NEW YORK, Aug 8 (Reuters) – A deaf man has filed a complaint alleging a nudist organization in upstate New York violated federal law by refusing to provide him with a sign-language interpreter at an annual festival.

Tom Willard, 53, of Rochester, said in a complaint filed with the U.S. Justice Department that Empire Haven Nudist Park violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by repeatedly refusing his requests for an interpreter so he could attend workshops during the week-long festival.

“I am fed up with being turned away every time I try to do something, by idiots who somehow feel the ADA does not apply to them,” Willard wrote in the complaint.

The ADA, which took effect in 1990, requires businesses and non-profit groups to provide “auxiliary aids and services,” including interpreters, at no additional cost to an individual. First-time violations can result in fines of up to $55,000.

Willard said in an interview that in 2009 he approached Morley Schloss, a board member of the Naturist Society, which organized the festival. Schloss told Willard to hire his own interpreter and said the interpreter would not have to pay entry fees for the event, Willard said. On Aug. 2 — the day this year’s festival began — Willard said Schloss told him his group would need three days notice to provide the service.

“The interpreter I located was ready and able to do the job, so why a three-day waiting period, as if I were buying a gun or something,” Willard said.

Willard said he has no intention of suing the nudist park, and he’s simply trying to raise awareness about groups that ignore ADA requirements. He said he is also filing a complaint against a local comedy club that refused to provide him with an interpreter.

“I hate that I have to go through these experiences and subject myself to ridicule and derision, but the alternative is to stay home and never try to do anything in the world,” Willard said.

Michael Schwartz, the director of Syracuse University College of Law’s disability rights clinic, who is deaf and has known Willard for two decades, said businesses often ignore their responsibilities under the ADA because it can be cheaper not to comply.

“Because of the cost (of interpreters), many places choose to say ‘no’ even though it violates the ADA because they are making a calculated choice that they’ll get away with it,” Schwartz wrote in an e-mail.

A spokeswoman for Empire Haven, which is in the Finger Lakes region, was not available for comment, and Schloss did not return multiple requests for comment.

But in an e-mail provided by Willard, Schloss said he had only heard about the complaint when a reporter called him last week.

“I responded promptly as soon as I was made aware of [Willard's] request,” Schloss wrote in the e-mail. “We have always welcomed deaf people at Naturist events.”

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner)

You can get the original link: [Thompson Reuters]

SAN DIEGO –(Business Wire)–
In a case that reaffirms the right to safe public access for the physically disabled, Casey Gerry announced today that a $1.25 million out-of-court settlement has been reached in a lawsuit involving the country’s longest survivor of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) – a disease in which victims progressively lose muscle control.

Defendants Troon Golf, LLC and The Crosby National Golf Club, LLC agreed to pay more than $1.1 million to Northridge, Calif. resident Marilyn Cooper, 67. The rest of the settlement was paid by Summers/Murphy & Partners, Inc., a landscape architect and Masson and Associates, Inc., an engineering firm.

According to attorney Robert J. Francavilla, a partner with Casey Gerry, his client Marilyn Cooper, who has had ALS – also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease – for 36 years, suffered serious injuries after a fall at the exclusive Crosby Estates’ Sports Center in Rancho Santa Fe, just north of San Diego. “While driving her motorized wheelchair toward a family reunion celebration, she toppled down a two-step stairway that blended into the background and created an illusion of a flat surface,” Francavilla said. “The change in elevation lacked signage, visual cues and had rails, and as a result she was unable to see the steps.” To that end, “our legal team was able to prove that the defendants clearly chose aesthetics over safety, and violated the California Building Code and ADA requirements, as well as basic common sense in the design and management of the facility, which serves Crosby Estates, a high end residential community.”

Francavilla said he was able to establish both ADA and building code violations in the design of the facility, as well as demonstrate absence of handicapped access. “What the defendants claimed was adequate handicapped access was actually a dirt path, much like many paths meandering through the complex and clearly not built or marked according to ADA requirements.”

Cooper broke her hip in the fall, and required multiple surgeries to repair her injuries – significantly impacting her already reduced mobility, Francavilla said. The settlement funds will cover medical care and expenses as well as compensate Cooper for the effect the incident will have on her quality of life.

The settlement was reached after a full-day mediation conducted by Thomas Sharkey of Judicate West.
Francavilla says he hopes this settlement will compel facilities operators, architects and designers to place high importance on safe access for the handicapped. According to ADA regulations, “stairs must be clearly visible, and handicap ramps should be very prominently marked and integrated into all buildings frequented by the public.”

Original link: [TMC news]

CASp, the Certified Access Specialist Program offers a variety of benefits to businesses that get a CASp certification.  The advantages can be further gleamed from the California Chamber of Commerce website [link: Advantages of CASp for businesses].  The main advantages of CASp certification are many (including a 90 day stay and a limit of $4k per effected violation per visit).  Yet because CASp is California law and the ADA is Federal law, many business owners we’ve talked with are concerned about the effectiveness of SB1608. Business owners concerned about Federal Court sGuits often ask:

“Is CASp worth getting?”

A recent court case provides a real life example of this issue.  A business which had CASp certification was sued in Federal Court.  Now, Federal judges do not have to honor the California law, for instance, they do not have to  grant the 90 day stay.  This judge chose not to.

So, is CASp worth it?

Keep in mind that the differences between Federal and State court for ADA lawsuits are many.  We can’t go over these things exhaustively but we will outline the general principles at this current time.  Keep in mind that your case is unique and if you are under a lawsuit you must consult an attorney, don’t rely on this post for advice — this article is covering a topic.  We are not giving legal advice.

If you are sued in Federal Court, you have the possibility of fixing the issue in question in order to make the lawsuit go away.  Also, if you offer to settle and the plaintiff attorney refuses the settlement and you fix the issue, you may not have to pay for their attorneys fees (the judge may waive those damages).

In California Court, you fixing the issue in question doesn’t make the issue go away.  Violations valid at the time of the encounter remain violations for which damages under the Unruh Act automatically entitle the plaintiff party $4k.  Furthermore, the Unruh Act also specifies that attorneys fees will be paid.

So while CASp can’t provide coverage into areas of Federal law, it does provide some stronger incentives for plaintiffs to sue a CASp business under Federal Court.  If the plaintiff takes you to California court, CASp goes into effect, and you can go straight to arbitration.  However, they take you to Federal Court, you may still get arbitration… if you don’t, your fighting chances are better — you can STILL fix the issue in question and win the suit that way… an option we are told, is not available in California Court.

So overall, in answering the question above, the answer is:

YES!

Without CASp, a savvy plaintiff will take you to California Court, in which you will pay the same $4k plus attorney’s fees (potentially tens of thousands of dollars). With CASp you either pay $4k at most, or you can go to Federal court and have a chance at making the issue go away. Get CASp now to cover yourself!

Any questions or concerns?  Call us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@ytaccess.com.

This is the fifth time.

A business owner went to one of our seminars about six months ago. Saw our presentation on ADA compliance. Heard about

1. the gap between the coverage of the California Building Code and the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act,
2. learned that in the California Civil Code Section 52 and 54 he was liable for 4k worth of damages minimum of affected violations of the ADA

Of course when asked if he was interested in getting our help, he said no. He went back to his store, fixed a few items immediately that he learned from our presentation… and then was several months later sued for 80 thousand dollars worth of damages. He then went and hired us.

Another one of our clients heard our seminar, decided to hire us and then upon having a consultation and an inspection paid for our services. In following up with this client, when asked if they were going to look through the report and start to fix issues they said “No. We don’t need to. We have the report.”

I don’t know what else to say. We have started working with contractors to try and offer inspections and fixes — but in general most of our clients only want us to do the report. This is okay but reports are useless unless you also fix the actual issues! Getting sued is the worst case scenario — most disabled visitors simply won’t go to your store if they can’t get in. The only ones who sue are either extremely frustrated or looking for money.

It’s so unfortunate that it takes a lawsuit to get a perfectly good business to comply, but is that what it takes? Personally I would like to see businesses hire us and let us help them find effective ways to comply. Suing a business doesn’t help that business in any way. In fact, it’s an incredibly hurtful process that doesn’t leave the business in better shape before it was sued.

So avoid lawsuits! It’s many of the very simple things that can get a business in trouble. Most of our clients that have been sued have been sued over parking paint and signage. How expensive is that? Now, maybe not everything can be fixed right away, (like signage or parking paint) but most things can be taken care of eventually. If you can only afford $100 a month for accessibility, or even $50 by all means, budget it! Get it done! Also, look for ADA experts who can tell you what needs to be done and how to remediate that violation so you ARE accessible. It’s painful to see businesses that have done work trying to become accessible and getting it so wrong.

I don’t know what else we can do. We give free seminars, and publish free information… I guess that’s really all we can do.

We are working on putting one of our older education seminars online. In the meantime, stay tuned. I am a little swamped with work so I haven’t had time to write too much on here, but I do have some more updates planned.

In the mean while, here’s an older website about some factoids about the access lawsuit situation in California (which is on the rise, by the by). The website is called ADA Crisis. It’s full of interesting facts, like “Did you know, at least 42% of the ADA/accessibility lawsuits in the U.S. are filed in California?”

Anyway, as always, our contact information if you have any questions: 866 982 3212 and help@ytaccess.com.

Re-posted from an attorney who has published an article on how to deal with letters from attorneys.

If you get a demand letter like this for ADA compliance, please, please PLEASE follow this advice. We tell business owners to use an attorney to talk to another attorney but unfortunately only half the time do they listen.

Here’s the article.

Just before leaving the office last night I got a call from Greg, of Greg’s Quality Plumbing. Greg does seem, on the phone anyway, to be a quality plumber: a nice guy running a six employee shop for new construction and homeowners. Unfortunately one of Greg’s employees made a mistake, overtightening a compression nut on the toilet water supply line in a very expensive house insured by BigState Casualty Insurance Company. The nut eventually fractured,over Christmas vacation with the family out of town, and the water flowed for days. BigState paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to rehabilitate the waterlogged house, and wants its money back. From Greg’s Quality Plumbing.

And so Greg got my letter, and Greg picked up the phone to sort this all out, and to set me straight. As I said, I have no doubt Greg is a quality plumber but Greg is an absolute amateur when it comes to dealing with sharks in the water. He made a number of serious mistakes, feeding me information about his business, the employee who did the work, the general contractor who built the house and will be cross-claiming against Greg in the coming lawsuit, and Greg’s business assets. All while trying to set me straight.

In the end, Greg did not set me straight. What he accomplished was to give me information I will use against him at his deposition and at trial. He kneecapped the defense attorney his insurance company will retain, an attorney who won’t even hear about the dispute between BigState and Greg’s Quality Plumbing for several months. I almost feel sorry for Greg, who came into the conversation with high hopes that he would frighten me off or convince me that I have no case against him. All that he did was convince me to write this post, as friendly advice to small businessmen on what to do when they get “the letter”.

You can get the complete article at popehat. Linked from Overlawyered.

Remember, like any kind of compliance or any kind of system, before you get in the ring with an expert, get your own expert.

866 982 3212 or help@ytaccess.com

I used to work largely doing web development. I didn’t design the look of websites, I built them — from the ground up. I made sure the technical back end worked properly.  In fact I still do it, but mostly for YTA.

What’s interesting about working with programmers and other free lance technicians much holds true for many architects and contractors. While construction and design is different from web development, there’s a similar mentality as both are a kind of engineering.

Sometimes your independent contractor will get a request from a prospective client to do something new. They would know enough that this particular thing could be done — but not know how. Nonetheless they would lie and bullshit and agree to do everything. The general mentality is to go home and spend the next 72 hours agonizing over a book trying to learn how to do what it is you’ve requested of them. The funny part about this is that often these free lance consultants would charge you a ton of money and quote you a huge amount of time. So not only do they want to have time to get it right, they also want to charge you for making them learn something new.

With this in mind I would like to introduce to you the California Division of State Architect‘s access compliance manual.

While this manual consists of largely technical information, such as occupancy type, and a re-printing of what is otherwise in the California Building Code, it does include some helpful dimensions on many of the specific measurements we perform. The application of those measurements and their types may be a little confusing.

This code reference, however, isn’t completely up to date. Included in the checklist is a regulatory list of applicable dimensions and requirements. It’s up to the consultant to decide if they apply. The issue with this checklist though, is that it doesn’t include the latest ADA 2010 — only the older ADA of 1992.

Most likely, a construction or design expert wouldn’t turn to the DSA, as the DSA is a state entity. The issue for accessibility in CA revolves around they would probably buy a access manual combo, such as CAARM or CalDag. I don’t know of a more recent CAARM, but if you look at the description, it’s applicable for the building code of 2001. For CalDag, the building code it references is the building code of 2008, not the latest California Code of 2010.

If this construction expert was savvy enough to recognize this outdated code, he would have to then cross-reference this book with the California building code, something he would have to do for the ADA 2010.

To complicate things further, if your building had not been altered since say, 2002, then the building code of 2001 may actually apply — but the ADA 2010 also applies, meaning he would have to cross-reference texts anyway.

In either case, before you hire anyone for your ADA needs, if you have the time, I would urge you to look at the Division State Architect’s Access Manual and get a taste for the complexity involved.

All of this cross-referencing and page flipping means more billable hours to you. Not only that, but why not hire someone who is already familiar with these different codes and regulations? The problem isn’t in using reference materials — no one can remember every number exactly, and the codes are always changing.  The problem is the general familiarity of the application.  How can someone catch all the nuances if they don’t know the basic applicability?

In this case, hiring someone who is new to this field will not only cost you more in money, but also in liability.  If they miss something or interpret something incorrectly, it’s your lawsuit.  Why not go with someone who is familiar with the risk?

Any questions or concerns?  Call us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@ytaccess.com.

This blog is about how people who have control over a building situation can achieve ada accommodations. So we are very heavy on focusing with the end result of what is a long process in construction and design.

We talk much about the requirements of the code, interpretations and the law for disabled access. But in the pursuit of cost effective reasonable accommodations, we shouldn’t lose sight of what disabled access is for. With the focus on cost, business doesn’t always make the best of what is world populated by humans with human need.

Quoting Mia on her latest blog: Cant rock the boat hell if we have to well sink it

Over the life of this blog ,it has been my intention to shine a light on any person or group who takes money or gets kudos for being advocates and angels for the disabled community but in reality are more the problem than the cure.

The reality of the code is that there are people who need those requirements. The requirements of the code here in the United States have been the result of years of study through the access-board, and represent the best cost-benefit analysis that government can offer between minimum cost and maximum benefit.

So while this entry isn’t so much about specific numbers here, I do want to remind you all, before we get back to our normal stream of access tips that the end result of any disabled compliance needs to be of benefit to the people who would use it. Another quote:

Another example, a internist who proclaims she is disabled friendly with full access and expert at all medical problems pertaining to life in a wheelchair, we arrive her doorways are too small for chairs her toilet door has a 14 inch step and she proclaims that I shouldn’t complain and be thankful for what ever i get? Folks it’s bad when doctors or advocates are taking government money or worse taking ours and they know nothing or even worse they don’t give a damn, but I have started to receive notes from parents telling me not to rock the boat, they’ll put up with second best the doctor is “really nice” he is incompetent but nice? If parents don’t stand and yell ”hell no” who will? The kid in the chair can’t stand at all, a baby with cerebal palsy can’t scream help. We cannot tolerate incompetence, were not fixing a car that can have the engine replaced, its our life, it’s the life of our children. If these so called experts don’t know a damn thing i dont care if they can put on puppet shows, let them do them for someone else but their not getting their incompetent hands on our most precious posessions our loved ones

Mia’s writings aren’t for everyone, as there’s plenty of strong emotion in there — and no wonder — considering how misunderstood disabled access is! We’ve heard the horror stories of individuals who go up and down streets suing businesses for disabled access — now while Mia and the millions of others like her (who are disabled and angry) don’t do this — only a handful do — you do begin to get a sense of where this frustration can lead to in the hands of a few explosive individuals.

If you want to understand more from her point of view, that of your average disabled patron, please take a look at her blog Disabled Access Denied. Otherwise, we will return to the regular accessibility tips in the next few days.

The Covina Redevelopment Center and the Covina Chamber of Commerce are hosting us as one of two speakers at their Business Builder Seminar breakfast on June 21, 2011.

The event is free to the public.

This event is being held at: Hamilton’s Steak House: 1211 E. Garvey St., Covina, CA.

Not only is this event free, breakfast is included!

We start at 8am and end at 930am.

Please RSVP by June 14 to Cyndie Petersen at 626 – 384 – 5440.

Hope to see you there!

This event was cancelled.

Our next speaking event will be for the Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce on June 7, 2011.

The presentation will be: Avoid Accessibility Lawsuits

From 11:30 to 1pm at Buca Di Beppo
11757 Harbor Blvd in Anaheim, CA

See you for lunch!

Since we already covered the principles behind the ADA here: Common violations for ADA Accommodations regarding Parking and Path of Travel, we won’t go over the principles again. You can click to skip ahead: Get me to the ADA Accommodations! Otherwise you can read the copied text below.

ADA Requirements for the Parking

I don’t intend to discuss too much about the specific parking requirements.  That’s pretty cut and dry, either you meet the measurements or you don’t.  People understand that.  The requirements for parkings for the 2010 ADA has changed a little, but there are exceptions to allow for older CA parking which exceeded the original 1990 ADA parking requirements.  I’ll discuss the parking in a later post but in general parking should have:

• 60 inches for the non-van access aisle.  Having 60 inches for the van access aisle is required under 2010 ADA but if you have a 96 inch access aisle, you need to have 108 inches of width for the van space.  If your van access aisle is only 60 inches then your van space width needs to be 132 inches.  You measure the spaces from the center of the line to the center of the other lines.  We have worked for places that have been sued because the contractor measured the parking from outside to outside, shaving off 4 inches from the requirements.  This is part of what’s known as “safe harbor” but you can’t rely on the older measurements.  For more details on the concept of the “safe harbor” see:  Department of Justice: ADA Primer for Small Businesses
• The slope for both the access aisle and the parking space need to be on the same level AND the slopes cannot be greater than 1:48 inches in any direction.  If your parking space slumps, we would recommend that you either consider locating your accessible parking elsewhere, or that you try and level the space.  Van lifts won’t deploy if it detects that the ground is uneven.
• Signs should be clearly visible to drivers who want to park in the space.
• The signs should NOT say “handicapped”  (California, Vehicle Code § 22511).  You should replace your sign if it says this, as a lawsuit costs far more than replacing the sign.
• The van space must be marked as being “van accessible.”
• Sign heights for CA and the ADA are different, but in general the bottom edge of your sign should be above 80 inches when in the path of travel.  Many business owners seem to think this is funny, asking if they can place the sign at 13 feet above grade.  There is no upper limit, but again the sign needs to be visible to on-coming drivers.

Bewarned: This list is not exhaustive.  Also be aware that laws do change.  This list may become inaccurate.  I’ll try to remember to update it, but if you’re reading this list a year from now, be warned that it may be faulty, especially if the California Code of Regulations Title 24 changes (which is the next known update).

ADA Requirements for Path of Travel

The idea behind the path of travel is to provide a zone of safety around the pedestrian.  This zone, with attending requirements needs to go anywhere the public is allowed to go.  There are still ADA requirements for employee only areas (especially as put in by Title 1) but as a rule of thumb, the path of travel only needs to end up to the employee areas, including the door.  Some general path of travel requirements are:

• No slopes greater than 5% without handrails.  Slopes greater than 5% require handrails and are considered ramps.
• Door landings do different in size, but in general, each door landing with its latch-side clearance needs to have a steepness no greater than 1:48 in any direction.
• Accessible paths of travel need to be pointed out with signage
• At least one of each type of good or service must be located on the path of travel so that everyone has access to it.  This means that a bar upstairs doesn’t need to be accessible if there is an identical bar on the first floor (AND if all the amenities are the same.  This means that if a private party rents out the upstairs area, there is potential for a lawsuit).
• The California Building Code requires at least 48 inches of width along external paths of travel with a recommendation of 60 inches.  For existing buildings this can go down to 36 inches for the ADA depending on hardship.
• Objects which protrude into the pedestrian envelope greater than 4 inches for wall mounted objects (12 inches for post mounted) are considered hazards in the path of travel.  A path of travel should be devoid of these objects.  The area of projection is in general, between 27 and 80 inches above the finished floor.  This means that doorways that are lower than 80 inches are considered hazards.  Common protruding objects include fire extinguishers, signs and counters.
• The cross-slope for a path of travel cannot be greater than 1:48 inches.
• Detectable warnings are required under the California Building Code for vehicular hazard areas and transit platforms.  This requirement isn’t included under the ADA 2010 but it is included in the ADAAG 2004 and will probably be reintroduced under the Public Right of Way Access Guide which is supposed to come out soon.
• No change in vertical level greater than 1/2 inch is allowed.  Changes in level between 1/4 and 1/2 inches should be beveled at a 45 degree slope.

Like the list above for parking, this list is not exhaustive and may change as laws and regulations change.  So be warned if you want to use this to assess your site.  Nonetheless, this gives you some idea of what some of the requirements are.

Discussion of ADA Accommodations
Picture #1 and #2: I think for most individuals who are disabled, this photo speaks for itself. For those of you who don’t understand though, the accessible path of travel needs to be a continuous path from the access aisle to the main entrance. This is for the safety of the pedestrian and to alert the driver that this is an area they should be aware of as a pedestrian right of way. The same goes for this second picture which has no access path outline.

A larger issue with this second picture has to do with the location of the access aisles. In this image the aisles are not located on the passenger or driver sides, where disabled individuals actually get in and out of the vehicle. Because maneuvering in and out of a vehicle requires more time and space than normal travel, an access aisle is required by law to prevent vehicles from encroaching onto that space.

Picture #3
This photo is of a parking space that has an access aisle on both the right and left sides. This is in excess of requirements. Nonetheless, there are two obvious barriers in this photo. If you look at the passenger side, this access aisle abuts the driveway. Driveways are not accessible routes. So to provide safe passage to the general path of travel, there is a head aisle at the head of the space. If you look at the head aisle, you can see that the parking bumper has been pushed into the head aisle.

Parking bumpers are required by both the California Building Code and the ADA if parking bumpers keep the vehicle from encroaching onto the path of travel. So this space does require a parking bumper, but at the time of this photo the required bumper has been pushed into the head aisle making it into a barrier. Ideally, according to the Division State Architect (DSA), the parking bumper should sit 18-24 inches from the head aisle to prevent encroachment.

If the driver sought to avoid this barrier, he could attempt to back into the parking space. Backing into the parking space is allowed by the ADA 2010 but not the CBC. However, if the space were to be used in this manner, the support column in the driver side access aisle blocks the usage of that aisle, preventing the passenger side from being able to use the access aisle.

Both barriers effectively block this parking space from being an effective zone of safety to be used by someone with disabilities. If either the support column was elsewhere OR if the parking bumper was properly maintained then this space would be accessible. Maintaining your facility at all times is necessary to ensure proper compliance with the ADA.

Picture #4
In this photo, we have some major issues. The first major issue has to do with the slope. It’s hard to tell in this photo, but the parking space is significantly sloped towards the drainage. Spaces that are sloped this greatly pose a hazard for individuals transitioning out of their vehicle. It’s hard enough to move safely in and out of a vehicle, but to also require that individual to prevent their wheelchair from rolling away while doing it is grounds for a potential lawsuit. Baring re-surfacing this space so as to be level, we must ask — Was this the best possible space?

It’s not, but we can cover how to decide where a space should be in a different entry.

The next two obvious issues has to do with the lack of signage at the head of the parking space and the faded “NO PARKING” in the access aisle. Both of these items alert drivers that this space is not for vehicles to park in. The “NO PARKING” in the access aisle is particularly important as desperate or unaware drivers will sometimes park in the access aisle, effectively blocking the disabled patron from re-entering their vehicle. Not having the proper warning signs opens the store owners and the property managers to a lawsuit because it’s the owner’s responsibility to monitor their spaces and call the police to tow improperly parked vehicles. Having the required signage is necessary to protect the owners should the driver of the towed vehicle claim that they were unaware that they could not park illegally.

Picture #5
This last picture has to do with a path of travel from the access aisle to the main entrance. The subject of this photo has to do with the required extension of the handrail at the bottom of the stairs. Some of the requirements have changed slightly, but the issue with this extension has to do with the fact that it projects into the path of travel and constitutes a hazard for pedestrians. The extensions of the stairway are correct to be returned, but be extended to the ground so as to be caught by a cane-sweep.

ADA Compliance Takeaway

So you understand, the point of all these articles is to educate you readers about what ADA compliance entails.  Both what to do, how to approach it, how to best comply and what the common pitfalls for complete ADA compliance are.

Education is mostly free.  I have to spent a few hours, maybe a day and a half each week, working on articles, and you have to take time to read it, to shift through the multitude of available information.

Ultimately, though, we make a living doing ADA inspections and ADA consultation.

We  do know the laws and ADA regulations, but we don’t know your facility.

I can write about the most common and glaring problems, but I can’t advise you on your particular site.  Even if you submitted pictures, I can’t measure slope or spot issues you may not know about.  If you find this information helpful, feel free to drop an email or a comment.  Submit a picture too, if you like.  I can email you back with an opinion.  (Money is even more appreciated!)

But seriously, give me some genuine feedback and let me know if this was helpful or if you would like me to cover a specific topic.  If I get enough requests, I’ll take the time to write an article on it.  If you’re interested in having us apply our knowledge to your place of business/place of public accommodation in the form of an ADA consultation, by all means call us at 866 982 3212 or email us at help@ytaccess.com.