* Continually provide ready-made hot and cold gluten- and allergen-free food options in its dining hall food lines;

* Develop individualized meal plans for students with food allergies, and allow those students to pre-order allergen free meals, that can be made available at the university’s dining halls in Cambridge and Boston;

* Provide a dedicated space in its main dining hall to store and prepare gluten-free and allergen-free foods and to avoid cross-contamination;

Read more here:

From: http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2013/01/02/holder-justice-department-ensures-hot-gluten-free-food-on-campus/

http://overlawyered.com/2013/01/feds-rewrite-college-cafeteria-menus-ada/

Despite the passage of SB1186, in an attempt to cure lawsuits, California is ending another year as a hotbed of litigation. This includes the increasing number of lawsuits for SB1186. While many of my professional contacts (architects, attorneys, mostly) have hoped that the passage of SB1186 would decrease the number of lawsuits by making it difficult for attorneys to send out demand letters — this has proved to be the opposite. The lowered amount for damages seems to have only provided more incentive for serial litigants to sue on an even broader basis, to retain the level of income they are accustomed to.

Nonetheless, the fact remains, the only real avoidance of a lawsuit is to be compliant. A tape measure does not lie. It does not vote for Democrats or Republicans. Should someone sue you for not having proper access, having proper access will go a long way to saying “Hello, I have proper access. You are wrong to bring me to suit.” In fact, having compliant access is the only sure fire way to win. Legislation like SB1186 is just a band-aid on a festering issue.

Keep in mind though, SB1186 is, after all, only California law. The issue of ADA lawsuits is proving more widespread than just California.

Some national professional groups have begun to notice that going to courts isn’t worth the hassle. Insurance could help, as a band-aid, but if you are sued too many times for being non-compliant, they will drop you. Compliant access is the only real long term solution. ADA issues for Commercial Space">This property management magazine speaks very broadly on the issue… probably because state laws differ on this issue, especially for condominium spaces…. so national groups must rely on local expertise.

As issues of compliance become more noticed by professional property managers, so too are they more noticed by potential plaintiffs. Here’s an article about a possible serial litigant in Missouri.

If anything, signs point to ADA compliance and lawsuits mushrooming even further in 2013. Any thoughts on this?

This will be the last article I post this year. I hope you all have a very happy, access compliant holiday, whatever state you are in.

Martinez’ widely publicized lawsuit alleges he and his wife were stranded for 40 minutes on Small World just inside the last tunnel when the attraction malfunctioned. He claims that other, non-disabled guests were removed but that he and his wife (“Buchanan”) were not provided “constructive assistance from any emergency or medical professionals, or Disney employees.” While a female cast member approached their boat, Martinez claims he “felt his blood pressure rising, explained to the female employee that he was having a panic attack, requested medical attention, and insisted that he needed to exit the ride immediately” but without success. Martinez claims that despite telling another employee that he needed medical attention, he remained on Small World, “experiencing Dysreflexia” for another 20 to 25 minutes. Martinez claims he repeatedly requested emergency medical attention but Disney did not contact paramedics until after he exited Small World.

You can read the rest here

The basic understanding for how to avoid lawsuits remains the same no matter what state you are in or what the laws are for ADA compliance.

Figure out where you are out of compliance and make a plan to fix it immediately. There are no short cuts, or any other sure ways to avoiding ADA lawsuits.

Colorado has recently joined larger states like New York, Florida and California in suffering a wave of “Drive-by Litigation.” Recently a single disabled plaintiff and Florida attorneys have filed many nearly identical lawsuits designed to extort settlements from Denver Metro Area businesses for failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Channel 7 News reports that these same two attorneys have filed hundreds of similar lawsuits in other states.

How can you avoid your business becoming the target of a drive-by ADA lawsuit? You can start by auditing your business for ADA compliance.

Original article here: Original Article

A lawsuit was filed yesterday (11-14) in superior court against the Alameda Count Jail at Santa Rita (Dublin) by lawyers for disabled inmates. The allegation is that the facility denies them access to toilets, showers and programs.

“Whats happening at Santa Rita is wrong as so many levels. Civil rights are routinely violated, and the jail’s correctional rehabilitation model is rendered effectively unavailable for an entire population of people,” Michelle Uzeta, legal director for the Disability Rights Legal Center, is quoted as saying.

See the rest here and here

KNOXVILLE (WATE) – A Knoxville breast center is being sued for allegedly denying services to a disabled woman. The plaintiff is the disability service coordinator for the city.

Stephanie Cook has been in a wheelchair for 25 years. She says she was denied an MRI at the Knoxville Comprehensive Breast Center (KCBC) because of her disability.

“I’ve just never had any one blatantly say we can’t help you,” said Cook, the disability service coordinator.

It began in June 2011 when Cook, who has a family history of breast cancer, found a suspicious lump. She went to KCBC for a consult.

“They told me to come back in six months for an MRI,” Cook said. “I asked (the nurse) to make a note that I use a chair and I would probably need some help to get on the table.”

Then last December she was told she could not have the MRI she needed. It is not handicap accessible.

Cook is suing the center under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Read more here: Knoxville disability coordinator files discrimination lawsuit

It’s important for all goods and services to be accessible to anyone if those services are offered to everyone.

Last week, to correspond with the 22nd anniversary of the signing into law of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the Texas Civil Rights Project filed 33 lawsuits across the state, proving that after more than two decades, there remains no shortage of places and activities inaccessible to the disabled community. The ADA is designed to allow Americans with disabilities to “participate fully in the social and economic life of the community,” says TCRP attorney Joe Berra, but it seems some businesses, and the city of Austin, are falling short of that goal.

The original quote can be found here:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2012-08-03/lawsuits-filed-against-city-cap-10k-for-ada-violations/

ADA lawsuits are bound to continue as long as the industry itself fails to recognize a need to incorporate ADA expertise into the general construction and design process.

Many of the requirements are simple, some are very complex. Our expertise in ADA issues extends over a combined 25 years. If you have questions, comments or need an inspection you can contact us at help@ytaccess.com or call us at 866 982 3212.

July 19, 2012, Staten Island, NY—A federal judge in Brooklyn has ruled that a suit brought against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) by a Staten Island resident who is blind may proceed despite efforts by NYCHA to have the matter dismissed. The plaintiff is arguing that by refusing to accommodate his disability, and by providing him repeatedly with written notices that he is unable to read, NYCHA is violating civil rights and disability laws.

You can read the entire press release here: http://www.mfy.org/wp-content/uploads/Williams.Press_Release.FINAL1_.pdf

The following is a guest article by a CASp certified architect:

SB 1186 Passes Senate Judiciary Committee on May 8

By Yung Kao, CASp CBO NCARB

May 10, 2012

When the U.S. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1991, some people called it a “Bill of Litigation” as it requires building and business owners to retrofit existing buildings and remove “architectural barriers” that were created prior to the law. Combined with California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act and other anti-discriminatory laws, the ADA became a much more potent mechanism for lawsuits.

About 12,000 ADA claims were filed nationwide from 1991 to 2011, and about 8,000 of them were filed in California within the past 8 years alone.  These filed lawsuits represents only a fraction of the actual number of threats that have been made on businesses as most threat of lawsuit results in a settlement rather than a court action.

A big portion of those cases in California have been filed by a couple dozen lawyers. These self-proclaimed access rights crusaders are generally perceived by the business community as “drive-by” litigants.  Some of them do appear to be more interested in collecting monetary settlements than improving access on the premises they sue. These cases are often filed in large batches by geographic location.  The main vehicle for these threats originates in a demand letter, stating that the stakeholder pay money otherwise a lawsuit situation will erupt.

Most businesses and property managers settle, as a court battle could result in a larger fine, along with an increased payment to the opposing attorney.

In response to the outcry from the business community, California has at least six bills dealing with accessibility claims in the current legislative session. An unexpected event to accentuate this drama is an open letter in March from Senator Dianne Feinstein to California Senate President pro Tem Darrel Steinberg, urging him to use his leadership to advance legislation that would curb what she called “predatory lawsuits” and “coercive demand letters” that are “unfairly and unnecessarily threaten the viability of some small businesses in our State”. The letter specifically mentioned California’s SB 1186 introduced by Republican State Senator Dutton as an example of such legislation. Steinberg’s reply letter elaborated on SB 1608 of 2008 to illustrate the legislature’s efforts in deterring frivolous ADA claims. He further explained that the “90 day to cure” provision in SB 1186 is inconsistent with other protected categories in California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.  This inconsistency with the other protected civil rights in the Unruh Act explains why any bills with provisions to include a cure period are consistently defeated.

In April, Steinberg took over SB 1186 and introduced an extensive amendment to the bill. The 90-day period to cure was deleted from the bill, while other similar bills still containing various time periods to cure, have been defeated.  Because of the lack of a cure period, Steinberg’s version of SB 1186 became the only accessibility bill in this session that was being seriously considered.

If passed, the following three major provisions would become law:

1.  Prior to filing a lawsuit, no attorneys or other parties may serve a letter that demands monetary settlement or implies that business and building owners may be liable for damages and attorney fees because of alleged ADA violations.
2. Attorneys who intend to file an ADA claim must serve a notice to the intended defendants at least 30 days prior to the filing.
3. Commercial property landlords need to disclose to prospective tenants in the lease agreements whether the premises are CASp-inspected or not.

Four accessibility bills were heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on May 8, and on that same day the Senate Judiciary Committee processed another two accessibility Bills, including SB 1186 as amended by Steinberg.  The Committee passed the Bill 4-1, with the descending vote interestingly by none other than the Senate Majority Leader and author of SB 1608, Senator Ellen Corbett.

It is almost inevitable that this Bill resort to the CASp inspection as established in SB 1608 in 2008 as the real solution. A major goal of the Construction-related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act (CASCA) of 2008 is to devise some sort of protection for the property and business owners who have made a proactive effort to obtain compliance or are in the process of obtaining compliance. The CASCA considers a comprehensive survey of the property by a (CASp) key evidence to define that proactive effort.

The CASp program was a result of two years negotiation among different stakeholders, and was widely hailed by the business communities including California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurants Association, California Business Properties Association and California Hotel and Lodging Association. Though SB 1186 would not mandate any CASp inspections, it does reaffirm that the CASp inspection program is still the best solution to reduce and eventually eliminate ADA claims in California.

While SB 1168 would not eliminate ADA lawsuits entirelyhopefully it would effectively curtail the scare tactic of demand letters.  The only full protection against ADA claims, however, is to fully comply with the laws, and that begins with a CASp inspection.

You can reach Yung Kao directly for comments and inquiries about his services at his direct email: accessolution@att.net, or his direct number: 626.209.9709

Alternately, you can find out more about the details of CASp and its many benefits by emailing us at help@ytaccess.com or calling us at 866 982 3212.  Any messages you leave for Yung with us, we will also forward to him.

The recent ADA lawsuit scare has had some landlords behaving strangely.

One of our clients a few months ago was sued by her landlord for not making ADA upgrades.

This is a troubling turn of events. It’s in the ADA that one’s responsibility cannot be passed onto another. The way the chips fell in this case was that the landlord had his tenant sign an updated lease otherwise he would not renew the contract with her. There was a clause in this contract which stated that she was to perform all necessary ADA upgrades to become ADA compliant within 45 days of signing the lease.

She obviously did not know what this meant.

She signed the lease, and was later sued by her landlord for failing to enlarge the restroom.

In this situation, we do not have a complaint stemming from a violation of the ADA — we have a complaint stemming from a breach of contract.

How everything stands from here depends on what can be reasonably understood by both parties as being their responsibility within the ADA — and if when signing she understood what ADA upgrades entailed.

Nonetheless, tenants should more than ever educate themselves about what ADA compliance means, and in all cases at least 1) get an estimate for the work and 2) inform their landlord of the issues with a report of their shared liability. Landlords are legally required to comply with the ADA as well — but this tactic does provide an interesting twist. We’ll have to see if he is successful at forcing his tenant to pay for all the upgrades.

Thoughts? Comment below, or write us at help@ytaccess.com. If you have specific questions about your own fiduciary responsibilities, you can call us at 866 982 3212.