Myths and Facts about the ADA

Editor: You're probably aware of the ongoing efforts to overturn the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The most frequent reason I hear from proponents of this action is that it's just too expensive - too many lawsuits, expensive settlements, implausible definitions of "disability", etc. The arguments sounded hollow, but I had no facts with which to counter them. So I was really excited to see this list of ADA facts and myths. Our thanks to the Advocacy Support League and Diane Edge for this great list.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MYTH: ADA suits are flooding the courts.
FACT: The ADA has resulted in a surprisingly small number of lawsuits -- only about 650 nationwide in five years. That's tiny compared to the 6 million businesses; 666,000 public and private employers; and 80,000 units of state and local government that must comply.

MYTH: The ADA is rigid and requires businesses to spend lots of money to make their existing facilities accessible.
FACT: The ADA is based on common sense. It recognizes that altering existing structures is more costly than making new construction accessible. The law only requires that public accommodations (e.g. stores, banks, hotels, and restaurants) remove architectural barriers in existing facilities when it is "readily achievable", i.e., it can be done "without much difficulty or expense." Inexpensive, easy steps to take include ramping one step; installing a bathroom grab bar; lowering a paper towel dispenser; rearranging furniture; installing offset hinges to widen a doorway; or painting new lines to create an accessible parking space.

MYTH: The government thinks everything is readily achievable.
FACT: Not true. Often it may not be readily achievable to remove a barrier -- especially in older structures. Let's say a small business is located above ground. Installing an elevator would not, most likely, be readily achievable -- and there may not be enough room to build a ramp -- or the business may not be profitable enough to build a ramp. In these circumstances, the ADA would allow a business to simply provide curbside service to persons with disabilities.

MYTH: The ADA requires businesses to remove barriers overnight.
FACT: Businesses are only required to do what is readily achievable at that time. A small business may find that installing a ramp is not readily achievable this year, but if profits improve it will be readily achievable next year. Businesses are encouraged to evaluate their facilities and develop a long-term plan for barrier removal that is commensurate with their resources.

MYTH: Restaurants must provide menus in Braille.
FACT: Not true. Waiters can read the menu to blind customers.

MYTH: The ADA requires extensive renovation of all state and local government buildings to make them accessible.
FACT: The ADA requires all government programs, not all government buildings, to be accessible. "Program accessibility" is a very flexible requirement and does not require a local government to do anything that would result in an undue financial or administrative burden. Local governments have been subject to this requirement for many years under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Not every building, nor each part of every building needs to be accessible. Structural modifications are required only when there is no alternative available for providing program access. Let's say a town library has an inaccessible second floor. No elevator is needed if it provides "program accessibility" for persons using wheelchairs by having staff retrieve books.

MYTH: Sign language Interpreters are required everywhere.
FACT: The ADA only requires that effective communication not exclude people with disabilities -- which in many situations means providing written materials or exchanging notes. The Deaf person may not understand sign language and need another effective method, such as CART (computer aided real time translation). If the Deaf person does not understand written English and requests a qualified interpreter, then this would be considered a reasonable request. The law does not require any measure that would cause an undue financial or administrative burden. However, the overall financial resources of the provider must be taken into consideration as well as all tax incentives that are used to offset the costs of an Interpreter. In addition, if it could be proven that providing a Qualified Interpreter would create economic hardship, the provider is still obligated to provide an equally effective alternative. The risks of non-compliance includes fines up to $55,000 for the first offense.

MYTH: The ADA forces business and government to spend lots of money hiring unqualified people.
FACT: No unqualified job applicant or employee with a disability can claim employment discrimination under the ADA. Employees must meet all the requirements of the job and perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. No accommodation must be provided if it would result in an undue hardship on the employer.

MYTH: Accommodating workers with disabilities costs too much.
FACT: Reasonable accommodation is usually far less expensive than many people think. In most cases, an appropriate reasonable accommodation can be made without difficulty and at little or no cost. A recent study commissioned by Sears indicates that of the 436 reasonable accommodations provided by the company between 1978 and 1992, 69% cost nothing, 28% cost less than $1,000, and only 3% cost more than $1,000.

MYTH: The government is no help when it comes to paying for accessibility.
FACT: Not so. Federal tax incentives are available to help meet the cost of ADA compliance.

MYTH: Businesses must pay large fines when they violate the ADA.
FACT: Courts may levy civil penalties only in cases brought by the Justice Department, not private litigants. The Department only seeks such penalties when the violation is substantial and the business has shown bad faith in failing to comply. Bad faith can take many forms, including hostile acts against people with disabilities, a long-term failure even to inquire into what the ADA requires, or sustained resistance to voluntary compliance. The Department also considers a business' size and resources in determining whether civil penalties are appropriate. Civil penalties may not be assessed in cases against state or local governments or employers.

MYTH: The Justice Department sues first and asks questions later.
FACT: The primary goal of the Department's enforcement program is to increase voluntary compliance through technical assistance and negotiation. Under existing rules, the Department may not file a lawsuit unless it has first tried to settle the dispute through negotiations -- which is why most every complaint settles.

MYTH: The Justice Department never files suits.
FACT: The Department has been party to 20 suits under the ADA. Although it tries extensively to promote voluntary compliance, the Department will take legal action when entities continue to resist complying with the law.

MYTH: Many ADA cases involve frivolous issues.
FACT: The Justice Department's enforcement of the ADA has been fair and rooted in common sense. The overwhelming majority of the complaints received by the Justice Department have merit. Our focus is on fundamental issues related to access to goods and services that are basic to people's lives. We have avoided pursuing fringe and frivolous issues and will continue to do so.

MYTH: Everyone claims to be covered under the ADA.
FACT: The definition of "individual with a disability" is fraught with conditions and must be applied on a case-by-case basis.

MYTH: The ADA Title III does not apply to small medical or businesses offices with less than 15 people working there.
FACT: Title III of the ADA is not limited in enforcement by the number of the employees working for any particular office, whether it be a medical, dental, legal or business. Compliance must be ensured so that equal access is applied to all disabled persons. A small business may produce a sizable overhead profit, which would not jeopardize the financial stability of the service provider and therefore access to goods and services can not be discriminated against. A small "Mom & Pop" store with very limited resources would probably find some difficulty in providing some access but that should not limit them to obtaining a reasonable alternative. A medical office that perhaps was serving only a handful of patients and money was not exchanged but bartered goods was the common currency would find it difficult to comply with the ADA. There are very few situations were this type of application would be found.

For more information: ADA 1 800 514 0301 voice / 1 800 514 0383 tty
compliments of Advocacy Support League, advocacy2002@yahoo.com
for informational purposes only- not to be construed as legal advice.