Introducing Disabled Access Denied

One of the complaints by various building officials, property managers and business owners who are, at times, angry for having to pay for or enforce laws that require facilities to be made have said to me:

I never see that platform lift being used
We never see those people come in here

Both of these complaints stem from a misunderstanding of both the real accommodations have for people who have disabilities and how many disabled individuals are out and about.

First some statistics. The answer? At least one in five. Don’t believe it? See this source, Access to Disability Data citing a very old source, from the early 1990s. Given that this year, of 2011, the first baby boomers have reached 65, AND The number of disabled veterans is rising especially as the United States has more than three military actions going on today, you can be sure that there are plenty of disabled citizens out today.

Now even if you provide accommodations that’s not enough to get people with disabilities into your establishment. I won’t talk about marketing or sales funnel, but installing a platform lift isn’t enough — it’s really possible that your external path of travel is so incompliant that the disabled can’t even get in the door. Plus a business that is known to be disabled unfriendly is likely to not get business from the disabled. A family taking grandma out to dinner isn’t going to take her to a restaurant that will embarrass her or cause her difficulty.

With this in mind, I want to draw attention to a recent connection we’ve made, a blog by one Mia G Vayner who runs a blog: “Disabled Access Denied“. With the advent of social media online and social networking, Vayner is one of the rising voices of a growing disgrunted and traditionally under-represented group of people.

I had invited Vayner to write herself an introduction, and it is presented below.

Disabled Access Denied was the message I got every time I rolled up to a restaurant that wasn’t accessible or a doctors office that had 10 steps up to its door or my favorite — when store owners used their existing disabled ramps as prime retail space.

My name is Mia G. Vayner and I’ve never been known for taking these types of injustices quietly. My friends will tell you I have always had a disability: a quick wit, a sharp mind and a total inability to handle stupidity. If you’re asking about the wheels under my ass, its a hereditary neurological disorder that is degenerative and makes walking and standing with any regularity impossible. This has been my life for about 5 years. When you mix my friends opinion of me with the ever growing lack of care and concern by those in power for the rights of the wheelchair bound my choices became scream or do something about it. The first meant I need to put a lawyer on retainer and the second involved starting a blog. That is how www.disabledaccessdenied.com was born.

My blog serving notice to those who say through their laws, their lack of adherance to laws, their complete disregard or simple lack of thought for the disabled, we’ll photograph, we’ll blog and we’ll tell the powers that be that until they make it right, until they Respect our Existance, they can Expect our Resistance.

Now our business blog here at YTA’s main focus is to you business owners and contractors — so between Vayner and ourselves, we address different audiences. Plus, we are located in Los Angeles — Disabled Access Denied has strong roots in New York City. So there are some differences in where we are coming from.

Nonetheless, I think it a good opportunity for many of you to take a look at Disabled Access Denied and understand where your direct customers and end-users of construction come from — what their interests are and how strongly inaccessible construction impacts their ability to just get from point A to point B.

Often times too, our focus is on the letter of the code, and as a result there is opportunity to forget what the end result should be. Here at YTA we don’t just want to help you provide legally compliant paths of travel and access to goods of services but also to provide good and safe customer experience so that people with disabilities can enjoy the same benefits and integration as their non-disabled peers.

So please take a look at the wealth of articles and information, and think about how your customer experience — especially those who are of different ability — are impacted by your customer experience. A good starting place is to sit in a wheelchair and try to get in the door, and use your restroom.

Contact information for Vayner can be gotten at Contact info or you can email her at disabledacessdenied@Gmail.com or follow her on her twitter at Disableddenied.

As always if you have specific questions about accessibility at your site you can contact us at 866 982 3212 or help@accesssolutionllc.com

May 17, 2011October 29, 2018

Home Owner Associations and ADA Accommodations

There’s some large confusion as to whether or not HOAs are required by the ADA to provide accommodations.

The logic that follows is simply this:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is Civil Law that requires that places of public accommodation provide reasonable accommodations so as to allow members of the public to have access to all goods and services. The ADA is not building code and cannot be grandfathered in that way.

Home Owner Associations are in general, private entities, but may have areas that are open to the public. For example, a pool that is open to the public (but charges), guest parking, a leasing office or rooms that can be rented for are all areas that are public accommodations. Those areas definitely fall under the auspices of the ADA.

This does not mean that HOAs are exempt from the ADA however. For areas that are the exclusive use of a tenant, those areas must be allowed to be made accessible by the tenant for their own disability which includes entering and exiting a building.

Additionally, should the HOA remodel, or upgrade any of their areas, local building code would apply. For California, this definitely means Chapter 11A (which has disability requirements — causing the ADA to kick in).

This area of law does get trickier as local ordinances and other state specific laws come into play. Overall, our recommendation is that an HOA should become accessible whenever possible, to help their aging residents and avoid future litigation issues.

Unfortunately, many HOAs seem to think that resident accessibility is cosmetic or somehow not applicable to them. Some interesting links here include a story about an HOA that seems to think it doesn’t need to allow for easy ingress and egress for their residents:

AURORA, Colo. — A fight over a wheelchair ramp is pitting neighbor against neighbor at an Aurora condo complex.

69-year-old Charlotte Vaile rented the ramps with her own money after the elevator at the Bayberry Condo complex broke down, “because I can’t get in and out of the building,” she said.

Charlotte says she asked the HOA for permission to install the ramp, but the board didn’t get back to her right away.

Once the ramp was installed, the HOA promptly took it down. A board member told Charlotte the building does not have to comply with the American’s with disabilities Act because it was built before the law took effect.

Charlotte called the Aurora Fire department, and they put the ramp back up.

But the HOA is now refusing to make the 2nd and 3rd floors accessible to several other disabled people who live there.

Cathi Fort is also a disabled vet, and she lives on the 2nd floor. She told FOX31 Denver, “I feel like I’m a prisoner in my own home.”

FOX31 contacted the Bayberry Condo Association President and we were referred to the president of the property management company.

Lynda Reifman said the board “took the ramp down because they wanted the opportunity to review Charlotte’s request before she put it up.”

And when we asked Reifman what would happen to the other disabled if there was a fire in the building, she said, “the fire department will get them out, that’s their job.

If you want further resources regarding one law firm’s grasp of the ADA as it applies to HOAs, you can turn here.

The Americans with Disabilities Act and Accommodating the Disabled.

So the Takeaway from all this is that if you are an HOA be very careful. You must not deny your tenants safe access in and out of their residences.

You could be a place of public accommodation have then you have to comply ASAP!

If you are fairly certain you’re not, also be careful, because your residents could at any point have a medical need for a ramp, or some other accommodation. It’s of course better to become accessible, even if you don’t think you are — for future (and present) liability but if you choose to do work, that also could trigger the ADA.

You may be required to set aside an additional 20% of your budget just for ADA upgrades.

If you are an HOA or part of an HOA and have questions as to the applicability of the ADA, please contact an attorney. In general, if you take money from your residents you must consider their current and future needs (hint: egress and ingress are far more important than comestics). Also, always also get a licensed and bonded contractor to do accessibility work — as many contractors aren’t always familiar with this area of law. If you have any questions for us, you can contact me at help@accesssolutionllc.com or 866 982 3212.

May 11, 2011October 29, 2018

ADA Lawsuits… no end in sight

That is, there is no end in sight as long as businesses are easy targets.

Here’s a series of links about some recent ADA Lawsuits around central and northern California.

Most ADA Lawsuits don’t come with a warning, drive-by litigants simply drive by and leave a string of lawsuits. You can read more about ADA Lawsuits in Yuba and Sutter County. Most of these come from George Louie.

More lawsuits as well from the Donner Lake Kitchen Lawsuit from Scott Johnson. You can read about his latest exploits at the Davis, CA Burger Joint, Redrum Burger.

Information thanks to Overlawyered.com and the Civil Justice Association of California.

Don’t be a victim! Look into our ADA Accommodation Tips, in particular our ADA Accommodation Tag.

Further questions, comments? 866 982 3212 or help@accesssolutionllc.com.

May 10, 2011October 29, 2018

ADA Lawsuits can be dropped if…

Those of you who have been sued become very quickly familiar with the complex intertwine of laws that give rise to ADA Lawsuits, in particular ADA cases.

One quick way to try and buck an ADA lawsuit though, is argue that the plaintiff never visited your store.

This tactic has worked before (especially if the defendant can demonstrate that no barrier was encountered because the plaintiff never showed up!) An older case comes to my mind, centered around Home Depot, when the plaintiff provided a receipt that he visited Home Depot (but it turned out that wasn’t the right home depot).

Nonetheless, here’s an interesting article:

SELINSGROVE — The son of a Texas woman who sued several Valley businesses for noncompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act had dropped out of Bucknell University about a month before the lawsuit was filed.

Richard K. Greer was a student during the fall semester 2010, which ended Dec. 16, but was not a student in the spring semester that started in January, university spokesman Tom Evelyn confirmed Thursday.

Meanwhile, Greer’s mother, Leslie Greer, filed ADA lawsuits on Jan. 11 against BJ’s Steak & Rib House, Emma’s Food for Life and Bot’s Cafe Inc., all of Selinsgrove; Mom’s Dutch Kitchen, Danville; Fox’s Family restaurant, Pennsdale; Colonial Village Plaza, Shamokin Dam; and Basin Street Shopping Center, Williamsport.

Leslie Greer, who uses a wheelchair, alleged in her lawsuit that she patronized the businesses during a recent visit with her son, a Bucknell student, and believes they are in violation of the ADA.

But when several of those being sued informed Greer they learned her son was no longer a student, the lawsuits were dropped.

“The premise of suit was that she’d be in our establishment, that there was the possibility she could continue to patronize us during her son’s tenure at Bucknell,” said Rick Schuck, owner of Bot’s. “He transferred in December, and we were served in the middle of January.”

You can read more here: Lawsuits against small businesses dropped from The Daily Item and through Overlawyered.com

Another way is to have a surveillance video of your store of everyone who enters your store — assuming of course that you didn’t erase your tapes, or that they did in fact did enter your store. A loophole with this approach is that if you don’t have accessible parking, it’s possible that the plaintiff would claim that they couldn’t enter your store because there wasn’t proper parking, or there was something wrong with the outside. Sometimes that’s not the case. We can help provide evidence to verify the plaintiff claims, something we do regularly.

But that’s a different issue. Of course, the best way to avoid attracting a serial litigant who sees your facility as being an “easy target” is to become 100% compliant, to have all the appearance of compliance.

Comment below and share your thoughts on this!

If you want more tips on accessibility you can go here: Accommodation Compliance Rules and Regulations. Or you can reach us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@accesssolutionllc.com.

May 9, 2011October 29, 2018

Denial of Service leads to Lawsuit: Service Dog

Here is a very interesting story about service animals and places of public accommodation:

Christy Gardner, who was a driven athlete at Edward Little High School in Auburn and at Long Island College in New York, found basic training at Fort Leonard Wood a breeze.

She cruised through military police training before being deployed to the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea.

But she suffered a traumatic brain injury during police operations there, and even the most basic tasks became challenging, even dangerous. “My medical records said I was not allowed to bathe alone, in case I had a seizure,” said Gardner, 28.

With brain damage that makes her prone to terrible seizures, Gardner lays credits for her ability to live alone squarely at the four furry feet of her golden retriever, Moxie.

Moxie, a service dog, can sense her owner’s grand mal seizures 10 minutes before they hit, and warn her to sit on the ground so she doesn’t injure herself falling.

Moxie can pull blankets off Gardner so she doesn’t choke during a seizure in bed, and is trained to roll her on her side and dial 911 on a special, large-button cell phone. She even can open the door, run to a neighbor’s home and ring the doorbell for help in an emergency.

So Gardner was startled when she entered a Portland convenience store last summer to get Moxie some water and the owner ordered them to leave, then walked toward them, his hands outstretched, to herd them from the store.

Gardner was frightened, mostly for Moxie. “If something happened to her physically, I have to find a live-in nurse or I have to live in a (nursing) home,” Gardner said.

You can read more from The Portland Press Herald. I sourced it from this Twitter: Service Dog Registry of the United States.

EDIT:

An additional story:

An Aurora man has sued the International House of Pancakes, saying employees at the popular breakfast restaurant discriminated against him because he uses a service dog.

The suit, filed in Kane County Court, alleges that Ricky Lee Schopp went to the IHOP restaurant on Augusta Way in Aurora on June 30, 2009, with his mother and his service dog, Phato. Schopp is paralyzed from the waist down and uses a wheelchair. Phato, a Labrador retriever, helps with certain skills, like opening doors.

At first, Schopp, his mother and the dog were seated at a table by the IHOP hostess, the suit says. However, not long after they sat down, an IHOP employee demanded they move to a different section of the restaurant that had no other customers, forcing them to eat alone, the suit says. The employee said the reason for the changing tables was that Schopp had a dog with him.

After being informed that it was a service dog, the employee still insisted they move or leave the restaurant, the suit alleges. Schopp chose to leave the restaurant.

You can also read this additional story of a Man from Aurora suing an IHOP for the same denial of service From: the Beacon News.

Service Dog Registry is a volunteer registry for Service Animals. It is NOT required. For more information about Service Dogs you can turn to United States Service Dog Registry.

Any questions about accessibility in general, feel free to call 866 982 3212 and help@accesssolutionllc.com.

May 3, 2011October 29, 2018

Judgement Avoids Landslide of ADA Lawsuits

Through Overlawyered.com comes this article from the California Civil Justice Blog.

Cities can worry a little bit less about unexpected litigation costs in their already-strained budgets after a federal court ruling at the end of March ended a 14-year dispute over street curbs and sidewalks in Riverside, CA. A Riverside man named John Lonberg, who uses a wheelchair, first sued the city in 1997 claiming its curbs were sloped too high and lacked dividers to allow disabled access. In the latest ruling, U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner ruled Lonberg had failed to demonstrate that Riverside as a whole is inaccessible to the disabled. A ruling in favor of Lonberg could have meant millions of dollars in liability for mandatory modifications.

Riverside’s City Attorney, Greg Priamos, was quoted in the Daily Journal saying the suit was “about money, not accessibility…The only hangup to a settlement earlier in the case was the amount of attorney’s fees. I’m offended by that.”

The lead counsel for Riverside, Greg Hurley, added, “Had Lonberg prevailed, there would have been an avalanche of lawsuits, because no city in the U.S. is totally accessible.”

Read more on the details of the case in the Riverside Press-Enterprise and Daily Journal (subscription required). Note the millions Riverside has spent over the past ten years to resolve the vast majority of its handicapped access issues, and the $221,000 Lonberg received in 2007.

The basic takeaway here, is that Riverside saved by this last judgement. By needing to prove that an entire city is not accessible, cities may be saved from an “avalanche of lawsuits”.

Nonetheless, entities in charge of public right of way should be aware that the ADA applies to them as Federal Civil Rights Law — requiring them to update their sidewalks even if their sidewalks preexist the ADA [New Jersey Protection and Advocacy, Inc. v. Township of Riverside, 2006 WL 2226332 (D.N.J.))].

This issue will be compounded in the near future when the access board, which is quasi-Federal agency to determine accessibility standards, is working on a Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines. Once this becomes law, you can be sure there will be a ton of lawsuits to follow as these guidelines explicitly apply to municipalities.

And of course, it’s been proven over and over that businesses are liable since the ADA has requirements that businesses must follow. As the economy gets worse, more and more people will be tempted by this on-going series of ADA lawsuits… so the avalanche for more businesses to get sued is bound to rise even more.

So GET COMPLIANT, either from us or from someone else.

April 18, 2011October 29, 2018

Edge Series, Seal Beach Chamber and OC Service Center: ADA Compliace, Managing your Liabilities & your Risk

We are presenting a joint presentation at the Seal Beach Chamber of Commerce and the Orange County Business Service Center on

Wednesday, May 18, 2011 from 11:30AM to 2PM

The event is free.

The speakers will be our own David Marshall, Frank W. Chen, Esquire and Yung Kao, AIA, CBO, CASp

The point of the presentation is to answer questions about the ADA, ADA liability as it pertains to businesses, contractors and architects.

Who is liable? Who is responsible for providing accommodations and what can you do to mitigate your risk of a lawsuit by providing the PROPER compliance?

We will answer all your questions.

We will be at the Conference Room, Orange County Fire Authority Station #48

3131 N Gate Road, Seal Beach, CA 90740

RSVP to

Orange County Business Service Center

(714) 241 4963

Audrey@ocwibpropathinc.com

Links to PDF flyers are here:

EDGE Flyer-General 2011

EDGE Flyer-ADA 2011

EDGE Flyer 2011

See you there!

April 18, 2011October 29, 2018

Chipotle’s Attempt to Appeal ADA Lawsuit Fails

Following an on-going Chipotle case as covered previously:

Chipotle Deprived Disabled of Food View [From San Francisco Chronicle: Chipotle and Disabled Rights Lawsuit]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won’t stop a disabled man’s lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill for having counters too high for a person in a wheelchair.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Denver-based chain.

Maurizio Antoninetti sued when he found that he could not see the Chipotle food preparers because of the height of the counters. A federal judge ruled against him, saying Antoninetti had sued dozens of other places for access violations and dropped the suit after received cash settlements.

The judge said Antoninetti was insincere about wanting to return and eat at Chipotle.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judge’s ruling, saying Antoninetti’s litigation history cannot be used against him.

The case is Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Maurizio Antoninetti, 10-1051.

[From Huffington Post: Supreme Court Permits Maurizio Antoninetti’s Lawsuit Against Chipotle]

If you are aware of this past lawsuit back in 2006, and you’ve been to a new Chipotle you will notice that even some of the new ones are not built to the standards required by that lawsuit (of having a continuous lowered counter).

The lesson here is simply that a business’s responsibility to follow the law cannot be waived for external reasons.

I’m sure more information will come forth soon.

Comment below and share your thoughts on this!

If you want more tips on accessibility you can go here: Accommodation Compliance Rules and Regulations

April 12, 2011October 29, 2018

The Equal Rights Center: Disability Game

Recently the Equals Rights Center launched a campaign to try and educate the public about what ADA Accommodations means. They have a series of photographs depicting violations, the idea being that you can look at these photos and guess at what constitutes a violation. They explain what is a violation in each of these images.

This campaign is in line with our mission statement as a company.

We are of course, contributors to their content.

I have quoted the campaign below.

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 12, 2011 – The Equal Rights Center (ERC), a national non-profit civil rights organization, and the D.C. Office of Human Rights, an agency of the District of Columbia government that seeks to eradicate discrimination, have launched a new multi-faceted campaign, “what is WRONG with these pictures?”

“One in five people in the United States have a disability, yet there is still a great lack of awareness when it comes to what exactly is accessible and what is not,” explained Leah Maddox, ERC Communications and Outreach Associate. “This campaign is a fun and stimulating forum through which people with and without disabilities can learn more about accessibility.”

The PSA campaign uses the website, www.disabilitygame.org, to create an interactive forum for education. The focus of the site is a game in which users are asked to identify physical barriers in real life situations. The photographs present a range of barriers; both easily recognized ones – such as a step in front of a doorway – and those many may not be so familiar – such as a round doorknob.

The tools presented on the site are part of a larger self-advocacy ERC initiative. Robyn Powell, ERC Disability Rights Manager, noted: “It’s important that people with disabilities know how to be their own best advocate. These pictures, and the accessibility information that goes with them, are just the start of that conversation.”

ERC member and campaign contributor Gregory L. Hubert, explained, “Advocacy… is part of the fabric of our family life. Often progress is frustratingly slow, but we know we are making a difference. We have been blessed by the advocacy efforts of those who have gone before us. We honor their efforts by continuing our efforts.”

The website also features the stories of people with disabilities as they encounter accessibility barriers in their daily lives. Jill A. Nerby, ERC member and campaign contributor, said, “By sharing my experiences and successes in my life, I hope to inspire every person with low vision and legal blindness to know that there is hope for the future, ways to overcome challenges, and that by working together, we can make a difference in the lives of many.”

Also featured on the site are quick links to the ERC’s five disability advocacy and self-advocacy toolkits, ways in which anyone can become involved in disability rights, and access to help for those who feel they have experienced discrimination. The campaign includes a two-month roll out on social media sites, and a three month print advertisement campaign.

To view the campaign, visit www.disabilitygame.org.

Original Link here: http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pr_11_04_12

You can go their image library here: http://www.equalrightscenter.org/site/PageServer?pagename=disabilitygame_image

I invite you to take a look, it’s quite interesting.

April 4, 2011October 29, 2018

The best way to avoid ADA Lawsuits is Compliance, not just a matter of Inches and Slopes

Much of the access tips available here: Accessible Accommodation Tips underscore the current fear that business owners have about their buildings not being ADA compliant.

ADA compliance goes far beyond walking through a building with a yardstick or a slope meter.

But even our lawmakers do not understand what’s at stake here. If you’ve read this blog you should understand by now that the best way to avoid an ADA lawsuit is to become compliant.

What does this mean though, for a good or service to be compliant? First the lawmakers:

The Bill in Maryland State Senate

Covered by the Maryland Reporter is an ongoing debate in the Maryland State Senate to provide an option for people who feel they have been discriminated against to be able to go to the Maryland Commission to seek injunctive relief rather than suing the place of business.

The state bill would be the first of its kind, if passed, but it would not remove the option for people to sue businesses under the ADA. What’s the point?

Well, what’s interesting about this bill is that it assumes that the problems of the many ADA lawsuits stem from the lack of alternative channels for the disabled to complain about the business (if the business itself is unwilling to listen) without suing. Of course, if the individuals suing are asking for money instead of injunctive relief, this bill won’t deter them.

But as an option it sounds good, except as the bulk of the article suggests by past individuals who fought against civil rights, more legislation isn’t really the key. The root of the many ADA lawsuits don’t stem from a lack of alternate complaint — it’s the lack of compliance with the laws.

I have quoted a relevant portion below:

Several senators talked about lawsuits they knew about where disabled people and crafty attorneys tried to shut down or squeeze money out of establishments. Sen. David Brinkley, R – Frederick County, talked about county restaurants that had shut down because of onerous costs inflicted through lawsuits.

Sen. Allan Kittleman, R-Howard County, said that the lawsuits brought by people with disabilities are a serious issue, referencing a news article a few years old that detailed some of them filed in Maryland. He added that the concerns about discrimination – like the kind Kelley described – are real, even in this day and age. However, he said, anything that’s more onerous for businesses to deal with could be problematic.

“We all want access, but the concern some of us have is the greed for riches,” Kittleman said.

Several senators said that a study couldn’t do much to stop the kinds of lawsuits that were described by their colleagues. Laws are already on the books to try to stop frivolous lawsuits, they argued. Bill sponsor Sen. Lisa Gladden, D-Baltimore City, said the legislation just allows people who feel they were discriminated against to file complaints about it in the local courts closer to home.

“This bill is not new. It’s like moving the car from the driveway to the garage. You don’t change the car, and you don’t move houses,” Gladden said.

Peters’ amendment was rejected with a vote of 18-26.

Sen. Thomas “Mac” Middleton, D-Charles County, recalled that provisions to specifically give protections from false claims were included in a Medicaid bill a couple years ago. He proposed inserting an amendment to do the same thing to protect small businesses from lawsuits filed by disabled people and their lawyers. The bill will be considered further on Friday.

This debate brings up a larger issue. There are politicians who side with businesses on this issue, seeking to narrow the scope of the ADA. (To read more about what the current expanded scope of the ADA is, turn here: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines what a Disability is.)

The issue is that there just isn’t much ADA compliance in the public, period.

So what is the Point about ADA Compliance?

If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, even a little bit you’ve gleaned some understanding about what ADA compliance is about. Of course, if you are interested in ADA Tips and information on how to be compliant, I would invite you to go one of these links:

Accessible Accommodation Tips
Future ADA Seminars
Guest Articles

Otherwise you’re reading this column about awareness. And there’s much to be aware of and comply with.

The POINT of ADA COMPLIANCE is to provide equal access. What’s on this blog is just the tip of the proverbial ice berg.

I do intend to keep posting more detailed information. But to get started, we need some background.

For instance, suing places for their lack of physical ADA compliance is just a tip of the issue.

I’m not going to list all of the possible issues right now, but as a business becomes physically compliant, they still need to audit their own services in other to understand how they are not compliant in other ways.

For example, Senate Bill 3304 was passed last year in 2010. You can take a look at the details here: Senate Bill 3304. This bill highlights the need for communication to be provided for people with disabilities. In other words, if you communicate anything to the public you’re probably assuming that they fit a certain mold, of being a certain age, speaking or reading a certain level of English comprehension… and are not either hearing or sight impaired.

Well, that’s changed. Senate Bill 3304 is otherwise called 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act, “COAT” has a long list of areas that need to be both closed captioned or available on hearing-impaired or seeing-impaired devices. I have quoted the entire list of the different sections for you below.

Title I – Communications Access

Section 101: Definitions.

Provides definitions for “advanced communications” (including interconnected and non-interconnected voice over Internet protocol (VoIP), electronic messaging, and interoperable video conferencing services); “consumer-generated media”; and “disability.”

Section 102: Hearing aid compatibility.

Requires telephones used with the Internet to be hearing aid compatible.

Section 103: Relay services.

Permits use of relay services to enable communication with anyone, not just between people with and without disabilities. So, for example, a TTY user can use relay services to call a person who communicates in American Sign Language using a videophone.

Requires Internet-based voice communication service providers to contribute to the Interstate Relay Service Fund.

Section 104: Access to advanced communications services and equipment.

Requires accessible advanced communications equipment and services, if achievable; and, if not achievable, then to make equipment and services compatible with devices commonly used by individuals with disabilities to achieve access, if achievable.

Requires access to Internet services built-in to mobile telephone devices, like smart phones, if achievable.

Defines “achievable” as reasonable effort or expense, as determined by the FCC.

Improves enforcement; requires regular reports by the FCC to Congress; and requires an enforcement study by the Comptroller General.

Adds recordkeeping obligations for equipment manufacturers and service providers.

Requires a clearinghouse of information on accessible products and services, and public education and outreach.

Section 105: Relay Services for Deaf-Blind Individuals.

Allocates up to $10 million per year from the Interstate Relay Service Fund for equipment used by individuals who are deaf-blind.

Section 106: Emergency Access Advisory Committee

Establishes an Emergency Access Advisory Committee to recommend and for the FCC to adopt rules to achieve reliable and interoperable communications with future Internet-enabled emergency call centers.

Title II – Video Programming

Section 201: Video Programming and Emergency Access Advisory Committee.

Establishes a Video Programming and Emergency Access Advisory Committee to make recommendations about closed captioning, video description, accessible emergency information, user interfaces, and video programming guides and menus.

Section 202: Video description and closed captioning.

Video Description

After 1 year, restores FCC rules requiring 4 hours per week of video description on 9 television channels (top 4 broadcast networks and top 5 cable channels) in the top 25 most populated markets.

After 2 years, requires FCC to report to Congress on video description.

After 4 years, permits the FCC to increase video description to 7 hours per week on 9 television channels.

After 6 years, requires the FCC to apply the video description requirements to the top 60 most populated markets (not just the top 25 most populated markets).

After 9 years, requires the FCC to report to Congress on the need for additional markets to carry video description.

After 10 years, permits the FCC to expand video description to 10 new markets annually to achieve 100 percent nationwide coverage.

Emergency Information

Requires video programming owners, providers, and distributors to make emergency information accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision.

Closed Captioning

Requires captioned television programs to be captioned when delivered over the Internet.

Requires the FCC to grant or deny requests for exemption from the closed captioning rules within 12 months.

Section 203: Closed captioning decoder and video description capability.

Requires devices designed to receive or play back video programming, using a picture screen of any size, to be capable of displaying closed captioning, delivering available video description, and making emergency information accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision, except, devices with picture screens less than 13” must meet these requirements if achievable with reasonable effort or expense.

Requires devices designed to record video programming (such as DVRs) to enable the rendering or pass through of closed captions, video description, and emergency information, so viewers can turn the closed captions and video description on/off when played back on a screen of any size.

Section 204: User interfaces on digital apparatus.

Requires devices designed to receive or play back video programming:

to make controls of built-in functions accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or have low vision, if achievable;

to make controls of built-in functions accessible to and usable by individuals who are blind or have low vision through audio output;

to provide access to built-in closed captioning and video description features through a mechanism that is reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon designated for activating the closed captioning or accessibility features.

Section 205: Access to video programming guides and menus provided on navigation devices.

Requires cable/satellite set-top box on-screen text menus and guides to be audibly accessible to individuals who are blind or have low vision, if achievable.

To provide access to built-in closed captioning and video description features through a mechanism that is reasonably comparable to a button, key, or icon designated for activating the closed captioning or accessibility features.

Section 206: Definitions.

Provides definitions for Advisory Committee, Chairman, Commission, emergency information, Internet protocol, navigation device, video description, and video programming.

In looking ahead, you can see that the future requirements are going to catch many many many businesses off guard. It might be a few years before those businesses themselves get sued. And then the need and demand for these communication devices, (be it mobile hearing aids, readers, screens, and so on) will go up. Although right now many businesses probably don’t care, thinking such a cost extraneous.

You can see this original page here: COAT page on S. 3304. Their page is a great resource on what some of these devices will be.

Some of the issues about disabled communication have already caught on. I link two of them below.

More ADA Compliance issues (non-physical access)

Issue #1: Vegas Airport SUED for their Kiosks

So you’d think large companies with their “Chief Compliance Officers” and their vast resources would be able to catch on and anticipate their customers’ needs and avoid lawsuits by now.

This isn’t the case.

In this article, you can read about how a Baltimore based Blind Group Sued the Las Vegas Airport over their Ticket Kiosks. (from The Daily Record)

The point is that this airport offered ticket kiosks to their customers as a service so that their customers could get their tickets self-check in and be on their way quicker. By not upgrading the software on the kiosks so as to include some kind of voice-communication, they were denying this service to the blind.

In the article, upgrading the kiosks could be somewhere between 2k- 30k each.

As an airport, their income is well into the millions, so this represents only a fraction of their budget. You can be sure you’ll need to do that now, otherwise it could (and will) happen again.

Issue #2 FedEx Field SUED for not providing Closed Captioning for Music

Most business owners hearing this would probably think this is a ridiculous issue. But if you read the article, you’ll see that this football field had been previously sued for not including closed captioning on their screens back in 2003. Their protest was that closed captioning “would take up too much room on the screen” — which of course betrays their insensitivity and bias against those who do need it, lest they know not what’s going on.

So, seven years later and having installed the necessary equipment, you’d think the field would have learned their lesson.

What’s interesting about this case is that both sides are claiming that they are willing to cooperate but the other side was being difficult. I quote the end of the article below so you can decide for yourself.

The court also agreed that song lyrics were an important part of the football experience, even though the plaintiffs had waited to raise that argument until filing summary judgment papers.

“By having access to the lyrics, plaintiffs have the opportunity to participate in the communal entertainment experience,” the court said in a 2-1 decision. “Without access to lyrics played, for example, during cheerleader dance routines and the halftime show, plaintiffs would not fully and equally experience the planned and synchronized promotional entertainment that large stadiums like FedEx Field provide.”

Washington Redskins General Counsel Dave Donovan said that his clients and the stadium owners already were complying with the decision. He said that they were providing, through e-mails, typed lyrics to songs performed by the cheerleaders. “Truth be told, this has only been about attorney’s fees. For years the plaintiffs’ firms managed to keep it alive,” Donovan said.

Joseph Espo, who represented the plaintiffs, said that his clients had tried to settle the case many times and that the attorney fees, which were in the “low six figures,” were a result of the defendants’ unwillingess to settle.

“It completely distorts reality to say that we are the ones who drove the fees,” Espo said. “The decision is a great day for deaf sports fans and reaffirms the obligation of the owners and operators of sports venues to make sure their product is accessible to all of their customers.”

Contact Leigh Jones at ljones@alm.com.

You can read more about how FedEx Field dealt with this lawsuit. (From National Law Journal.)

Both articles underscores the need for places of public accommodation to understand their role in providing a consistency of availability to each and every of their customers to the best of their ability.

If you expect to take people’s money and provide them with an experience, a good or a service, you must best do your best to provide everyone equal access.

The ADA Compliance Takeaway

At this point, you should begin to understand what ‘accessiblity’ means.

This is a far cry from the standard ‘I can fit a wheelchair through my door therefore I am ADA compliant’.

ADA Compliance means that you’ve taken the time and effort to consider and provide equal access to each customer who comes through your door. ADA Compliance means taking the time and money to hire ADA Experts and implemented the changes they’ve recommended, not just in terms of your physical site, but also how you do business and communicate with your customers.

You can start by checking out the California Relay Service so you can at least talk to customers on the phone whom you may have trouble understanding. It’s a free service by the state of California available to have a communication assistant coordinate from text to speech, speech to speech, speech to text, and so on. Please take a look, and train your receptionist on it too!

For additional questions and comments, you can email me at help@accesssolutionllc.com or call 866 982 3212.