Slashdot Mirror

If you use your phone to monitor your blood glucose, but the venue forces your phone to be locked into a Yondr bag, are there ADA repercussions? Seems that the answer would be "yes".

For example, an ADA-related consent order: https://www.ada.gov/sfxinc.htm6/, and this line specifically: "Clear Channel Entertainment agrees not to discriminate against any guest with diabetes with regard to their bringing diabetes related medical equipment or diabetes related food into a concert venue.â

I sent a brief, polite message to Yondr 1.5 years ago asking if there is a protocol for this situation. https://www.overyondr.com/contact/

No response.

Obviously, there are back-up strategies like bringing the stand-alone G5 receiver, use a meter, exit the concert to check your Bg, or not to go to the concert at all, but all should be unnecessary as having a phone at your side for monitoring blood glucose is a reasonable accommodation.

UC Berkeley doesn't have a right to distribute anything (they aren't "private people"). A private person has that right, but UC Berkeley is a public institution that doesn't have that right (despite the citizen's united ruling), and it is subject to ADA Title II restrictions. Private persons are only limited by ADA Title I (employment discrimination rules).

My understanding is that business/corporate entities do have some amount of 1st Amendment rights (e.g., speech and certainly press). IANAL; do state/local government institutions lack that right? If so, what about the professors working for them (who likely originated the content)?

It seems we have a case here of a law (the ADA) abridging a constitutional right. Again, we're not talking about a wheelchair ramp or a swimming pool or service dogs; we're talking about creative content. Courts seem to pretty strongly favor free speech over other interests even if those other interests are compelling (e.g., Citizens United).

The reality here is that the public is being harmed by the removal of and ceased production of this content. At a minimum, I wish UC Berkeley would ask the current DoJ to reconsider; they might come up with a different response than the Obama DoJ. (Plus UC Berkeley should cut off all interactions with Gallaudet if it can be found that institution was complicit in these actions.) But if there's a chance of winning in court on free speech grounds, UC Berkeley could do us all a service by getting that ruling. Of course, none of those actions coincide with Berkeley's own institutional political agenda, so they probably won't happen.

How is this not a free speech issue? Doesn't UC Berkeley have a 1st amendment right to distribute creative content -- especially free content -- in whatever format it wants with or without accommodations?

Can a photograph or painting be banned if it does not have a descriptive text to accommodate the blind? What if the artist's point was to have something that was visual only? What if the artwork were in fact a political statement about the absurdity of laws like the ADA resulting in censorship and including the descriptive text would defeat the purpose of the artwork?

We're not talking about a physical wheelchair ramp or an ATM that is too high (*); we're talking about creative content. So why isn't it protected?

*At my workplace the ATM was removed because it was too high for wheelchair access and didn't have headphone-jack capability. Fixing it to comply with ADA was cost prohibitive to the credit union that owned the ATM. So instead of leaving a non-disabled-accessible ATM they took away the ATM from everyone.

UC Berkeley doesn't have a right to distribute anything (they aren't "private people"). A private person has that right, but UC Berkeley is a public institution that doesn't have that right (despite the citizen's united ruling), and it is subject to ADA Title II restrictions. Private persons are only limited by ADA Title I (employment discrimination rules).

It might be interpreted that way, but it's not called out. This is from https://www.ada.gov/hiv/lgbti_...

"Although these laws do not explicitly refer to sexual orientation or gender identity,..."

Society doesn't and should not be compelled to make adaptations for the rare exceptions.

Society does and should.

It looks like the Americans with Disabilities Act only prohibits discriminating against people with disabilities, and not discriminating for them. I didn't see any mention of outlawing discriminating for people with disabilities (see Sec. 12112. Discrimination, here.)

When I here ADA, I think of The Americans With Disabilities Act.

> Grasp this... this hostility you're reading from me... it comes from some place real.

And the hostility you are reading back ... it comes from some place real too.

When you write profoundly ignorant shit like this:

> Most businesses want customers disabled or otherwise to feel comfortable there and use their services

Anybody who actually knows how the real world works rather than your silly little libertarian fantasy world knows that is BS because if that had worked there would never have been a need for the ADA in the first place.

> There is a botanical garden in my area that was built about 100 years ago. Not ADA compliant. They run the whole
> operation with community donations. They're in jeopardy of being shut down unless they tear up all the landscaping
> and completely redesign the whole thing to be ADA complaint.

You are an ideological self-serving liar. The ADA Title III - Public Accommodations says: "public accommodations must remove barriers in existing buildings where it is easy to do so without much difficulty or expense, given the public accommodation's resources."

As you have described it your botanical garden operating on a shoe-string budget of donations is not required to make the kinds of changes you have described.

The commenter who replied to you pretty much pointed out where you're wrong, so I'm not gonna waste my time. I'll add one bit that he missed, though; the relevant 8 pages are a subset of Title II's 33 pages. Have a nice day.

The rules are eight pages. However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages. Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector. On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

Okay, let's break that down:

The rules are eight pages.

Pretty clear. Rules = code. 8 pages of rules will be codified.

However, the details with respect to forbearance, the regulations from which we will not be taking action—that alone is 79 pages.

An additional 79 pages of rules that could have been codified won't be. Can they be later? Sure, whether they were in this document or not, they can always be written and voted on later.

Moreover, sprinkled throughout the document, there are uncodified rules — rules that won’t make it in the code of federal regulations that people will have to comply with in the private sector.

Oh, look, more rules they considered, but that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.

On top of that, there are things that aren’t going to be codified, such as the Internet Conduct Standard, where the FCC will essentially say that it has carte blanche to decide which service plans are legitimate and which are not, and the FCC sort of hints at what factors it might consider in making that determination.

Even more things they talked about that didn't make it into the 8 pages that will be codified.

For reference, to codify means To turn into law.

In short, it's 300+ pages of shit they discussed before arriving at the 8 page subsection of the existing Title II that will apply to internet services. We don't get to see the 8 pages of stuff that does apply, or the 300+ pages of discussion that does not, just yet; however, a reasonable person can probably guess which of the 33 pages of Title II might have made it into the applicable 8 pages.

That said, I wouldn't expect you to have that ability.

Actually, Title III of the ADA pretty much says they must let us bring in food. Space Center Houston is a "public accommodation." An allergy is "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities" (eating). They have to make reasonable accommodations to their policies. Since they do not offer any dairy free menu items in their food court, a reasonable accommodation would be to allow us to bring in a sandwich. The alternative is that they lose ALL the money I would spend in their food court.

Shit... now that I look more closely at this, I really should sue the Honolulu airport. When we went through there, they had all these signs saying that they don't serve people with food allergies. WTF? Of course, since it's an airport, you're kind stuck there without a lot of options. Anybody know any good civil rights lawyers?

Can you imagine if they had a sign that said "Sorry, no retards allowed."

Some people are seriously sensitive to Fluorescent bulb flicker and others are sensitive to the low CRI of the fluorescent bulbs typically purchased by offices or landlords; which make having CFL's, halogens or incandescent bulbs an ADA in some workplaces. Electronic ballasts elliminate flicker and save energy, I've noticed that the rooms that I've replaced burned out magnetic ballasts with electronics seem to get used more and the rooms with CRI bulbs 85 or higher get used more as well. Additionally the electronic ballasts seem to be able to light the bulbs longer.

I was at one time a Senior Engineer at Apple Computer Inc. - remember when Apple was a computer company? If you had no clue where the bug in new system software builds, that bug came to me or one of the other members of my small team of Debug Meisters.

I earned one hundred fifty grand in 2008, then resigned in protest from Applied Micro Circuits Corporation because they flatly refused to test my hardware RAID driver in the same configuration as the customers use it.

I owe a lot of money to a lot of people, so my far-wealthier colleagues often criticize me for buying hot pizza for homeless people.

A while back I was in a real bad part of Oldtown Portland, Oregon. An obviously mentally ill woman approached me in the darkness to ask for money. "Did you know there's a woman's shelter not far from here?"

"No."

"I will take you there." To the Salvation Army Female Emergency Shelter (S.A.F.E.S.). It's real bad for women to be homeless, they are often sexually assaulted.

I returned with two slices of hot pizza for her.

I've been homeless for a couple of years now, however I have been contributing to society through articles on my website, both on the topic of mental illness - I have Bipolar-Type Schizoaffective Disorder - as well as technical stuff.

I spent these last two years working diligently to find a job. However even if you don't want to actually read my site, have a quick look at it:

At the top of every single page on the site, are prominent links to Living with Schizoaffective Disorder and My Deepest Fear.

It happens quite a lot, that I'll have an interview scheduled, then the hiring company just disappears, or else they claim they offered the position to some other candidate, but then they openly repost it on the job boards, or all the recruiters approach me about the job that just got filled.

That's actually a gross violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The US Federal Equal Opportunity Commission would be happy to sue upon my behalf, but in the end I decided not to pursue any lawsuits.

Fuck 'Em If They Can't Take A Joke.

Happily I just scored a real good remote contract, so I am working out of my Mom's guest room, debugging some GPL C++ Linux code. I'd tell you what that is exactly but I decided I should leave it up to my clients.

They are quite astute coders but they are not C++ coders.

I've been doing some research. I could have charged them quite a lot more per hour than what I am presently earning.

But no, I don't need that money. When I get my first check in about a week, I will rent a single room in a shared house, then I will be happy as a clam.

And I will go back to buying hot pizza for the homeless.

Americans with Disabilities Act.

http://www.ada.gov/

Remember the ADA when coming up with your solution. If you use CAPTCHAs, make sure you provide one that has both audio and video. If you are using image links, make sure you support screen readers with the alt tag.

If people are posting documents make sure they are in an open format. Many municipalities use MS Office and will just post docx or xlsx files without thinking about it. I

>hobby
>not a business
>required to spend 100K

That, on its face, is a bullshit figure and I will spell out right now that you are lying.

Q. Are there any limitations on the ADA's barrier removal requirements for existing facilities?

A. Yes. Barrier removal need be accomplished only when it is "readily achievable" to do so.

Q. What does the term "readily achievable" mean?

A. It means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."

Q. Will businesses need to install elevators?

A. Businesses are not required to retrofit their facilities to install elevators unless such installation is readily achievable, which is unlikely in most cases.

Q. Must alternative steps be taken without regard to cost?

A. No, only readily achievable alternative steps must be undertaken.

http://www.ada.gov/q&aeng02.htm

Go parrot your nonsense elsewhere, kid.

--
BMO

He owned the building complex, and you are only required to have a legally mandated number of handicapped spots. Steve insured that there were more than the legally mandated number of spots available so that he was never in technical violation of the rules.

Here's the ADA requirements for parking spaces:

                http://www.ada.gov/adata1.htm [ada.gov]

Here's a more accessible interpretation, with a table indicating the number of spots required per number of total parking spaces:

                http://en.allexperts.com/q/Disability-Law-917/Handicapped-Parking.htm [allexperts.com]

He was perfectly within his rights, so long as there was not a sufficient number of other people gaming the system at the same time. I suggest you avoid trying to do the same thing, unless you are the property owner and the single largest tax payer in a given municipality, however.

You'll likely eventually win, unless you are a total dick, but the lawyer costs will exceed just paying the fine, since it isn't a moving violation and therefore will only cost you the fine.

Here: http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm

That's the statute.

Go down a bit. Apparently, the ADA made changes to Title 47, subchapters II and VI, which deal with telecommunications, common carriers, etc.

So, the ADA was a law that altered sections of the US Code. But you are quite right. It does so in Title V. I don't know how many more titles the ADA has. I stopped scrolling at Title V because looking at legal language makes me dizzy.

You'd have a point if the ADA only applied to corporations:

http://www.ada.gov/t3hilght.htm

"Who is Covered by Title III of the ADA

The title III regulation covers --

        Public accommodations (i.e., private entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to places of public accommodation),

        Commercial facilities, and

        Private entities that offer certain examinations and courses related to educational and occupational certification.

Places of public accommodation include over five million private establishments, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, convention centers, retail stores, shopping centers, dry cleaners, laundromats, pharmacies, doctors' offices, hospitals, museums, libraries, parks, zoos, amusement parks, private schools, day care centers, health spas, and bowling alleys.

Commercial facilities are nonresidential facilities, including office buildings, factories, and warehouses, whose operations affect commerce."

He owned the building complex, and you are only required to have a legally mandated number of handicapped spots. Steve insured that there were more than the legally mandated number of spots available so that he was never in technical violation of the rules.

Here's the ADA requirements for parking spaces:

        http://www.ada.gov/adata1.htm

Here's a more accessible interpretation, with a table indicating the number of spots required per number of total parking spaces:

        http://en.allexperts.com/q/Disability-Law-917/Handicapped-Parking.htm

He was perfectly within his rights, so long as there was not a sufficient number of other people gaming the system at the same time. I suggest you avoid trying to do the same thing, unless you are the property owner and the single largest tax payer in a given municipality, however.

You'll likely eventually win, unless you are a total dick, but the lawyer costs will exceed just paying the fine, since it isn't a moving violation and therefore will only cost you the fine.

-- Terry

No that's only offensive for a fraction of the 200 million Americans that speak English. I mean the fraction that is familiar with what perverts think of when they see the word Gimp.

Before Pulp Fiction, "gimp" was still offensive: it's a slur against anyone handicapped. I'm sure http://www.ada.gov/ uses their GIMP all the time for marketing. See what I did there?

If you don't like it, shop elsewhere.

"No colored people. If you don't like it, shop elsewhere." This obviously violates racial discrimination laws in the most of the developed world, as I understand it. Many countries ban privately owned business that serve the public from discriminating against customers not only on racial grounds but on disability grounds. In this case, I don't see how such a business would get away with banning a customer with a service snake under disability discrimination laws. The U.S. ADA appears to make no distinction between a dog and any "other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability".

Not unless you can point out where the ADA even mentions online gaming as a place where anti-cheating attempts need to be scaled back (ADA guide); and given that MS had no way of knowing about the autism, it would be incorrect to cry "discrimination".

(a) General Rule. No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.

. The list of things defined as public accomodations is extensive and seems to be extremely inclusive extending so as to encompass pretty much all social, commercial, and political venues. It hasn't yet been decided websites or online commercial activities - like XBox live - fall under that definition.

I found mention here of the following

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, has stated that a web site could qualify as a public accommodation. Specifically, the Court declared that "the owner or operator of a store, hotel, restaurant, ..., web site, or other facility (whether in physical space or in electronic space) that is open to the public cannot exclude disabled persons from entering the facility and, once in, from using the facility in the same way that the non-disabled do." Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 68 U.S.L.W. 3432 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2000) (No. 99-772)).

It will be soon in the US as well, the new ADA rules for websites go into affect March 15th 2011. link Of course the ADA website has most everything rules related in both HTML and PDF format so they obviously don't have a problem with PDF =)

Here is the DOJ page about the hearings and the official notice in the Federal Register.

This just isn't the truth. The ADA requires reasonable accommodations - solutions that make sense and are affordable.

NO DUMBFUCK! When you are sued due to a federal regulation you require a LAWYER and those are almost NEVER CHEAP

Not true at all, since 1994, there has been an ADA mediation program which doesn't require lawyers and is focused on reaching a workable means to increase compliance rather than punishment of non-compliance.

See the ADA FAQ at http://www.ada.gov/q%26aeng02.htm
Here are a few of the questions and answers:

Q. Are there any limitations on the ADA's barrier removal requirements for existing facilities?
A. Yes. Barrier removal need be accomplished only when it is "readily achievable" to do so.

Q. What does the term "readily achievable" mean?
A. It means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."

Q. What are examples of the types of modifications that would be readily achievable in most cases?
A. Examples include the simple ramping of a few steps, the installation of grab bars where only routine reinforcement of the wall is required, the lowering of telephones, and similar modest adjustments.

Q. Must alternative steps be taken without regard to cost?
A. No, only readily achievable alternative steps must be undertaken.
Q. Will businesses need to install elevators?
A. Businesses are not required to retrofit their facilities to install elevators unless such installation is readily achievable, which is unlikely in most cases.

Q. When barrier removal is not readily achievable, what kinds of alternative steps are required by the ADA?
A. Alternatives may include such measures as in-store assistance for removing articles from inaccessible shelves, home delivery of groceries, or coming to the door to receive or return dry cleaning.

The ADA is very well written and did not become a fundamentally outrageous burden on our economy. All it has done is improve access for people with disabilities and really, all of us.

If that was the case then it would have been an effective affirmative defense if brought-up in court.

Sorry, that's not the case. "I can't afford it" is not an affirmative defense when it comes to ADA violations.

What? It explicitly is just that! From the definitions in the legal statute governing commercial:

Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, factors to be considered include --

(1) The nature and cost of the action needed under this part;

(2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved in the action; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention measures; or the impact otherwise of the action upon the operation of the site;

(3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the site or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity;

(4) If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and

(5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any parent corporation or entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the parent corporation or entity.

In the situation you proposed it was either put a ramp up inexpensively and break the local laws, or not break the local laws but not having a ramp because it's too expensive to build one following the local ordinances. Given that situation a waiver would be appropriate and almost demanded by the freaking law.

"Undue burden" is either a particularly fantastic choice of words, or you know more about this area of law then you're letting on, because that's one of the relevant standards in ADA enforcement. If an accommodation would be an "undue burden" upon the business (defined as "significant difficulty or expense" in 28 C.F.R. 36.104, available at http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html#Anchor-36104), the accommodation is unreasonable and therefore not required.

Doesn't the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Preclude them from using that as a bar to employment? Or is ADA toothless when it come to mental illness?

Well, it's toothless insofar as all they have to do is say "We didn't feel like he would work in our company." or "He just wasn't what we were looking for."

Of course, the HR people would likely also be covered by ADA if they're stupid enough to tell someone that's why someone weren't hired.

Doesn't the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Preclude them from using that as a bar to employment? Or is ADA toothless when it come to mental illness?

it should be against the law to not hire someone for non-obvious medical conditions, such as someone with a history of cancer, or to fire someone because they've had a heart attack or are being treated for a mental disorder.

You can't fire someone for medical reasons, it's part of the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). Someone who has/had cancer or a heart attack is just as much protected as someone who is blind or in a wheelchair. There's case law to back this up where people have sued their (former) employers under ADA for mental & physical illnesses...

From the ADA Q&A site...

Q. Who is protected from employment discrimination?

A. Employment discrimination is prohibited against "qualified individuals with disabilities." This includes applicants for employment and employees. An individual is considered to have a "disability" if s/he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. Persons discriminated against because they have a known association or relationship with an individual with a disability also are protected.

The first part of the definition makes clear that the ADA applies to persons who have impairments and that these must substantially limit major life activities such as seeing, hearing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, learning, caring for oneself, and working. An individual with epilepsy, paralysis, HIV infection, AIDS, a substantial hearing or visual impairment, mental retardation, or a specific learning disability is covered, but an individual with a minor, nonchronic condition of short duration, such as a sprain, broken limb, or the flu, generally would not be covered.

The second part of the definition protecting individuals with a record of a disability would cover, for example, a person who has recovered from cancer or mental illness.

The third part of the definition protects individuals who are regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment, even though they may not have such an impairment. For example, this provision would protect a qualified individual with a severe facial disfigurement from being denied employment because an employer feared the "negative reactions" of customers or co-workers.

Simple & powerful enough...

It could be worse

ADA being the Americans with Disabilities Act. In a nutshell, all "public accomodations" (such as restaurants, movie theaters, etc.) must comply with certain architectural requirements that make them accessible to the physically disabled. While there's currently no provision for non-brick-and-morter public accomodations, I could certainly see that being added. Of course it would only impact the websites of businesses with a presence in the United States, but that's still a big pool. Note that this would almost surely not cover personal websites that aren't related to any commercial activity. So the guy who hacks together a page of photos for his extended family wouldn't be affected by this legislation.

You know this violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, right?

Talk to a manager at the store. Then, no matter what the response, complain to the Justice Department. Despite the Bush administration, they still do accomplish a lot of good work.

Many companies that do business in the United States of America are subject to regulations that forbid them from discriminating against people with disabilities; companies that have significant contracts with the United States Government are subject to the stricter guidelines of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Anything that discriminates so flagrantly against people with vision or cognitive disabilities may get companies in trouble with the law.

. . this would clearly be discriminatory against people missing their left legg. But that doesn't mean that I am some how liable financially or legally!

Actually, you are (if residing in the US). You might want to check out the Americans with Disabilities Act and see what's required for "Public Services," a category into which most businesses fall.

This is supposed to be fun? People buy this stuff? This must be the ADA version of Dance Dance Revolution.

-- AcquaCow