Congress Wants to Change the Americans With Disabilities Act

[I Push Buttons]

Congress Wants to Change the Americans With Disabilities Act and Undermine the Civil Rights of People With Disabilities

The Americans with Disabilities Act is the most comprehensive and foundational civil rights law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability. Yet, 27 years after it was passed, people with disabilities still face enormous barriers. People with mobility disabilities routinely find themselves blocked from the simplest of social interactions. They are unable to go to the corner grocery store to pick up a quart of milk because there is a step at the door. They are unable to go to the local movie theatre with their friends because there is no accessible seating. They might be able to get into the door of the local restaurant, but are stymied if they have to go to the bathroom while they are there, because it is the size of a postage stamp.

Title III of the ADA creates a proactive duty on businesses to remove architectural barriers and other obstacles that impede access to the establishment. But businesses have resisted making such changes for decades. And, now, they are asking Congress to help them. A harmful new bill in the House of Representatives, the so-called ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620), is gaining steam. It will be debated in the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday morning and may go to House floor for a vote soon thereafter.

We must stop this bill from ever becoming law.

H.R. 620 would completely change the way in which a business is required to comply with the ADA. Instead of requiring that a business comply proactively, the bill would place the burden on the individual who is being denied access. This bill proposes that after an individual with a disability is denied access she must first notify the business owner, with exacting specificity, that her civil rights were violated, and then wait for six months to see if the business will make “substantial progress” toward access, before going to a court to order compliance.

Business owners can spend years out of compliance and face no penalty even after they receive notice, so long as the owners claim “substantial progress.” By allowing a business an endless amount of time to become compliant with the ADA’s reasonable requirements, H.R. 620 removes any incentive for a business to proactively ensure that people with disabilities have access. Instead, the bill encourages businesses to just wait until an individual’s civil rights are violated before making any changes.

Those who support H.R. 620, particularly business groups, have argued that the bill makes only a minor and noncontroversial change to the ADA. They claim that the bill merely gives business owners additional time to make their facility accessible after they are notified of a problem. This argument is specious at best and should be rejected.

Supporters of this legislation ignore that shifting the burden in the bill goes completely against how our nation has enforced its civil rights laws since the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. When Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, it included a provision that allowed an individual who is denied access to a public accommodation because of race, color, religion, or national origin to immediately seek relief to gain access. This enforcement mechanism served as a powerful and incentivizing tool to ensure that businesses proactively complied with the law.

The success of the public accommodation provision in the Civil Rights Act influenced Congress when it drafted the Americans with Disabilities Act. Indeed, the public accommodation enforcement provision in the ADA is modeled on the enforcement provision in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress recognized that the civil rights of people with disabilities and their access to places of public accommodations should be treated no differently than the civil rights protections based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

This principle has stood in law for more than a quarter century. But now some in Congress are trying to change the way our country treats the civil rights of people with disabilities. That’s why the ACLU is fighting to ensure that the guarantees of the ADA continue; that the civil rights of people with disabilities are protected; and, in keeping with the intent of Congress, that they be treated no differently than others.

It is imperative that members of Congress stand up for the rights of people with disabilities. The Judiciary Committee in the House of Representatives is planning to vote and debate H.R. 620 on Thursday. The ACLU is urging all members of the Committee to vote against the bill and to stop it from going to the full House for a vote.

The bottom line is that people who use wheelchairs or who have other needs deserve the same right to visit local businesses as any other individual. Forcing people with disabilities to wait months to visit a supermarket or bookstore is precisely the kind of discrimination the ADA was designed to prevent. Businesses have had more than enough “notification” to comply with disability rights law. People with disabilities deserve equal access today — civil rights should not be delayed or tied up in bureaucratic red tape.

Being in a wheelchair myself, I find myself on the side of the businesses with this one. I think places should be accessible, but I do think the ADA is too broad and punishing (in the form of opening businesses up for litigation) and there are a lot of garbage people who abuse it... The ACLU's heart is in the right place, but they are alleging some potential future discrimination compared to actual tangible ongoing abuses currently. Personally I feel the abuses are the more pressing matter, especially since all of this applies to older buildings (all newly constructed buildings would still need to meet ADA standards with or without this bill).

The business lobby supporting this bill mentions "drive-by" lawsuits as one of their primary motivating factors and I agree with them in that regard... There are shitty people and shitty lawyers who go out of their way to find businesses that aren't in compliance with the ADA, allege discrimination, and then sue them to make money (not to receive accommodations/access).

60 Minutes did a special on this very thing a while back... They found law firms that literally pay disabled people to go to these kinds of businesses so they can file lawsuits against them. That is disgusting, but it happens and there are thousands of such lawsuits.

Such abuses need to end and that can't happen in the ADA's current form.

Who do you agree with, the ACLU or the business lobby?

[Thagrynor]

One of the biggest reforms in all legal matters is in the punitive damages department. In a situation like this, I think if they were to simply change the law to make it so that any law suit could only be awarded a forced order to make the accommodations, the legal fees for the plaintiff (to a certain amount, so lawyers don't abuse this) as well as any substantiated loss of property/income, it would stop a lot of these "drive by" law suits. In addition, there should be the need for a plaintiff that has issued a legitimate complaint.

This gives the business a time frame by which to fix the issue (say, 30 days) as well as prevents proactive law suits with no actual aggrieved party. Obviously this would not fix ALL the issues, but it would be a better start, I think.

[cubby]

Congress Wants to Change the Americans With Disabilities Act and Undermine the Civil Rights of People With Disabilities



Being in a wheelchair myself, I find myself on the side of the businesses with this one. I think places should be accessible, but I do think the ADA is too broad and punishing (in the form of opening businesses up for litigation) and there are a lot of garbage people who abuse it... The ACLU's heart is in the right place, but they are alleging some potential future discrimination compared to actual tangible ongoing abuses currently. Personally I feel the abuses are the more pressing matter, especially since all of this applies to older buildings (all newly constructed buildings would still need to meet ADA standards with or without this bill).

The business lobby supporting this bill mentions "drive-by" lawsuits as one of their primary motivating factors and I agree with them in that regard... There are shitty people and shitty lawyers who go out of their way to find businesses that aren't in compliance with the ADA, allege discrimination, and then sue them to make money (not to receive accommodations/access).

60 Minutes did a special on this very thing a while back... They found law firms that literally pay disabled people to go to these kinds of businesses so they can file lawsuits against them. That is disgusting, but it happens and there are thousands of such lawsuits.

Such abuses need to end and that can't happen in the ADA's current form.

Who do you agree with, the ACLU or the business lobby?

"I don't like it because people abuse the law" is one of the worst reasons to change a law. The law itself is good, and sensible. Changing the ADA won't change people abusing the law.

So fix the abuses rather than the law.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I disagree with the idea of being disabled and that having anything to do with the issue over all, plenty of people with disabilities are effected by this, and the idea that any one individual without the wisdom to see the reasons for the ADA and restrictions.

That being said I am not a fan of these Emotional Animal pets, or as I refer to them Toys with fur, especially when people who have this dangerous Fur Toy fetish, seem to think these little ugly dogs and disease carriers should be placed above people or in places they really shouldn't go even at the expense of private business. Oh the Irony!

That being said despite my bigotry and prejudice, I still see and appreciate the overall need for the act, especially when it comes to those who really do need these animals or more often than not find discrimination probably from individuals kind of like myself who wouldn't without the ADA be willing to extend policy.

At least not without forcing whoever to have some kind of special ID card proving the dog has been actually trained and approved.

[Independent voter]

There was that case where the University of Berkeley posted 40K videos of Professor's lectures to YouTube and some disgruntled deaf people used the ADA to force them to take it down thereby depriving everyone of these 40K educational videos. Some of the professors either worked in Silicon Valley or were working in Silicon Valley.

So yes, the ADA goes too far at times.

[Seranthor]

Who do you agree with, the ACLU or the business lobby?

Actually I agree with neither. Tort reform would go much farther to stopping the abuses of the legal system.

- - - Updated - - -

"I don't like it because people abuse the law" is one of the worst reasons to change a law. The law itself is good, and sensible. Changing the ADA won't change people abusing the law.

So fix the abuses rather than the law.

Cubby gets it.

[DarkTZeratul]

That being said I am not a fan of these Emotional Animal pets, or as I refer to them Toys with fur, especially when people who have this dangerous Fur Toy fetish, seem to think these little ugly dogs and disease carriers should be placed above people or in places they really shouldn't go even at the expense of private business. Oh the Irony!

Emotional support animals are not covered by the ADA, so you have nothing to worry about.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Emotional support animals are not covered by the ADA, so you have nothing to worry about.

They are you can't not allow someone with an emotional support animal on a plan or into a store unless you want to be hit with a huge fine. Even asking for proof, which I am not saying I am against but yeah it's covered.

[cubby]

The change is literally meant to fix the abuses...

It doesn't change the mandates of the ADA... None of the requirements are changed.

All it changes is that you must notify a business/the government if the business is non-compliant... Then they get a period of time to make accommodations, which are still the same requirements as the current ADA. And then only after the period, if no accommodations are made, can you sue them.

Where under the current law. The instant you find a non-accessible business, you can sue them.

It absolutely changes the mandate of the ADA - you need to read what you actually posted instead of just parroting what the business community said about the law. Take a closer look at the details of the law - it shifts the burden considerably.

Here is an excerpt from H.R. 620.

The bill prohibits civil actions based on the failure to remove an architectural barrier to access into an existing public accommodation unless: (1) the aggrieved person has provided to the owners or operators a written notice specific enough to identify the barrier, and (2) the owners or operators fail to provide the person with a written description outlining improvements that will be made to improve the barrier or they fail to remove the barrier or make substantial progress after providing such a description. The aggrieved person's notice must specify: (1) the address of the property, (2) the specific ADA sections alleged to have been violated, (3) whether a request for assistance in removing an architectural barrier was made, and (4) whether the barrier was permanent or temporary.

It's a dramatic change in the burden of compliance.

And it won't fix people abusing the law. Again, changes centered around that goal, for any legal change, typically don't end well.

[DarkTZeratul]

They are you can't not allow someone with an emotional support animal on a plan or into a store unless you want to be hit with a huge fine. Even asking for proof, which I am not saying I am against but yeah it's covered.

"Only dogs are recognized as service animals under titles II and III of the ADA. A service animal is a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability."

https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm

"Q. Are emotional support, therapy, comfort, or companion animals considered service animals under the ADA?

A. No. These terms are used to describe animals that provide comfort just by being with a person. Because they have not been trained to perform a specific job or task, they do not qualify as service animals under the ADA."

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/service_animal_qa.html

[Masark]

There was that case where the University of Berkeley posted 40K videos of Professor's lectures to YouTube and some disgruntled deaf people used the ADA to force them to take it down

They did not force them to take them down. That was their choice. They could have complied by adding closed captioning (which could have been automated), but they chose not to.

[Nellise]

This doesn't seem like the right way to go about this. As another wheelchair user, if I find a place inaccessible I simply don't go there. I'm not going to go find a lawyer to write up a complaint. I wouldn't even be sure if my complaint is valid and the bill requires me to note "the specific ADA sections alleged to have been violated". Do all disabled people need to be lawyers and understand the ADA fully? I don't disagree there's a problem with the "drive-by" lawsuits, but it seems like the way to fix that is to somehow demonetize those type of lawsuits. Shifting the burden to the disabled person really seems like the wrong way to do this.

[cubby]

They did not force them to take them down. That was their choice. They could have complied by adding closed captioning (which could have been automated), but they chose not to.

I actually agree with @Hubcap on this one - the ADA was pretty abused with that website take down. The closed captioning had a huge (relative) cost factor (you're forgetting that the University system has their own way of procuring things - time & money) which prohibited the site from remaining up, killing access to that information for a lot of people unnecessarily.