russoloco wrote:Hi, new hear and still trying to wade through the wealth of information. I do civil engineering here in california and as far as I know you do not have to be ADA compliant if you have less that 15 employees or are a private club. There are also "readily achievable" provisions which might apply in this case. Readily achievable meaning "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."
WOops - I don't know how this slipped by me - Russ, you are mixing apples and oranges here.
What you speak of has to do with accessibility for workers - what I speak of is accessibility for the public to do business with you.
So you're right - for your workers that desk doesn't have to be accessibile - as long as it could become accessible should someone disabled wish to go to work for you.
But these do not apply to commercial ventures open to the public.
You're correct about private clubs - but I don't see a commercial venture meeting that requirement.
This regarding private clubs direct from the laws enacted in 1990:
But this regarding commercial ventures:SEC. 307. EXEMPTIONS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.
The provisions of this title shall not apply to private clubs or establishments exempted from coverage under title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000-a(e)) or to religious organizations or entities
controlled by religious organizations, including places of worship.
As you can see - any new construction has to meet the criteria - I say this because in new construction nothing is considered to be "structurally impracticable" as determined by the statute (been there seen that done it - we just underwent an extensive review by the dept of justice on a 3/4 billion dollar project - and seeing as cost is not a valid excuse - nothing is).SEC. 303. NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ALTERATIONS IN PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS AND COMMERCIAL FACILITIES.
(a) Application of Term.--Except as provided in subsection (b), as applied to public accommodations and commercial facilities, discrimination for purposes of section 302(a) includes--
(1) a failure to design and construct facilities for first occupancylater than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, except where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements of such subsection in accordance with standards set forth or incorporated by reference in regulations issued under this title; and
(2) with respect to a facility or part thereof that is altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of an establishment in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or part thereof, a failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible,
the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. Where the entity is undertaking an alteration that affects or could affect usability of or access to an area of the facility containing a primary function, the entity shall also make the alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities where such alterations to the path of travel or the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope (as determined under criteria established by the Attorney General).
In addition - although some relief is granted to existing facilities for complete compliance - none is granted for new work at those facilities - and they have to prove a reasonable effort to comply in entirety.
Therefor - although an elevator might be required in some facilities in new construction - an existing building can get away with "equivilent facilities" provided on the ground level.
It would be worthwhile for you to spend some time with the statute itself before giving someone advice that might well cost them problems down the road.
Even the link that you give supports my statements if you read it carefully.
Sincerely,
Rod