State agencies have been required, since January 1, 2017 by virtue of 2016 legislation, to comply with Section 508 in developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic or information technology “to improve accessibility of existing technology, and therefore increase the successful employment of individuals with disabilities, particularly blind and visually impaired and deaf and hard-of-hearing persons.” That statute, Government Code 7405, also requires entities that contract with state or local entities for the provision of electronic or information technology or related services to respond to and resolve any complaints regarding accessibility that are brought to the entity’s attention.


The ADA is a Civil Rights Law which requires that buildings and facilities that provide goods and services to the public, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities.  Buildings and alterations constructed after 1992 must comply with the requirements of the ADA.  Buildings and facilities constructed prior to 1992, are required to make changes to facilitate accessibility that are “readily achievable”, which is defined by the ADA as, “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.”
National | Alabama | Alaska | Arizona | Arkansas | California | Colorado | Connecticut | Delaware | District of Columbia | Florida | Georgia | Hawaii | Idaho | Illinois | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Kentucky | Louisiana | Maine | Maryland | Massachusetts | Michigan | Minnesota | Mississippi | Missouri | Montana | National | Nebraska | Nevada | New Hampshire | New Jersey | New Mexico | New York | North Carolina | North Dakota | Ohio | Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Vermont | Virginia | Washington | West Virginia | Wisconsin | Wyoming |
I am a truck driver with for a local county in northern Ca. I have been on disability for almost 9 months due to a battle with cancer and a recent surgery to remove it. My surgeon is releasing me to go back to work with some heavy restrictions to my duties, and the county says they may not be able to accommodate me. Is this legal? Don’t they have to accommodate me?

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.
My husband is 92 and now confined to a wheelchair following a stroke. Back in Jan.2017 i moved us into a condo. Renting a unit from a private individual who owns tbe unit. He has been accomidating,on the other hand the HOA has not. For instance the lights have been out on the south entrance to our building for over 6 months. I have repeatedly sent emails and phone calls which mgt. Stated they will have it taken care of yet nothing ever happend. Now my husband has bruised his hands and skinned his shins attempting to enter after dark yet mgt has not responded to our request at all. Also the issue of handicapped parking spaces we were told nothing they could do because spaces are deeded to owners? Building built 1989

I work in a building with five businesses and two residences, there is only one handicapped parking space that one of the residences parks permanently in, her car rarely moves. She has two cars one is parked in a regular space & the other is in the handicap. This creates no handicap parking spaces for customers. Is this compliant in San Diego County? If not what can be done? A conversation has taken place with the owner of the building, he is not willing to give the tenant her own residential handicap spot and leave another handicapped spot for customers. He’s not willing to do anything.

If you live in California, it sounds like the City certainly has some issues that need to be corrected. Both the ADA and the California Building code require accessible paths of travel – which in California, is typically 48″, but can be 36″ upon approval of enforcing agency. I would suggest calling / writing your mayor / city manager & starting a conversation with them.

The ADA states that a "covered entity" shall not discriminate against "a qualified individual with a disability".[12] This applies to job application procedures, hiring, advancement and discharge of employees, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. "Covered entities" include employers with 15 or more employees, as well as employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees.[13] There are strict limitations on when a covered entity can ask job applicants or employees disability-related questions or require them to undergo medical examination, and all medical information must be kept confidential.[14][15]
We have a number of unlicensed sober living-group homes in Orange County that are not ADA compliant, and the City does not enforce the ADA requirements upon these homes. Because individuals with addictions are considered disabled, the house in which they reside in, by law, need to be ADA compliant (according to the Justice Department in Washington D.C). My question is: How can the City be held accountable to enforce ADA upon these facilities? I am not disabled and do not wish to sue; however, our City is doing nothing to hold these businesses accountable. Please advise.
Lack of basic accessibility features. The majority of cases are caused by this factor. The lack of basic, easy-to-implement web accessibility features may show indifference to needs of users with disabilities and their user experience browsing your site, which in most cases leads to a filed complaint. Basic accessibility features may include providing alt text on graphics, providing labels on form controls (e.g. text boxes, checkboxes, radio buttons), avoiding improper table markup which can lead to accessibility issues, providing alt text on images, etc.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams,[72] was a case in which the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the phrase "substantially impairs" as used in the Americans with Disabilities Act. It reversed a Sixth Court of Appeals decision to grant a partial summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Ella Williams, that qualified her inability to perform manual job-related tasks as a disability. The Court held that the "major life activity" definition in evaluating the performance of manual tasks focuses the inquiry on whether Williams was unable to perform a range of tasks central to most people in carrying out the activities of daily living. The issue is not whether Williams was unable to perform her specific job tasks. Therefore, the determination of whether an impairment rises to the level of a disability is not limited to activities in the workplace solely, but rather to manual tasks in life in general. When the Supreme Court applied this standard, it found that the Court of Appeals had incorrectly determined the presence of a disability because it relied solely on her inability to perform specific manual work tasks, which was insufficient in proving the presence of a disability. The Court of Appeals should have taken into account the evidence presented that Williams retained the ability to do personal tasks and household chores, such activities being the nature of tasks most people do in their daily lives, and placed too much emphasis on her job disability. Since the evidence showed that Williams was performing normal daily tasks, it ruled that the Court of Appeals erred when it found that Williams was disabled.[72][73] This ruling is now, however, no longer good law—it was invalidated by the ADAAA. In fact, Congress explicitly cited Toyota v. Williams in the text of the ADAAA itself as one of its driving influences for passing the ADAAA.
I live in Sacranento ca, my parents shop at the 99 cent store they incountered a problem, my dad uses a power scooter to get around, well he can no long go into that store because his power scooter can’t fit down the isle and has a hard time making turns, I even had a hard time fitting the shopping cart because of all the boxes and pallets that are in the way and also by the produce area, I need help, I tried contacting the store but I got no where with them.

Government Code §11546.7 – The requirement that state agency heads certify, every two years, that their agency’s website meets the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, Version 2.0 or a subsequent version, at Level AA or higher, and the requirements of Sections 11135 and 7405 of the Government Code. Created by AB 434 (Baker, Chapter 780, Statutes of 2017), and sometimes referred to as AB 434.


Shortly before the act was passed, disability rights activists with physical disabilities coalesced in front of the Capitol Building, shed their crutches, wheelchairs, powerchairs and other assistive devices, and immediately proceeded to crawl and pull their bodies up all 100 of the Capitol's front steps, without warning.[38] As the activists did so, many of them chanted "ADA now", and "Vote, Now". Some activists who remained at the bottom of the steps held signs and yelled words of encouragement at the "Capitol Crawlers". Jennifer Keelan, a second grader with cerebral palsy, was videotaped as she pulled herself up the steps, using mostly her hands and arms, saying "I'll take all night if I have to." This direct action is reported to have "inconvenienced" several senators and to have pushed them to approve the act. While there are those who do not attribute much overall importance to this action, the "Capitol Crawl" of 1990 is seen by some present-day disability activists in the United States as a central act for encouraging the ADA into law.[39]
On October 14, 2017 California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 434, which will create a new Government Code section 11546.7 and require, beginning July 1, 2019, state agencies and state entities to post on their website home pages a certification that the website complies with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level AA, or a subsequent version, and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Now more than ever, search engines are evolving to crawl pages with more human intention. A key element of WCAG is accessibility to screen readers, and these readers crawl your website pages similarly to search engines. If your website meets the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, it will likely appeal to users, search engines, and screen readers alike, ultimately improving your SEO endeavors. For this reason, meta tagging, alternative image text, and video transcripts should be seriously considered.
Privately owned multi-family dwellings are not subject to the new CBC Chapter 11B accessibility requirements for EVCS. The new requirements do apply at public housing facilities which are defined below. CBC Chapter 11B accessibility requirements do not apply to Section 8 housing credit recipients – the Section 8 program is a housing voucher program, not a public housing program.
Though the building code does not regulate EVCS in the public right-of-way, accessibility is still required under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Since there are no explicit regulations it will be up to you to provide an accessible solution which is acceptable to the jurisdictional authorities. You may wish to refer to the new CBC Chapter 11B provisions as “guidelines” because they were crafted to address vehicle spaces that are parallel to the vehicular way as well as the more traditional pull-in space. In this case, you would apply the general requirements to curbside locations. Note that an explicit exception is provided in Section 11B-812.10.4 Exception 3.
Accessibility requirements for all point-of-sale devices have been a part of the CBC for many years and allow people with vision impairments to conduct automated transactions in a secure manner. These requirements apply to point-of-sale devices in public buildings, public accommodations commercial buildings and public housing, including restaurants, stores, banks, theaters and DVD rental kiosks – just about anywhere the public conducts automated transactions.
I live in an Apartment complex in San Jose, CA that was built in 1979 with over 300 units. There are four ADA parking spots close to my Apt. but when I get sick due to the terminal disease I have and leave my car parked which is permitted with a sticker from the complex for residential vehicles and also have disability license plates. I get threating sticker’s on my car windows from the Maintenance manager that it will be towed due to parking longer than 72hrs all the time. I’m then instructed to go park in another parking lot 300 to 400+ yards away with no sidewalk from the parking lot and then many stairs before I can get back to my Apt. that has ADA spots 100ft away and my disability license plates are for mobility reasons. They are building a new Apt. Building and have public access for their leasing office. Can anyone tell me if a violation has been committed by treating me this way? BTW there is nothing in our lease that says we residents or visitors with passes have a minimum or max days cars can be parked. If this is a violation please contact me so we can get a case going.
It is the intent of the California Legislature that the building standards published in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) relating to accessibility by people with disabilities shall be used as minimum requirements to ensure that buildings, structures, and related facilities are accessible to, and functional for, every member of the public, so as to provide equal opportunity to access public accommodations. Access is to be provided to, through, and within the buildings, without loss of function, space, or facility where the general public is concerned.

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.

In 2017, plaintiffs filed at least 814 federal lawsuits about allegedly inaccessible websites, including a number of putative class actions. We arrived at this number by searching for lawsuits with certain key terms and then manually reviewing the results to remove any cases that did not concern an allegedly inaccessible website.  Our numbers are conservative, as it is very likely that not every website accessibility lawsuit’s description – upon which we based our search – contained our search terms. This caveat applies to all of the data set forth below.


I live in a senior housing apt building in San Diego Ca. We have three sides of our building streets used by the MTS transportation system for bus depo and trolley. The buses are parked directly in front of our entrance where the disability ramp is and the small one car white loading zone is located at the end of the block. The busses are blocking emergency vehicle access and the residents are being picked up daily by disability medical transit buses which are supposed to go to the white zone down the block but it is always being used by someone. Instead the medical vans are parking in the red zones directly in front of the disability ramp for loading/ unloading. The bus drivers get angry and beep their horns block traffic on the street and yell at the elderly residents. I have been writing and providing photos and calling so many city employees and agencies, attorneys, ADA compliance officers about this for 8 months yet they all say we can use the little white zone up the street because they need the area for the three busses parked there each day. Who can I contact to do a formal assessment of this as everyone else has not even really addressed the issue. One guy to,d me we had a building design defect after talking to him for 5 minutes on the phone and he did not even see the photos yet! Please anyone help!!!

my son is mentally disabled and has been served notices and had a judgement made against him because he did not receive accommodations from the Superior Court of California. The ASA Coordinator for the court only argues about why they don’t have to do it. They are closed on Friday and he needs something done before Monday. Notice was served to him by the Sheriff posting something on his bedroom door on Wednesday while he was gone. His disability prevented him from responding yesterday when he got home. The ADA Rep will only tell me what he should have done or tries to make it some other agency responsibility and the Clerk of the Court, after she was notified that he is disabled, says that it is too late and nothing can be done. Right now, The Superior Court of California is not in compliance with the ADA.

The exact terms are undisclosed, however, ADA website accessibility settlements required companies to update their online and mobile presence to better accommodate the visually impaired. This includes code fixes and other changes that make websites and apps more compatible with screen reader technology. The cases were filed early 2017 and settled within weeks.
Additionally, in February 2018, Congress passed the ADA Education and Reform Act, a bill designed to make it harder for disabled Americans to sue businesses for discrimination. Republican lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill argue that the law will help curb “frivolous” lawsuits, while opponents have argued that this law will gut the ADA, essentially giving businesses little reason to follow the ADA guidelines at all.

The prudent next step is running an audit on your site. The tools will crawl your site and identify all the areas that do not meet web accessibility standards for ADA compliance. The results will give you a very clear sense of the work involved so you can budget properly and weigh the benefits. Who knows, you may find out that your site is already fairly compliant, especially if you are on a fairly progressive platform and have used proper coding practices during your site build.
Your website looks good, is functional and provides a great user experience. But, can a disabled person use it? Can a visually-impaired person understand what your photos and other non-text aspects of your website are and do? If not, you may need to make some changes or you may receive a letter from lawyers threatening Americans with Disability Act, or ADA, claims.
In 2002, the Department of General Services, Division of the State Architect submitted the 2001 edition of the California Building Code along with a side-by-side analysis of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design to the United States Department of Justice. The side-by-side analysis contained proposed revisions and additions to California Building Code regulations that were considered necessary in order to establish equivalency with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

Prohibited discrimination may include, among other things, firing or refusing to hire someone based on a real or perceived disability, segregation, and harassment based on a disability. Covered entities are also required to provide reasonable accommodations to job applicants and employees with disabilities.[16] A reasonable accommodation is a change in the way things are typically done that the person needs because of a disability, and can include, among other things, special equipment that allows the person to perform the job, scheduling changes, and changes to the way work assignments are chosen or communicated.[17] An employer is not required to provide an accommodation that would involve undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense), and the individual who receives the accommodation must still perform the essential functions of the job and meet the normal performance requirements. An employee or applicant who currently engages in the illegal use of drugs is not considered qualified when a covered entity takes adverse action based on such use.[18]
×