ADA Title III News & Insights

Some Courts Say That Owners Cannot Sue Their Architects and Consultants for Designing Noncompliant Facilities

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in Commercial Facilities, Lawsuits, Investigations & Settlements, Physical Accessibility, Reasonable Modifications

By Minh N. Vu

Owners of commercial facilities and developers of multifamily housing should take note of an alarming trend:  Some courts are not allowing owners and developers to sue their architects and consultants for designing facilities that do not comply Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Fair Housing Act (FHA) accessibility requirements.

The most recent case on this subject is Rolf Jensen & Assocs. v. Dist. Ct., 282 P.3d 743 (Nev. 2012).  The casino owner sued its ADA consultant under their contract and state law after the Justice Department required the owner to make more than $20 million in retrofits to comply with ADA requirements.  The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed the owner’s claims, finding that allowing these claims to move forward would frustrate the objectives of the ADA.  The court said that allowing an owner to “completely insulate itself” from liability for an ADA or FHA violation by contract or through state common law principles would diminish an owner’s incentive to ensure compliance.  The court emphasized that owners have a non-delegable duty to comply with these statutes that cannot be shifted to third parties.  Although the court did acknowledge that the ADA explicitly allows landlords and tenants to allocate responsibility for violations among themselves, it viewed this explicit exemption as further proof that there was no Congressional intent to allow such allocation between owners and architects/designers.

The Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reached the same conclusion in Equal Rights Ctr. v. Niles Bolton Assocs., 602 F.3d 597 (4th Cir. 2010).  The multifamily housing developer there sued the architect of 15 apartment communities which needed over $2.5 million in retrofits to comply with ADA and FHA requirements.  The Fourth Circuit dismissed all of the owner’s claims against the architects under the same theory that the Nevada Supreme Court adopted.  Federal district courts in Maryland, Mississippi and Tennessee have also dismissed claims by owners against their architects applying the same rationale.

While courts in many jurisdictions have yet to address this issue, property owners may want to rethink how they draft their contracts.  For example, alternative provisions that would require design professionals to share in the responsibility of a non-compliant design — as opposed to assuming all of it under an full indemnification provision — might give owners more options for recourse.  (The primary rational for rejecting the owners’ claims in the Rolf Jensen and Equal Rights Ctr. cases was the fact that enforcing the owners’ contractual rights would shift all responsibility for non-compliance to architects and/or consultants).

In addition to rethinking the contract, these disturbing court decisions also make clear that property owners cannot passively rely on their design professionals to get it right.  We often remind our clients that if all architects actually knew how to design to the federal accessibility standards, we would have very little work to do.  The level of understanding of federal accessibility requirements among design professionals varies greatly.  Thus, it is important for owners to be proactive about accessibility issues.  Designating a point person to oversee accessibility compliance for an entire project, asking the right questions to make sure accessibility is being considered, having plans reviewed by an independent and reputable accessibility specialist, and doing as-built accessibility inspections as soon as the project is completed are some of the ways to achieve this result.  Doing nothing on the front end may prove to be quite – unexpectedly – costly on the back end.

Court Says Reasonableness of Direct Threat Determinations Made “On-The-Spot” Must Be Viewed In Context, and, Yes, People Who Are Blind Can Play Paintball

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in Commercial Facilities, Lawsuits, Investigations & Settlements

By Minh N. Vu

A recent case decided by a federal court in Maryland illustrates the challenge that businesses sometimes face in having to make on-the-spot decisions about whether it is safe to allow a person with a disability to engage in an activity.  The activity at issue was paintball.  A paintball park operator refused to allow a group of blind individuals to play because of concerns that the blind players would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of the other players.  After a bench trial, the court concluded that the decision was reasonable and did not violate the ADA. The Court stressed that the reasonableness analysis must take into account the fact that the operator had to make an on-the spot decision.

What may come as surprise to some readers is that the court first made clear that blind individuals who have received adequate mobility training can play paintball just as safely as many sighted participants.  However, in this case, the blind players arrived late, precluding the operator from meaningfully assessing whether allowing them to play would constitute a direct threat.  In addition, the operator observed one plaintiff nearly walking into a post and another nearly walking off a deck.  The court stated that the operator had to make an “on-the spot, extemporaneous determination” about whether allowing the plaintiffs to play would create direct threat and the decision was reasonable under these circumstances.  The court stressed, however, that a policy of never allowing blind people to play paintball could violate the ADA.

Justice Department Continues Crackdown on Medical Facilities that Fail to Offer Auxiliary Aids and Services for Patients Who are Deaf

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in Auxiliary Aids and Services, Effective Communication, Legislative/Regulatory Actions, Uncategorized

By Chris Palamountain

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced in early April 2013 that it has reached five settlements in the past four months with health care providers (a hospital, 2 rehabilitation centers, an ear nose and throat practice, and a sports medicine center) concerning access to services for persons who are deaf.  The settlements provide insight (but not a definitive conclusion) into the auxiliary aids or services that the DOJ considers necessary to comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Each of the complaining parties are deaf and use American Sign Language (“ASL”) as their primary means of communication.  They filed complaints after health care providers denied their requests for ASL interpreters in the course of treatment at the providers’ expense.  For example, a hospital seeking admission of a man who was deaf contacted both rehabilitation centers.  After those centers failed to confirm that they would provide ASL interpreters, the man’s son filed complaints with the DOJ.  Similarly, the hospital patient claimed that she was unable to communicate adequately with hospital personnel during her treatment, so she had to use her minor daughter to interpret for her.  The complaints against the specialists involved patients who made requests for ASL interpreters prior to scheduled appointments, but the providers stated that it was not a provider’s responsibility to retain an interpreter, relying instead on written notes and gestures to communicate with the patient.

The settlement agreements require each provider to:

  • provide “appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including qualified interpreters, where necessary to ensure effective communication” unless an undue burden or a fundamental alteration would result;
  • make an affirmative and documented determination of what auxiliary aids or services are appropriate in consultation with any person with a disability using specific factors and a specific timeline (the particular factors and timing varies depending on the settlement);
  • perform a communications assessment, using a form attached to the settlement, as soon as practical and document the results in the patient’s chart;
  • post and maintain signs in the waiting area stating that the facility will provide qualified interpreters free of charge for patients, family members, and companions;
  • maintain a list of qualified interpreters or interpreter agencies or arrange for the services of qualified interpreters, and submit that list to the DOJ;
  • log each request for an auxiliary aid or service, including the time, date, requesting individual, the specific service requested, and the type of auxiliary aid or service provided;
  • hire an outside advocacy group to provide mandatory, DOJ-approved training on an annual basis to all employees, staff, and affiliated individuals on Title III, including training in the degrees of hearing impairment and the use of auxiliary aids and services;
  • submit written compliance reports; and,
  • submit to DOJ oversight of compliance with the settlement agreement for 3-year terms.

The settlement agreements also require that each provider pay the complaining parties damages ranging from $0 – $15,000, and the DOJ civil penalties ranging from $0 – $1,000.

Although most of the settlements explicitly acknowledge that accommodations are not required when they impose an undue burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the services provided, for the most part the settlements dodge the key question of what level of expense rises to the level of an undue burden.  Not surprisingly, the settlements demonstrate that whether or not a burden is undue may depend upon the size and nature of the public accommodation.

For example, the most detailed and onerous settlement duties are included in the hospital settlement, where the DOJ imposes a specific timeframe between the patient’s request for interpreter services and the hospital’s request for a third-party interpreter (15 minutes) and another timeframe for the actual provision of interpreter services (between 2-4 hours, depending on the circumstances), and includes examples of 16 specific medical and non-medical circumstances under which qualified interpreters must be provided.  This settlement also affirmatively prohibits the hospital from ever requiring or coercing a family member or companion from facilitating communications (which is consistent with the ADA regulations).  At the same time, the settlement expressly states that nothing in it “will require that an electronic device or equipment constituting an appropriate auxiliary aid be used when or where its use may interfere with medical or monitoring equipment or may otherwise constitute a threat” to the safety or care of the patient or others.  However, by refusing the define the limits of which accommodations are reasonable or constitute a threat to safety, the DOJ leaves providers with the unenviable task of making such determinations at each stage of the service delivery process.

The charges underlying these settlements are Center for Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine, Inc., (Sports Medicine Settlement); Dr. Paul S. Biedenbach & Northern Ohio Medical Specialists Healthcare, (NOMS Settlement); Gainesville Health and Rehab Center, DJ No. 202-79-245 (Gainesville Center Settlement); Manassas Health Care LLC, DJ No. 202-79-243 (Manassas Health Care Settlement); and, Monadnock Community Hospital, DJ No. 202-47-66(Monadnock Hospital Settlement).

Retailer Fights Back Against Serial ADA Plaintiff and Wins Trial Verdict

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in Lawsuits, Investigations & Settlements, Uncategorized

By Jon D. Meer, Myra B. Villamor, and Andrew C. Crane

Many businesses choose to settle frivolous “accessibility discrimination” lawsuits that serial plaintiffs bring under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and similar state laws, such as the California Disabled Persons Act (“CDPA”) and Unruh Act.  The temptation to settle is great because plaintiffs typically make settlement demands that are far lower than the cost of litigating a case.  However, some retailers have had enough of these suits and are fighting back.

Eddie Bauer LLC, a national retailer, likes to fight back.  The company has won summary judgment in several cases–many by the same plaintiffs and same attorneys at different store locations.  More recently, Eddie Bauer won a case at trial, and is helping to change the case law to be more favorable for businesses.  On March 25, 2013, in Chris Kohler v. Presidio International, Inc. and Eddie Bauer, et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Eddie Bauer, represented by Seyfarth Shaw’s very own Jon D. Meer and Myra B. Villamor, secured a favorable verdict on all claims against a serial litigant, Chris Kohler, and his counsel, Lynn Hubbard.

The plaintiff had alleged that he encountered a number of physical or architectural barriers that prevented him from enjoying full and equal access to an Eddie Bauer outlet store, in violation of the ADA, the CDPA, and the Unruh Act.  These alleged barriers included: (1) a checkout counter that was too high to accommodate a patron in a wheelchair, (2) a dressing room bench that was too long, (3) the absence of an International Symbol of Accessibility (“ISA”) sign at the store’s entrance, and (4) aisles that were cluttered with merchandise, impeding the plaintiff’s ability to navigate through the store.

District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez found in favor of Eddie Bauer on all claims and, in the process, made some significant rulings.  While they are not binding on any other district court judge, they do provide useful support for other defendants who want to fight these frivolous lawsuits.

Some highlights:

No ADA Violation Where an “Equivalent Facilitation” Is Provided.  The Court held that there is no violation of the ADA if places of public accommodation provide an “equivalent facilitation” that allows access.  Thus, for example, the Court rejected plaintiff’s claim that Eddie Bauer’s 60-inch dressing room bench violated the applicable ADA accessibility standards because  it was not exactly 48 inches long as specified in those standards.  The Court held that  the longer and wider bench provided at least “substantially equivalent” access to a 48-inch bench.

Similarly, the Court found that even if a check-out counter does not meet the 36-inch maximum height requirement under the ADA, there is no violation of the ADA or California accessibility statutes if a clipboard is made available as an equivalent facilitation.

No ADA Liability If Alleged Barriers Are Fixed Before Trial.  The Court found that there is no liability under the ADA if alleged barriers to access are remedied prior to trial, because the ADA provides for only injunctive relief.  Thus, the plaintiff’s claim that the store’s entrance did not have an ISA sign was rendered moot when Eddie Bauer subsequently affixed a sign to the entrance.  Thus Eddie Bauer could not incur liability under the ADA.

Moveable Displays Are Not Unlawful Barriers To Accessibility.  The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the aisles in the store were too narrow because there was “too much clothing on the floor.”  Finding that the store had a policy of maintaining 48-inch aisles and moving any merchandise upon request, the Court concluded the store met the applicable standard, and that there was no colorable ADA violation.  The Court also offered the common sense conclusion that “If clothing falls on the floor, it is easily moveable.”

Plaintiff Must Provide Specific Measurements to Establish a Violation of the ADA.  The plaintiff claimed that the store’s check-out counter did not meet a 36-inch maximum height requirement.  However, the Court held that, in order to establish a prima facie case of violation of the ADA, the plaintiff bears the burden of providing precise measurements of any alleged ADA violation.  Consequently, because the plaintiff could only provide estimates of the counter height, but failed to proffer any admissible evidence of the precise measurements of the counter, the plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof.

No Liability Under California’s Accessibility Statutes Unless Plaintiff Can Prove He Was Deterred/Prevented From Access or He Experienced “Difficulty, Discomfort, or Embarrassment.”  The plaintiff also sought statutory damages under state law, based on the CDPA and the Unruh Act.  The plaintiff, along with numerous claimants in other cases, argued that statutory damages must be awarded under state law if there is a violation of the accessibility rules, even if a violation has been remedied.

 In one of the first decisions to address the effect of the 2009 Construction Related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act (“CRAS”) amendments to California’s disability access laws, the Court held that there is no liability under the CDPA and Unruh Act, unless a plaintiff is either (1) deterred or prevented from accessing the place of public accommodation or (2) personally encounters a barrier and experiences “difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment.”

The Court found that the plaintiff could not meet his burden of proof that he was deterred from access to the store because he encountered no problem entering the store and making a purchase.  Further, the plaintiff testified he did not experience any difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment based on any of the alleged barriers.  Therefore, the Court found that CRAS precluded plaintiff from recovering damages under the California statutes.

***

The Kohler result illustrates how cases can fall apart when businesses commit the resources to litigate them on the merits.  Businesses might also be able to recover their fees for litigating such frivolous cases if they prevail, but as with all litigation, there are no guarantees and each case must be assessed based on its facts and circumstances.

Access Board to Present April 4 Webinar on Accessible Restaurants and Cafeterias

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in 2010 ADA Standards, Commercial Facilities, Physical Accessibility

Interested in a free primer or refresher on ADA Title III requirements to ensure your restaurant or cafeteria is accessible?  If so, tune in to the Access Board’s April 4 webinar on the topic.  For more information and registration, go to www.accessibilityonline.org.

Standing Up On Standing, Part II: North Carolina Court Permits Defendant’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees Against Serial Plaintiff

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in Lawsuits, Investigations & Settlements

By Chris Palamountain

Last year, we wrote about North Carolina federal courts’ dismissals of ADA Title III claims filed by serial litigant Denise Payne, an individual with cerebral palsy and the co-founder of the National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc.  Those dismissals were based on findings that Payne lacked standing to sue.  You can read our prior blog on Ms. Payne’s North Carolina cases here.

Undeterred by repeated decisions against her, Ms. Payne continued to litigate suits against North Carolina businesses based upon her limited visits, bare statements of “some day” intentions to return to those facilities in the future, and a claimed intent to “establish[] a local chapter” of National Alliance for Accessibility, Inc.”  See, e.g., Denise Payne v. AAC Investments, Inc., Case No. 5:12-CV-264-F (E.D.N.C.) (order dated March 4, 2013).  This Court, like so many others before, found that these allegations were insufficient to satisfy Payne’s burden to establish standing.

However, the Court in AAC Investments added a new twist to Payne’s litigation strategy in North Carolina by allowing the defendant to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs against Payne.  Noting that Payne and the National Alliance “were aware when they filed this action of the long line of cases holding that these exact same plaintiffs lack standing to bring an ADA lawsuit against a premises located in North Carolina,” the Court found that the action was “frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.”  Id. at 5-6.  Having determined that the defendant was entitled to some award of fees, the Court directed the defendant to file supporting proof “sufficient for this court to determine a reasonable award.”  Id. at 6.

Although it remains to be seen how large of a fee award the Court will deem reasonable in this particular case, the decision certainly sends a message to ADA Title III plaintiffs with questionable standing that there may be better venues for their future lawsuits.

Digital Accessibility Updates from CSUN 2013: 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in Uncategorized

By Kristina M. Launey

In the past few years, the barriers faced by people who are blind, deaf, or other disabilities in using websites and other emerging technologies has increasingly become the focus of  new laws, regulatory initiatives, and lawsuits.  The annual CSUN conference is the largest, and considered the most important, annual gathering of thought leaders and advocates in the field of digital accessibility.  We therefore had to attend.  We thought you might be interested about what we learned at last week’s conference.

Attendees came from around the world, and represented the wide diversity of the digital accessibility community, from developers teaching and learning best practices to users learning about the newest technologies.  The substantive sessions were numerous and varied, and the agenda packed.  As a small sample, the sessions included the following:

- developments in assistive technology

- WCAG compliance and best practices

- choosing an automated accessibility testing tool

- sophisticated web coding sessions by web developers

- accessible apps

- using technology and new media for employment

- presentations by companies about how they integrated accessibility into all aspects of corporate culture, including their web presence

- announcements by WebAIM and Deque about new products to improve digital accessibility

- updates on the state of laws, litigation, and settlements on the topic of digital accessibility by leading accessibility civil rights attorneys Lainey Feingold and Linda Dardarian

CSUN was also a place to NETWORK – in person and electronically.  We were so impressed how every conference attendee was open, welcoming, and eager to share their experiences in the web accessibility area.  Although many attendees were business competitors, at the conference they were all collaborators, sharing new ideas and best practices.  Many attendees took notes of sessions they attended, blogged (such as Paul Schantz and George Zamfir about them, and tweeted them – all before we were able to walk to the next session!  There was some fanfare as well, such as an appearance at the Deque-hosted party by blind surfer Derek Rabelo, about whom a movie is soon to be released.

Since this blog is an accessibility law resource, we should talk a bit more about the legal update session Lainey Feingold and Linda Dardarian presented to a standing-room only crowd.  Clearly, it is a hot topic.  They discussed applicable U.S. (Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Air Carrier Access Act, Communications and Video Accessibility Act) and international accessibility laws (such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities [link to www.un.org/accessibility] and the Accessability for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, as well as the status of pending Department of Justice regulations to implement a standard for accessible websites for private and public entities under the ADA.  (See our blog post on that topic here.)  They highlighted significant digital accessibility cases from 2012, including in the areas of website accessibility, e-reader accessibility, and reading rights, as well as significant 2012 settlements.  We’ve blogged about some of these in the past (see here and here, and will continue to bring you updates on these laws, regulations, cases, and settlements in coming weeks and as more news develops.

We thank CSUN 2013 for the hospitality and look forward to CSUN 2014!

Justice Department Requires Treatment Facilities to Adopt Policies For Accommodating Persons with HIV

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in Department of Justice, Lawsuits, Investigations & Settlements

By Chris Palamountain

In the past three weeks, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced settlements with three different health-service providers (of dentistry, pain management, eating-disorder treatment, and addiction treatment) concerning access to services for persons with HIV.  The DOJ pursued each settlement under its Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative, designed to enforce health care providers’ and facilities’ compliance with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The Barrier-Free Health Care Initiative involves a partnership between the DOJ and 40 different U.S. Attorneys’ offices across the nation.  These partnerships significantly expand the DOJ’s ability to leverage its ADA enforcement activity.

Each of the underlying charges involve a health care provider’s alleged refusal to treat a patient with HIV under the same conditions that other patients were served.  For example, the Virginia dentist agreed to treat the complainant who had HIV, but required that he schedule future visits for the last appointment of the day.  Similarly, the pain center accepted a referral and made an appointment for the HIV-infected complainant, but the treating physician declined to treat the patient after discussing her back pain and prescription history.  The eating-disorder treatment center put the complainant on a waiting list for services, but then further delayed admitting her to the program while a payment agreement was worked out.  There was conflicting evidence of whether or not the patient’s mere status as an HIV-infected individual, as opposed to more specific concerns about the facility’s ability to provide medically-appropriate care, was the reason for the delay.  Moreover, at one point the complainant was told she could join the program so long as she traveled to a hospital for blood draws.  Ultimately, the complainant was offered “immediate admission” to the program without the hospital blood draw requirement.  She declined then filed her charge.

The settlement agreements require each provider to:

  • Prepare a DOJ-approved policy stating that the provider does not discriminate in the provision of services to persons with disabilities, including persons who have HIV;
  • Post the approved policy in the facility waiting area and on the provider’s webpage;
  • Provide DOJ-approved training to all employees on Title III, including training about HIV discrimination and the ADA;
  • Document compliance; and,
  • Submit to DOJ oversight of compliance with the settlement agreement for terms ranging between 3 and 4 years.

The settlement agreements also require that each provider pay the complaining parties damages ranging from $7,000 – $115,000, and civil penalties to the DOJ ranging from $3,000 – $25,000.

These settlements dodge the unnerving question of how to distinguish between a legitimate treatment decision and an unlawful failure to accommodate.  As noted in the “Findings” section of the eating-disorders treatment center settlement, the staff believed that the complainant “would receive more appropriate care in an in-patient facility due to her HIV.”  The settlement agreement does not explain if or how the DOJ determined that the care provider’s conclusion was pretextual and that appropriate care could be provided on an outpatient basis.  Providers making treatment decisions regarding HIV patients should, if those decisions vary from how patients without HIV are typically treated, think carefully about any medical basis for such variations.

The charges underlying these settlements are Woodlawn Family Dentistry, DJ No. 202-79-262 (Woodlawn Settlement); Castlewood Treatment Center, LLC, DJ No. 202-42-139 (Castlewood Settlement); Fayetteville Pain Center, DJ No. 202-54-141 (Pain Center Settlement); and, Glenbeigh, DJ No. 202-57-164 (Glenbeigh Settlement).

Justice Department Obtains Civil Penalties and Retrofits From Three Manhattan Rosa Mexicano Restaurants for Alleged ADA Violations.

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in Barrier Removal, Department of Justice, Lawsuits, Investigations & Settlements

By Minh N. Vu

The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ) and the owners of the Rosa Mexicano restaurants at Lincoln Center, Union Square, and First Avenue recently entered into a consent decree that resolves an enforcement suit filed in October 2012.  The DOJ alleged that the restaurants were not physically accessible to individuals with disabilities, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  The consent decree requires the restaurants to make a number of  physical changes to their public spaces, including the creation of a new accessible unisex restroom at the First Avenue location, and, if feasible, the creation of an accessible entrance at the Union Square location.  In addition, the restaurant owners will have to pay $30,000 in civil penalties to the United States Government.

The lawsuit and consent decree appear to have resulted from a review of many Manhattan restaurants for compliance with Title III of the ADA conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO). The USAO is a part of the DOJ.  Under Title III of the ADA, the DOJ is authorized to undertake these compliance reviews even if no one has complained about or has been injured by any violations.  The restaurants that were a part of this compliance review received a lengthy questionnaire about the accessibility of their public spaces, and their policies and procedures for accommodating guests with disabilities.  The USAO also inspected the restaurants.

Restaurant spaces, particularly those in Manhattan, can present serious accessibility challenges because many are in small spaces in older pre-ADA buildings.  Restauranteurs should be aware that restaurants in spaces constructed prior to the ADA’s enactment are, at a minimum, required to remove barriers to access if the removal is readily achievable.  The most common issues we see in restaurants are a lack of (1) of accessible tables that have the appropriate height and space underneath to allow a wheelchair to pull under; (2) 36” wide accessible routes inside the restaurant connecting accessible features; (3) lowered accessible seating at the bar; and (4) restrooms that are wheelchair accessible.  Some restaurants have wheelchair accessible restrooms but make them inaccessible by putting furniture and other items into required maneuvering spaces.

The Manhattan restaurant compliance review is the latest of several broad ADA Title III initiatives the USAO has spearheaded.  In the past ten years, the USAO has conducted compliance reviews of a number of Manhattan theatres as well as dozens of hotels located in the Times Square area.  Each of these initiatives resulted in businesses agreeing to make accessibility changes in agreements with the USAO.

Justice Department’s Disability Rights Section Gets a New Chief

By Seyfarth Shaw LLP on Posted in Department of Justice

After a long search, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department yesterday announced its new Chief of the Disability Rights Section (DRS), Rebecca Bond.  Among other things, DRS is responsible for enforcing and issuing regulations under Title III of the ADA and enforcing the law.   Ms. Bond was a Trial Attorney and a Deputy Chief of the Division’s Housing and Civil Enforcement Section (HCE) for more than twelve years prior to being selected to lead DRS.  HCE is responsible for enforcing a number of statutes, including the Fair Housing Act.

With a number of ADA Title III regulations in the pipeline (e.g., requirements for accessible websites, medical and other equipment, beds in transient lodging, and other furniture),  Ms. Bond will have a many important projects to oversee.

We congratulate Ms. Bond on her new post and look forward to working with her and her team.