de San Ysidro was sued by Pinnock four years ago for, among other things, a sign violation that Vasquez said he fixed. It cost him $10,000, including attorney’s fees. He said he won’t settle this time.

You can read more (Continue…).

The point illustrated above is that, of course, anyone worth their salt as an ADA compliance consultant will tell you that a true compliance survey will be complete, not just of one or two issues. Partial inspections are really worthless! At first glance, partial inspections seem like a savvy business move. Why ignore liability that doesn’t involve you — after all, what you don’t know doesn’t exist, right? Or if you’re not responsible then you can’t possibly care.

Yet we know this is not the case. Anyone who has ever argued with a cop over getting a ticket knows that ignorance is not a defensible position when you break the law. While providing alternate accommodations in lieu of what you can’t yet fix seems like a good catch-all for expensive compliance issues, in the long term, a lessee who continues to lease an out-of-compliance building tells the world that they don’t care.  Such lessees are choosing to locate goods and services in inaccessible locations. This is just as bad as a lessor who claims everything is the lessee’s fault. If a building is seriously non-compliant, the best thing to do is leave that location as soon as possible!

Which brings us to a stronger point. YTA will never do things half way. Our reports are the most complete and thorough of any ADA compliance reports we have ever seen. We also take your (and our) liability seriously. This is while some of our competitors may offer free (but partial) inspections, we aren’t going to do the same.

Free inspections sound like a good idea — they can let you know what some of your liability is — a taste of what’s in violation. Many business models are built around offering free (but partial) services. For example, many tax programs offer the Federal Income Tax portion as free — to use their program to do the state tax though, requires you buy the program. This sounds good, but before you can get meaningful results, you still do need to pay. It’s not like you are paying for only the state tax portion of the program — when you pay, you actually pay for the entire program. So it’s a good way for the free (but partial) model to compete for market share, because it seems like they are giving something of value away. We do commend our colleagues for taking the time and resources to help businesses with something. Our colleagues stand for the same thing we stand for — to bring about ADA compliance — to protect disabled individuals AND the businesses who do something about not being compliant.

But that’s where the differences end.

How good do you think the free version of tax software is? Getting a partial inspection may get their foot in your door, so to speak, for becoming ADA compliant, but what happens when your customer goes through your door? If YTA were to compete with this model, we would have to offer free inspections all the way up to some further arbitrary point. For example, we might do everything for a business (b) type occupancy except for the restrooms. For hotels (r) type occupancy, we might choose to check only the rooms with roll-in showers.

Such an approach would defeat the purpose of ADA compliance. Offering “free” and partial inspections devalues both what the ADA consultant does, and the importance of proper access compliance. If anything, “free” only entices an uneducated public by failing to communicate the real value that comes with applying access codes to an actual site. “Free” can sound like one gets something for nothing, or as in some cases, nothing for nothing. The real purpose of getting an ADA compliance survey is to better serve the public and eliminate liability. Partial inspections can do neither.

Any ADA compliance work needs to look at the complete general path of travel. Making suggestions or citing violations for only a part of the route can create nonsensical “solutions”. Compliant ramps are good and well, but if they lead to non-compliant rooms, then the path of travel is misleading. People can get trapped or confused. Any further access work in the future then would have to undo these “solutions” in order to become truly accessible.

YTA follows the model that general information should be free. We recognize that businesses need time to do what they do. This is why we offer free seminars whenever possible to interested organizations. We do not act as the gatekeepers of knowledge, keeping what we do for a business a secret. We would rather share information. Anyone can go to the or buy a set of the California Building Code (and given an indefinite amount of time become an expert). We have years of experience, but we are willing to offer this openly to save everyone time. We present the information. As our potential customer, you can qualify yourself. Our seminars will address 80% of the most common issues sued for. With this information, responsible individuals can go back to their facility and recognize if they need a customized experience.

This is also why we take the time and expend the effort to answer general questions but don’t offer free consulting services. Every site is different, with different liabilities. In to thoroughly eliminate liability and provide for access we need to fully inspect your property and make thoughtful recommendations. This costs us time and effort. We believe in a straight-forward no-nonsense approach. You recognize if we can help you or not.

We will not cookie-cut a report for you. Come to our speaking events. Through public education, we will show you what we do. If you have further questions, we will continue to service your needs.


Early back in 2009, we did some MCLE presentations with Frank Chen, one of the super lawyers.

Anyway, while he wrote an article a while ago for ADA compliance, here it is, quoted in part, below.

By Attorney Frank W. Chen INTRODUCTION In recent years, there have been a multitude of ADA accessibility lawsuits filed against businesses for alleged violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, and corresponding California law consisting of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civil Code ? 51 et seq.), the Disabled Persons Act (Civil Code ? 54 et seq.), and the building standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Typically, the alleged violations involve lack of handicapped parking and inaccessible restrooms at businesses such as restaurants, motels, retail stores, and office buildings. Under California law, violators of these standards may be found liable for up to three times the amount of actual damages, but not less than $4,000, plus attorney’s fees and costs, even if the violation is seemingly trivial. Conflicting access standards under California and federal laws, a lack of continuing education for building inspectors and architects, and inconsistent interpretations of state law have made compliance with disability-access standards in California difficult.

I didn’t quote all of it, but you can read the rest (including resource citations) below.

( Continue… )

Service Animals Defined only as Dogs, Confusion

Here is a great example of how the government regulations do not take into account the needs of those whom they are trying to protect.

As you may or may not know, Title III of the ADA effects places of public accommodation, basically businesses. For your average small business owner, this is too much information — no one running a small businesses has time to shift through this level of legal-ese. And yet they are effected because these regulations are for protecting the rights of your customers.

Basically the revised Title III states defines service animals as dogs. This ignores the fact that service animals do different things for people with disabilities — not just for the blind. For instance, with epileptics, service animals help their owners in time of seizure. They are trained for specific tasks. Here is a great link about this topic: Service Animals RE: Epilepsy. There has also been plenty of debate as to whether dogs are the best animal to service the blind.

In any case, this revision, for business owners, makes it easier for a business owner to spot whether someone has a ‘service animal’ or not. But it will cause consternation among disabled individuals with service animals who are not dogs — when they are denied entrance and probably bring about a few lawsuits between disabled individuals against businesses who deny them entrance. This is not a good thing. Eventually, this law will be revised again to have a broader scope than defining a service animal as a dog — simply because this definition is not effective. This will probably mean that businesses and organizations who learn about the original revision and change their policy will have to learn about the newer revision and CHANGE THEIR POLICY AGAIN.

It’s very possible that individuals in the government put this definition in place simply to 1) avoid further unfocused discussions as to what a service animal was 2) simply to have a revision in place which can later be re-tooled to be “on target”. In large organizations it’s often better to have an approximate policy in place to close the discussion than to go through the extra process of debate and risk losing having any policy at all. Eventually that kind of policy will be “cleaned up” through a more focused study with the framework of the approximate policy in place. Do any of you know what this kind of process is called? It’s something that I have observed happening but no one seems to be able to have a term for it.

In any case, since the revised Title III is long, for your ease, quoted below is the relevant text.

Service animal means any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the handler´s disability. Examples of work or tasks include, but are not limited to, assisting individuals who are blind or have low vision with navigation and other tasks, alerting individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing to the presence of people or sounds, providing non-violent protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, assisting an individual during a seizure, alerting individuals to the presence of allergens, retrieving items such as medicine or the telephone, providing physical support and assistance with balance and stability to individuals with mobility disabilities, and helping persons with psychiatric and neurological disabilities by preventing or interrupting impulsive or destructive behaviors. The crime deterrent effects of an animal´s presence and the provision of emotional support, well-being, comfort, or companionship do not constitute work or tasks for the purposes of this definition.

You can glance further down and see that miniature horses were considered as service animals, there is a section about them. Nonetheless, comparing this text with the definition above, you can see how businesses can be confused by this contradiction or not understand in depth enough what a service animal is — prompting all kinds of hostile feelings, disagreements and lawsuits.

I have quoted the applicable text below, for your reading pleasure:

(c) Service animals.
(1) General. Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a disability.
(c)(2) Exceptions. A public accommodation may ask an individual with a disability to remove a service animal from the premises if:
(i) The animal is out of control and the animal´s handler does not take effective action to control it; or
(ii) The animal is not housebroken.
(3) If an animal is properly excluded. If a public accommodation properly excludes a service animal under § 36.302(c)(2), it shall give the individual with a disability the opportunity to obtain goods, services, and accommodations without having the service animal on the premises.
(4) Animal under handler´s control. A service animal shall be under the control of its handler. A service animal shall have a harness, leash, or other tether, unless either the handler is unable because of a disability to use a harness, leash, or other tether, or the use of a harness, leash, or other tether would interfere with the service animal´s safe, effective performance of work or tasks, in which case the service animal must be otherwise under the handler´s control (e.g., voice control, signals, or other effective means).
(5) Care or supervision. A public accommodation is not responsible for the care or supervision of a service animal.
(6) Inquiries. A public accommodation shall not ask about the nature or extent of a person´s disability, but may make two inquiries to determine whether an animal qualifies as a service animal. A public accommodation may ask if the animal is required because of a disability and what work or task the animal has been trained to perform. A public accommodation shall not require documentation, such as proof that the animal has been certified, trained, or licensed as a service animal. Generally, a public accommodation may not make these inquiries about a service animal when it is readily apparent that an animal is trained to do work or perform tasks for an individual with a disability (e.g., the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person´s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability).
(7) Access to areas of a public accommodation. Individuals with disabilities shall be permitted to be accompanied by their service animals in all areas of a place of public accommodation where members of the public, program participants, clients, customers, patrons, or invitees, as relevant, are allowed to go.
(8) Surcharges. A public accommodation shall not ask or require an individual with a disability to pay a surcharge, even if people accompanied by pets are required to pay fees, or to comply with other requirements generally not applicable to people without pets. If a public accommodation normally charges individuals for the damage they cause, an individual with a disability may be charged for damage caused by his or her service animal.
(9) Miniature horses.
(i) A public accommodation shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures to permit the use of a miniature horse by an individual with a disability if the miniature horse has been individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of the individual with a disability.
(ii) Assessment factors. In determining whether reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures can be made to allow a miniature horse into a specific facility, a public accommodation shall consider –
(A) The type, size, and weight of the miniature horse and whether the facility can accommodate these features;
(B) Whether the handler has sufficient control of the miniature horse;
(C) Whether the miniature horse is housebroken; and
(D) Whether the miniature horse´s presence in a specific facility compromises legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.
(iii) Other requirements. Sections 36.302(c)(3) through (c)(8), which apply to service animals, shall also apply to miniature horses.

Before I end this post, there are two general questions businesses always ask us. 1). How do I know whether someone has a service animal has a service animal and 2) Can I charge them more for bringing this animal in?

The answer to both is NO: a business CANNOT ASK what kind of disability an individual has. You can ask what the animal does (emotional comfort does NOT a service animal MAKE!)

And NO, businesses cannot charge the individual with a disability MORE (even if you can charge pets more) because service animals are not pets. If the service animal causes damage, then the owner is responsible for paying for that damage.

You can look at the Title III’s full regulations here: Title III Revised Regulations. Being educated is the first step to any kind of compliance. Unfortunately, there are TONS of regulations. Thats why we are around, to help you become educated about what you need to know.

on ADA Compliance: Why Don’t Businesses Comply on their Own?

In the past, I’ve tried to take a factual stance on accessibility. No preaching, just the facts. But facts don’t always say much — facts change. They come and go. For this to be a successful business blog, it needs to reach out and take a stand. This company needs to present its philosophy, so that the general reader, potential client or not, understand why we do what we do — which is in a significant sense — even more important than what we do… as why we do something shapes everything about what we do.

If you are reading this I assume you know something about what YTA does. From the point of view of businesses, we are consultants who help businesses lower their liability by making rational accessibility tips. From the point of view of people who are disabled, we help make the world more accessible, but in a way that is nice. For activists, this may be too nice. In the most extreme position of activists, we are not helpful at all — we should be threatening to sue places that violate accessibility guidelines — and then actually suing the places to force them to comply with the law.

At the most basic level, this is what accessibility compliance entails. Compliance with the law. We have had some clients tell us “we don’t want people like that around here” and “i don’t believe that new ramp would ever get used” (as if disabled people do not exist). Both are appalling to hear and thank goodness, not many people say it. Whatever level of engagement you are willing to do for your clients, accessibility is still required by law.

How this happens can be complicated. Basically the ADA defines a disability a condition which “substantially limits a major life activity.” You can read more about what exactly a disability is here:

Now that you’ve read the link, regardless of what major life activity has been substantially limited, individuals with a limiting condition must be able to gain access to goods and services in the same way as the general public. This can extend to having assisted listening devices, to having grab bars in the restroom, or having door ways widened so a wheelchair can fit through them. Likewise, having architectural or structural barriers which trap people, or prevents people from getting what everyone else can get (such as a soda fountain switch that is too high up) would qualify as a violation of the ADA. Think of the difference between ketchup packets and having a push button on a ketchup-condiment dispenser.

The few items I have mentioned are simple. Much of what business owners would make of these depends on their attitude. Many business owners are scared away from compliance because they are afraid of expensive changes like tearing down structural, load bearing walls. Or putting in expensive ramps. Or completely changing the way the parking layout is and not having any site parking for a week. So these become “justifications” that serve to downplay the relevance of ADA compliance work. Having this kind of work isn’t often the case, but it could be. The flip side is that business owners may need to change many inexpensive things. Such as changing the door handles on doors that access public spaces and doors that serve as pathways of egress and ingress. Or lowering a counter that is made of wood. Or lowering or raising a sink in one restroom. These business owners might bitterly complain that the ADA is ‘nit-picky’. Again that depends on your attitude. Both positions are on opposite sides regarding the monetary commitment involved in ADA compliance — yet both sides assume their position as reasonable to justify the dismissal of ADA compliance!

Now, not all business owners we’ve spoken with have this attitude. Nonetheless, this little dialectic suggests that downplaying the importance of ADA compliance is unrelated to either position. Having any excuse to toss aside the ADA is a pathological attitude. After all, is it nit-picky to ensure that your customers have a good experience, or an experience that is safe for them? Is it nit-picky to consider the wide range of ability, age, and condition of every person whose money is green?

This gets us to the baseline of businesses. All businesses need to have positive cash flow in order to be a viable. We understand that. The ADA does make some allowances on what is ‘readily achievable’. The basic idea is that small entities that can’t afford costly renovations. What is the determining factor of what is costly depends on a great many things. Larger corporations, of course, will have a higher threshold of what is allowable. Yet if each business saved a dollar a day, since the ADA became law, that would mean today, each business in operating since the signing of the ADA would have $7,497.00!!

This emphasis on money seems to exemplify a basic attitude about the world we live in. This recent story on NPR, Is Marriage Rational comes to the conclusion that marriage is in fact not rational because it makes little economic sense. Personally I find it a sad affair that money has to be the determining factor as to the viability of anything. After all, why be a doctor or an attorney, if you’re after money? All that schooling… and that huge debt… Yet even this impetus on money isn’t enough to spur business owners and property managers to take steps to become compliant. Fines in California are 4k minimum per violation. That’s enough dough that it’d make you’d think that even medium sized businesses would comply. Add on the cost of a attorney fees and yet even this dollar amount does not seem enough to encourage action!!

It seems that even with the letter of the law — found in Civil Code Section 51 stating that violations of the ADA are acts of discrimination, bearing fines of at least 4k per instance — is not enough for business owners to make sense of what they should do.  This suggests that saving money and limiting liability isn’t what business owners think as being important enough to initiate action on their part.

Should businesses wait for a lawsuit to happen? Because then they have to pay 4k plus attorneys fees. Or should they spend some money, hire a consultant who is familiar with the intricacies of these requirements and then pay the few thousand (or in some cases few hundred) it would take to comply and then completely avoid that lawsuit? It’s not like they have to do this all at once either! The cost can be spread out over time. Courts do look favorably to businesses that have an operative ADA transition plan in place.

If anything, it seems that we as a people have forgotten what it means to be in business or even live among our peers. Success doesn’t come about by simply behaving according to a set of rigid rules. If that was the case, you’d think anyone could be wildly successful. Robots and computers cannot succeed at business. Success comes about like love. It’s a side-effect of successful relationships. Successful relationships take time, take energy and take good-will. Any business owner who would begrudge someone’s grandmother entrance to their facility does not have good will. Instead we often encounter the contentious attitude of us vs them. “We need to get them.” or “they will get us.” This is much like the attitude of the stereotypical “bad renter” who trashes the apartment they rent because it’s not theirs. Even if they don’t own the apartment they still live there!! Who wants to live among all their own filth and garbage?

My point: improving accessibility (even if its just to your store) benefits not only the general but the public but also your potential customers.  It will come back to you.  We all live together in the same city, on the same streets. Just like littering is bad for the community (and thus bad for us individually) so is polluting the environment or not voting and taking the time to learn about what’s important to be able to vote. Fiscal conservatives complain that deficient spending means that our children need to pay for our mistakes. I realize it’s getting to be increasingly difficult to feel a sense of community, especially in big cities like Los Angeles or Chicago where people can be very impersonal. We don’t need to adopt the rat in a cage syndrome though, we are human beings. We have a choice. We need people to be responsible, not just for themselves but others. After all, business owners are leaders in their communities. Business owners employ people. Successful business owners ensure their customers have good experiences and that their employees — the life blood of their business — succeed at their individual lives. This is success behind Zappos. This is also what’s missing in larger corporations that burn people out.

Accessibility is one of those indirect benefits. At the very minimum, it requires following the law. That’s important too — not knowing the law is no excuse. Ever tell a cop who pulled you over that you don’t deserve a speeding ticket because you didn’t know the speed limit? But as citizens in the great country of the United States of America, we need to see the reasons behind laws. The principles behind why laws are there. Thats what it means to be a “pillar of the community” someone who not only opens a restaurant to make a living but also to spread the joy of eating at a particular kind of establishment. Businesses serve the public — they serve the needs of the general population. That’s why anyone would go to a business. This is what’s great about capitalism — not greed — but that we can help each other out and get to make a living doing it. Vote with our dollars, as it were. That is also why we exist as a service, to help you achieve accessibility!

After all, in ten or twenty years, improving accessibility everywhere will also benefit your loved ones. And if you and I live long enough, having an accessible world will also directly benefit us.


For a guide on how to put a price tag on ADA Compliance

Conflicts Between Federal and State Laws on Disabled Access in 2011

Starting the new year (2011) on the right foot is a great way to help set the tone for the new year.

So we at YTA have decided that the best way to do that is to help all you out there notice a few of the conflicts between State and Federal Law. The state in question, of course, is California.

Between the updated 2010 Federal requirements of disabled access under the ADA for all businesses serving the public and the updated 2010 California Building Code (CBC) there are a variety of common conflicts business owners should be aware of.  Some of the common conflicts include:

  1. While the CBC never allows a maximum slope of over 8.33% (1:12) the ADA has allowances for steeper slopes if the slope rises less than 3 inches the maximum slope is 12.5% (1:8).  If the rise is 6 inches the maximum slope lowers to 10% (1:10).
  2. Ramps runs under the CBC can only rise to a maximum of 30 inches per run but as the length of the ramp run increases, the maximum slope decreases.  E.g., a ramp run that is 465 inches long cannot have a slope greater than 6.67% (1:15).
  3. The ADA always requires a clear floor space of 18 inches square directly under each door sign whereas the CBC only requires clear floor space based on the latch side clearances for each door.
  4. The CBC requires that employee parking include parking spaces reserved for the disabled.  For the CBC, the total ratio of disabled parking spaces must include employee spaces.  The Advisory for the ADA states that employee parking lots are not required to be included in the required ratio of disabled parking.
  5. The ADA allows the door closer to swing into the head clearance down to 78 inches.  The CBC does not allow the door closer to drop less than 80 inches.
  6. While both the ADA and the CBC now have requirements for a maximum mirror height of 35 inches for mirrors not over sinks in restrooms, the ADA advisory states that the top edge of stand alone mirrors should be no less than 74 inches above the finished floor.
  7. The CBC requires that disabled parking spaces reserved for vans should always have the access aisle on the passenger side (when the van is pulling forward).  The ADA allows the access aisle to be on either side of the space except when the parking space is angled.  Angled van parking spaces are required to have the access aisle on the passenger side.
  8. Parking space signs for the CBC must be at least 80 inches above the parking grade when in the path of travel.  ADA parking signs must always be at least 60 inches above the parking grade.
  9. For the ADA, grab bars in restrooms can be anywhere from 33 to 36 inches measured to the top above the finish floor.  In the CBC must be exactly 33 inches on center above the finished floor, unless you are using a tank toilet and the rear bar interferes with the tank’s lid.  If that’s the case then the CBC allows the rear bar to be anywhere from 33 to 36 inches on center.

These are just some of the conflicts between the CBC and the ADA.  Negotiating these code requirements requires intimate knowledge about both the INTENT of the law and the explicit details surrounding the requirements.  Hiring an experienced Access Consultant is a must!  Should you have any questions, please email Yours Truly Accessibility Corporation at or call us 866-982-3212 x 1.

Access Foibles 6

Through ignorance or inattention, this contractor is placing his client in a perilous legal position. It is never OK to block an access aisle or use it for another purpose. Even if it’s somebody else’s fault that your site has accessibility problems, you are still the one that’s going to face the lawsuit. Remember — even if you win in court, you still have to pay your attorney potentially thousands of dollars. And that’s not even taking into account the time you have to take off work and the stress of a legal battle. Avoid liability in the first place: get an accessibility survey every five years and regularly check your own site for potentially dangerous situations.

You can always look up our pricing as well as the official sites with ADA info.

Or, for more specific questions call us at 866 982 3212×2 or email us at

Access Foibles 5

This fast food chain has decided to not offer public restrooms — you have to be a customer. But that’s still open to the public because anyone can be a customer! If the heavy door wasn’t bad enough, the twist and pull mechanism to unlock and open the door makes it really hard to get out of the restroom because you have to twist, pull AND roll your chair back. I know this chain wants to avoid lawsuits but if they make it so hard for people to get in and out of the restoom, someone can get trapped (esp in an emergency evacuation). Now that’s lawsuit material.

You can always look up our pricing as well as the official sites with ADA info.

Or, for more specific questions call us at 866 982 3212×2 or email us at

Access Foibles 4

You see this sort of thing all the time. It’s pretty common for delivery trucks to park in access isles, too. If someone were to come along that needs this access aisle, this store could get a lawsuit. Never allow anything to block your access aisle, because it’s your butt on the line even if it’s not your fault.

You can always look up our pricing as well as the official sites with ADA info.

Or, for more specific questions call us at 866 982 3212×2 or email us at

ADA Foibles 3: Inaccessible Gate at Market

The accessible gate is not marked, too narrow and LOCKED. Anyone with a wheelchair, stroller or walker is clearly not welcomed here.


The ADA is not just about building code.

Read about this and more things you can be liable for:  Read our ADA FAQ for more information.  For information about assessing your site yourself or hiring an ADA expert, please look at our ADA Consultation page.  Or call us at 866 982 3212 x2 or email us at