This document contains the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) accessibility provisions adopted by DSA and commentary on selected requirements. Commentary is included from the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design and from DSA for provisions unique to California. Additionally, an expanded table of contents for Chapter 11B is provided at the beginning of the chapter.
Of the 814 federal cases, New York and Florida led the way with more than 335 and 325 cases, respectively. Surprisingly, California only had nine new website accessibility lawsuits in 2017, most likely because plaintiffs filed in state court.  Federal courts in Arizona (6), Georgia (9), Illinois (10), Massachusetts (15), New Hampshire (2), Michigan (1), New Jersey (4), Ohio (8), Pennsylvania (58), Puerto Rico (1), Texas (7), and Virginia (24) also had their share of website accessibility lawsuits.

Olmstead v. L.C.[65] was a case before the United States Supreme Court in 1999. The two plaintiffs L.C. and E.W. were institutionalized in Georgia for diagnosed mental retardation and schizophrenia. Clinical assessments by the state determined that the plaintiffs could be appropriately treated in a community setting rather than the state institution. The plaintiffs sued the state of Georgia and the institution for being inappropriately treated and housed in the institutional setting rather than being treated in one of the state's community based treatment facilities.


The 30 minute time limit applies to drive-up EVCS of any type. This design option allows brief charging and queuing for charging service, and does not consider that batteries will be charged to full capacity. Where DCFC or any other type of charging is intended for use longer than 30 minutes, EVCS may be provided in regular parking-style vehicle spaces.

Many properties do NOT have enough electricity available to support significant charging installations, so for now, utilities and others are doing “make ready” spaces (upgrading the supporting infrastructure in a parking space for future use without adding the actual charger). How would make ready spaces comply with the ADA standards? Additionally, consider a site with 10 make ready spaces. Would the standards apply differently if that site has no chargers presently installed versus having one active charger installed?


I am a hair dress in Los Angeles county. I have an opportunity to open my own salon however I would lease the space in a building on the second floor. There are other business’ on the second floor as well. This is a rather old building with only stairs, no elevator. Since this is a pre 1970 building, can I even open a new business in a building that is not ADA accessible?
The CBC Chapter 11B accessibility requirements for EVCS do not distinguish between the different EVCS standards like those listed. However, building officials may view different types of service as separate facilities. Where different types of EVCS service are provided at a location, the code enforcement official must determine the applicability of Table 11B-228.3.2.1.
Effective January 1, 2017, an individual employed under a special license in a nonprofit sheltered workshop or rehabilitation facility may bring an action under FEHA for any form of harassment or discrimination (CA Gov. Code Sec. 12926.05). An employer has an affirmative defense by proving that the challenged activity was permitted by statute or regulation and that it was necessary to serve employees with disabilities under a special license.
People with disabilities should be able to easily access the Internet. (You can find a video about how screen readers work here.) But to accomplish this, the DOJ should have issued regulations. It issued regulations for State and local governments. It issued regulations for Federal agencies. Why not issue regulations that would apply to private business? As a point of reference, in October 2016, the European Parliament approved the directive 2016/2102 that requires websites and mobile applications of public sector bodies to conform with WCAG 2.0 Level AA. New websites must comply from 23 September 2019 on, old websites from September 23, 2020 on and mobile applications from June 23, 2021 on. These regulations provided direction and time for business to become compliant.
I moved into a HUD complex on April 1, 2014. Jan. 28, 2017 tenants on floors 7-8 were compensated and displaced for a complete makeover of our apartments, I live on 8. I returned on May 1, 2016. The first thing I noticed, my countertops had been lowered. Regardless of what anyone says to the contrary, this is ergonomically unacceptable for me, being I am 6’1.
Three defendants were able to dismiss website access lawsuits early because they had already entered into consent decree or settlement agreements with previous plaintiffs which required them to make their websites conform to the WCAG 2.0 within a specified amount of time. That said, not all courts agree that a prior settlement — as opposed to a binding judgment or court order — can be the basis for a dismissal.
As a result, most ADA suits are brought by a small number of private plaintiffs who view themselves as champions of the disabled. For the ADA to yield its promise of equal access for the disabled, it may indeed be necessary and desirable for committed individuals to bring serial litigation advancing the time when public accommodations will be compliant with the ADA."[57]
When a property owner hits the 20% cost limitation on path of travel improvements, the jurisdictional entity cannot require further improvements to the path of travel to occur. The property owner should be advised, however, that for older facilities that pre-date the ADA, barrier removal is required by the ADA. Barrier removal, however, will not be enforced by the local jurisdictional entity.
×