Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) authorizes the United States Department of Justice to certify that state laws, local building codes, or similar ordinances meet or exceed the ADA Standards for Accessible Design for new construction and alterations. Title III applies to public accommodations and commercial facilities, which include most private businesses and non-profit service providers.
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.
Tags: 2.0, 2019, AB 434, accessibility, Assembly Bill, blind, California, deaf, Department of Justice, Director of Technology, Government Code, Government Entity, Governor, hard of hearing, Inactive List, Jerry Brown, July 1, legislation, Rehabilitation Act, Section 11546.7, Section 508, Section 7405, State Agency, State Entity, Visually Impaired, WCAG, WCAG 2.0 AA, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, website
What’s in store for 2018? If the Ninth Circuit upholds the Domino’s district court’s dismissal on due process grounds, the number of California website accessibility lawsuits in federal court may go down dramatically.  Even if that occurs, we see no end to the website accessibility lawsuit surge elsewhere and expect that new plaintiffs’ firms will continue to enter the scene.  While the current administration’s DOJ is not likely to push the website accessibility agenda, its inaction will not stop the lawsuits.  Only an amendment to the ADA can do that, which we believe is highly unlikely.  Thus, the best risk mitigation effort for covered entities is still to make their websites accessible as soon as possible, with the assistance of ADA Title III legal counsel experienced in website accessibility issues and reputable digital accessibility consultants.
Any other privately funded multistoried building that is not a shopping center, shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider, and that is less than three stories high or less than 3,000 square feet (279 m2 ) per story if a reasonable portion of all facilities and accommodations normally sought and used by the public in such a building are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.
Claims: The Department of Justice launched an investigation into the NMCP’s compliance with title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and found that it failed to make all of its exhibits, public programs and other offerings accessible to individuals with disabilities; failed to provide necessary auxiliary aids and services to ensure efficient interaction with people with disabilities.
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.
If you do get sued, if you immediately remediate your website, you may be able to get the lawsuit dismissed on mootness (there’s no longer anything in dispute, i.e. plaintiffs are arguing your website is inaccessible but you’ve already made it accessible). This definitely does not mean you should wait to fix your website but it does mean you may have an out.
I have a client that lives in an apartment complex with no ramp access and she was just approved and delivered a new Power Chair. The stairs are 28″ tall. We provided a ramp but it interferes with the gate that opens. The landlord is trying to find a solution but doesn’t want to put out any money if h doesn’t have too. I suggested to the land lord to build a ramp including a landing that we can install the approved portable ramp onto that was interfering with the gate and place it so it runs parallel with the gate to accommodate the client. We are not company that can install modular ramps (at this time) but the landlord doesn’t seem to want to help much and I was trying to get an answer for him of exactly what his responsibility is since this is the first time that we have encountered an issue with the portable ramps.
EVCS installed at public buildings, public accommodations, commercial facilities and public housing are required to comply with the accessibility requirements in CBC Chapter 11B. Compliance with these provisions is not required where EVCS are not available to the general public and intended for use by a designated vehicle or driver (see CBC Section 11B-228.3.2 Exception 1).

The California Green Code appears to require service panels, sub-panels, and raceway of sufficient capacity to accommodate 40 amp circuits rather than mandating one 40 amp circuit for each EVCS in residential and nonresidential locations. For additional information you may contact the Department of Housing and Community Development for infrastructure requirements at residential locations or the Building Standards Commission for infrastructure requirements at nonresidential locations
That would be great for a referral. I am trying to fid one on my own, and am striking out on this. I’m somewhat confused though by the recently passed CA law (smaller businesses with < 25 employees can take advantage of the ADA CASP program to avoid being liable for any type of payment. That's how I'd interpreted this new regulation). The thing is he was in fact told to do this 4 + years ago (I know for a fact). My concern is maybe county zoning would have no record of this (it was in a citation)? Or, my LL would suddenly have amnesia. Thanks too.
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.

Accessible seating or accommodations in places of public amusement and resort, including theaters, concert halls and stadiums, but not including hotels and motels, shall be provided in a variety of locations so as to provide persons with disabilities a choice of admission prices otherwise available to members of the general public. When there are over 300 seats, dispersal is required, and when there are less, no dispersal is clearly indicated in the code. However, some trial courts have found that lack of dispersal creates a highlighted area — generally considered discriminatory. The building code does mention this, and further changes in the code to clarify this is quite likely.
Tags: 2.0, 2019, AB 434, accessibility, Assembly Bill, blind, California, deaf, Department of Justice, Director of Technology, Government Code, Government Entity, Governor, hard of hearing, Inactive List, Jerry Brown, July 1, legislation, Rehabilitation Act, Section 11546.7, Section 508, Section 7405, State Agency, State Entity, Visually Impaired, WCAG, WCAG 2.0 AA, Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, website

You state the the owner is “not required to make changes that would create and undue financial or administrative burden.” Did you mean “not allowed” vs “not required?” I have not had a chance to talk with her as yet. I just need to know if she is required to allow us more time if we need it, due to the disabilities we have to accommodate. We are looking but we are limited as to what is functional for our needs. She wants to increase the rents in the units after the work is completed. Our current rent is $1482.00 but she will be asking about $2300.00 going forward. All four units in the building (2 upper, 2 lower with outside entrances, so no elevator) are 3 BR, 1 & 1/2 bath. As she did not offer to let us rent the other downstairs unit once it is completed, I can only assume she simply does not want to rent to us anymore, or perhaps she assumed we could not afford the new amount she wants. Please let me know if the ADA requires that special needs tenants be granted the time needed to relocate, rather than sticking to a strict schedule set by the property owner. Thank you.


Many members of the business community opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Testifying before Congress, Greyhound Bus Lines stated that the act had the potential to "deprive millions of people of affordable intercity public transportation and thousands of rural communities of their only link to the outside world." The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be "enormous" and have "a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive."[35] The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA "a disaster for small business."[36] Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Act was "an expensive headache to millions" that would not necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.[37]

Throughout the certification review process, Department of Justice staff provide assistance and guidance to representatives of state and local governments that request certification of their accessibility requirements. Upon receipt of a complete certification submission, a team of experienced staff (architects, accessibility specialists and attorneys) undertake a detailed comparison of the submitted accessibility code to the Title III requirements for the design, construction, and alteration of buildings and facilities, including the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The staff may contact submitting officials during this process to gain additional information about the correct interpretation and application of the submitted code.

President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law July 26, 1990. The ADA prohibits discrimination of people with disabilities and guarantees the same opportunities as everyone else. These opportunities include employment possibilities, purchasing of goods and services and the ability to participate in State and local government programs.
For close to seven years, since July of 2010, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has talked about issuing regulations specifically about web accessibility. At that time the US Department of Justice (DOJ) began developing accessibility guidelines for public websites under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On December 26, 2017, the Department announced that those regulations were officially withdrawn.

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.
In April of 2011, the DOJ reached a settlement with Law School Admission Council (LSAC). A complaint was brought by the National Federation of the Blind claiming, in part, that barriers on the www.lsac.org website made it impossible for blind students to register for the LSAT. The DOJ joined in this lawsuit and is a signatory to the settlement agreement wherein LSAC agreed to provide “Full and Equal Access” to the lsac.org website, no later than September 1, 2011.  “Full and Equal Access” meant that “www.lsac.org meets the nonvisual requirements of WCAG 2.0, level AA and that blind guests using screen-reader software may acquire the same information and engage in the same transactions as are available to sighted guests with substantially equivalent ease of use.”
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. 
×