Decided by the US Supreme Court in 2002, this case [74][75] held that even requests for accommodation that might seem reasonable on their face, e.g., a transfer to a different position, can be rendered unreasonable because it would require a violation of the company's seniority system. While the court held that, in general, a violation of a seniority system renders an otherwise reasonable accommodation unreasonable, a plaintiff can present evidence that, despite the seniority system, the accommodation is reasonable in the specific case at hand, e.g., the plaintiff could offer evidence that the seniority system is so often disregarded that another exception wouldn't make a difference.
!function(e){function n(t){if(r[t])return r[t].exports;var o=r[t]={i:t,l:!1,exports:{}};return e[t].call(o.exports,o,o.exports,n),o.l=!0,o.exports}var t=window.ansWebpackJsonpFunction;window.ansWebpackJsonpFunction=function(n,r,i){for(var s,u,l=0,a=[];l1)for(var t=1;tp)return!1;if(d>f)return!1;var e=window.require.hasModule("shared/browser")&&window.require("shared/browser");return!e||!e.opera}function u(){var e="";return""==window.Q.subdomainSuffix&&(e+=[window.location.protocol,"//"].join("")),e+="/ajax/log_errors_3RD_PARTY_POST"}function l(){var e=i(h);h=[],0!==e.length&&c(u(),{revision:window.Q.revision,errors:JSON.stringify(e)})}var a=t("./third_party/tracekit.js"),c=t("./shared/basicrpc.js").rpc;a.remoteFetching=!1,a.collectWindowErrors=!0,;var f=10,p=window.Q&&window.Q.errorSamplingRate||1,h=[],d=0,m=o(l,1e3),y=window.console&&!(window.NODE_JS&&window.UNIT_TEST);{try{y&&console.error(e.stack||e),}catch(e){}};var w=function(e,n,t){r({name:n,message:t,source:e,stack:a.computeStackTrace.ofCaller().stack||[]}),y&&console.error(t)};n.logJsError=w.bind(null,"js"),n.logMobileJsError=w.bind(null,"mobile_js")},"./shared/globals.js":function(e,n,t){var r=t("./shared/links.js");(window.Q=window.Q||{}).openUrl=function(e,n){var t=e.href;return r.linkClicked(t,n,e),,!1}},"./shared/links.js":function(e,n){var t=[];n.onLinkClick=function(e){t.push(e)},n.linkClicked=function(e,n,r){for(var o=0;o>>0;if("function"!=typeof e)throw new TypeError;for(arguments.length>1&&(t=n),r=0;r>>0,r=arguments.length>=2?arguments[1]:void 0,o=0;o>>0;if(0===o)return-1;var i=+n||0;if(Math.abs(i)===Infinity&&(i=0),i>=o)return-1;for(t=Math.max(i>=0?i:o-Math.abs(i),0);t>>0;if("function"!=typeof e)throw new TypeError(e+" is not a function");for(arguments.length>1&&(t=n),r=0;r>>0;if("function"!=typeof e)throw new TypeError(e+" is not a function");for(arguments.length>1&&(t=n),r=new Array(s),o=0;o>>0;if("function"!=typeof e)throw new TypeError;for(var r=[],o=arguments.length>=2?arguments[1]:void 0,i=0;i>>0,o=0;if(2==arguments.length)n=arguments[1];else{for(;o=r)throw new TypeError("Reduce of empty array with no initial value");n=t[o++]}for(;o>>0;if(0===o)return-1;for(n=o-1,arguments.length>1&&(n=Number(arguments[1]),n!=n?n=0:0!==n&&n!=1/0&&n!=-1/0&&(n=(n>0||-1)*Math.floor(Math.abs(n)))),t=n>=0?Math.min(n,o-1):o-Math.abs(n);t>=0;t--)if(t in r&&r[t]===e)return t;return-1};t(Array.prototype,"lastIndexOf",c)}if(!Array.prototype.includes){var f=function(e){"use strict";if(null==this)throw new TypeError("Array.prototype.includes called on null or undefined");var n=Object(this),t=parseInt(n.length,10)||0;if(0===t)return!1;var r,o=parseInt(arguments[1],10)||0;o>=0?r=o:(r=t+o)<0&&(r=0);for(var i;r
In my investigation I found out there are several ADA designated apt’s, on my floor there is only one and it has an industry standard of 36″ and out of the other nine apt’s four have misplaced ADA compliant countertops. I know of two elderly women who are confined to wheelchairs and living in designated ADA apt’s and their countertops are not ADA compliant they complain to no avail.
There have been some notable cases regarding the ADA. For example, two major hotel room marketers ( and with their business presence on the Internet were sued because its customers with disabilities could not reserve hotel rooms, through their websites without substantial extra efforts that persons without disabilities were not required to perform.[58] These represent a major potential expansion of the ADA in that this, and other similar suits (known as "bricks vs. clicks"), seeks to expand the ADA's authority to cyberspace, where entities may not have actual physical facilities that are required to comply.

EVCS required to be accessible by CBC Chapter 11B must have both, an accessible route to the facility entrance (see CBC Section 11B-812.5.1) and an accessible route from the vehicle space to the EVSE (see CBC Section 11B-812.5.2). No exceptions are provided but you can use existing accessible routes to help satisfy these requirements. These requirements are separate from, and are not limited by the 20% cost cap on path of travel improvements.
This was a case filed before The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division on behalf of the Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America against University of Michigan – Michigan Stadium claiming that Michigan Stadium violated the Americans with Disabilities Act in its $226-million renovation by failing to add enough seats for disabled fans or accommodate the needs for disabled restrooms, concessions and parking. Additionally, the distribution of the accessible seating was at issue, with nearly all the seats being provided in the end-zone areas. The U.S. Department of Justice assisted in the suit filed by attorney Richard Bernstein of The Law Offices of Sam Bernstein in Farmington Hills, Michigan, which was settled in March 2008.[66] The settlement required the stadium to add 329 wheelchair seats throughout the stadium by 2010, and an additional 135 accessible seats in clubhouses to go along with the existing 88 wheelchair seats. This case was significant because it set a precedent for the uniform distribution of accessible seating and gave the DOJ the opportunity to clarify previously unclear rules.[67] The agreement now is a blueprint for all stadiums and other public facilities regarding accessibility.[68]
It is important to note that the remarks in this document are intended to be informative but they are not a substitute for the requirements of the California Building Code. Also, despite the informative nature of this document, it is the appropriate jurisdictional code official who possesses the exclusive authority to enforce and interpret the requirements of the California Building Code. This document provides informal assistance regarding California accessibility requirements only for DSA's code-enforcement jurisdiction. The information contained in this document is not binding on the Division of the State Architect and is not intended or designed to give any legal advice on compliance with federal, state, or local laws and regulations. It should be noted that laws, regulations, and standards are subject to revisions, additions, or deletions, at any time.

In October 2004, the Division of the State Architect received from the United States Department of Justice, an initial response to the request for certification that the California Building Code meets or exceeds the new construction and alterations requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the United States Department of Justice's regulation implementing Title III, including the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

If the lift encroaches into the City’s property (presuming they allow that), my concern is less regarding an ADA issue and more regarding a potential tripping hazard when the lift is down. WE have on occasion, when a temporary ramp is used to provide access over a single step, also used orange traffic cones to alert pedestrians about a potential tripping hazard.
When a building, or portion of a building, is required to be accessible or adaptable, an accessible route of travel shall be provided to all portions of the building, to accessible building entrances and between the building and the public way. Except within an individual dwelling unit, an accessible route of travel shall not pass though kitchens, storage rooms, restrooms, closets or other spaces used for similar purposes.
The home we own was previously used as a hospice care home. It appears to be completely ADA compliant. We are going to be renovating our back patio and will be demoing the current one completely. Our deck builder has said when they build the new deck, it will start two inches lower than the current one in purser to meet code standards. We do not have anyone who lives here that needs it to be ADA, just aging parents that visit. That two inch step down will make it difficult for them to navigate, especially one parent who can’t do any steps at at all. Even though we are not a business, can we still have our home to be ADA compliant? Are there different codes for residents vs businesses? Thank you
The fact that the California federal courts only had ten website accessibility lawsuits filings in 2018 may be a surprise to some since California continues to lead the pack in the number of all ADA Title III lawsuit filings in federal court.  However, it appears that plaintiffs filed their new cases in state court after a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a website accessibility lawsuit against Dominos’ in 2017.  The Ninth Circuit reversed that dismissal last month, making California federal court an attractive venue for plaintiffs once again.  We predict that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will cause the number of website accessibility lawsuits in California federal courts to increase dramatically in 2019.
Like the Domino’s Pizza case, Luc Burbon, a visually impaired individual, sued the Fox News Network because it didn’t meet WCAG 2.0 standards. According to the article cited below, the website blocked Luc from being able to receive goods and services available at Fox News’ physical locations (including live broadcasts and tapings that audience members can attend).
In 2014, the DOJ filed a Complaint in Intervention on a pending case between the National Federation of the Blind and H & R Block. According to that Complaint, “the inaccessibility of H&R Block’s website prevents people with disabilities from independently preparing and filing taxes online, downloading tax preparation software, etc.” The settlement was broken down into two phases: Phase I- (to be completed by 01/2015) H&R Block shall ensure that and the Online Tax Preparation Product conform to, at minimum, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria (“WCAG 2.0 AA”). And Phase II- (to be completed by 01/2016) H&R Block shall ensure that its mobile applications conform to, at minimum, the WCAG 2.0 AA.
Aside from attempting to compliant for compliance’s sake, having an ADA accessible website can improve the overall user experience and site traffic. An ADA compliant site can increase your target audience (by making it easy for those with disabilities to navigate around), improve your SEO efforts (by helping search engines to more easily crawl your pages and content), and help your overall reputation.
For the next few months I corresponded with this housing authority, until I caught the attention of the regional manager, likely because I registered his letter. He called and asked to visit, upon his arrival, accompanied by our maintenance person, who having seen the pictures and the stove above the countertop, still maintained all the countertops are the same height. The R/M inspected this anomaly and the maintenance man still stated the countertops are all the same, I said no they are not and the R/M turned and asked which were not, I told him which apt my friend lived in and he headed that way. When he returned he stated I was correct and he would see about fixing this mistake and the maintenance person apologized. I never heard back from him, one day I found him in the hallway and asked what is the plan and he stated that I needed to put in a request for a reasonable accommodation, which makes no sense, in my reasoning all of ADA constitutes a reasonable accommodation, however, I did not nor would I request it. Furthermore, had I known they were going to do this I would not be on this blog?
Voluntary compliance is an important component of an effective strategy for implementing Title III of the ADA. Private businesses that voluntarily comply with ADA accessibility requirements help to promote the broader objectives of the ADA by increasing access for persons with disabilities to the goods, services, and facilities available in our respective communities. Certification facilitates voluntary ADA compliance by assuring that certified state accessibility requirements meet or exceed ADA requirements. In this regard, business owners, builders, developers, architects, and others in the design and construction industry are benefited because, once a code is certified, they can refer to certified code requirements and rely upon them for equivalency with the ADA.
If those together don’t make the opening big enough, it might be possible to reconstruct the whole doorway and door, depending on the construction of the building. I rebuilt one doorway in my own home and it only cost around $1,000-$1500 – and that was using a very high end contractor. It was also wood frame construction and drywall, in a non-bearing wall; you’ll have a different scenario, of course, with steel, or with masonry, and/or plaster and lathe, and if it’s a bearing wall.