It is the intent of the California Legislature that the building standards published in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) relating to accessibility by people with disabilities shall be used as minimum requirements to ensure that buildings, structures, and related facilities are accessible to, and functional for, every member of the public, so as to provide equal opportunity to access public accommodations. Access is to be provided to, through, and within the buildings, without loss of function, space, or facility where the general public is concerned.
I moved into a HUD complex on April 1, 2014. Jan. 28, 2017 tenants on floors 7-8 were compensated and displaced for a complete makeover of our apartments, I live on 8. I returned on May 1, 2016. The first thing I noticed, my countertops had been lowered. Regardless of what anyone says to the contrary, this is ergonomically unacceptable for me, being I am 6’1.
This Grievance Procedure is established to meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). It may be used by anyone who wishes to file a complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of services, activities, programs, or benefits by the California Department of Insurance (CDI). CDI has a separate procedure governing employment for employees and applicants.
In April of 2011, the DOJ reached a settlement with Law School Admission Council (LSAC). A complaint was brought by the National Federation of the Blind claiming, in part, that barriers on the www.lsac.org website made it impossible for blind students to register for the LSAT. The DOJ joined in this lawsuit and is a signatory to the settlement agreement wherein LSAC agreed to provide “Full and Equal Access” to the lsac.org website, no later than September 1, 2011. “Full and Equal Access” meant that “www.lsac.org meets the nonvisual requirements of WCAG 2.0, level AA and that blind guests using screen-reader software may acquire the same information and engage in the same transactions as are available to sighted guests with substantially equivalent ease of use.”
Many members of the business community opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act. Testifying before Congress, Greyhound Bus Lines stated that the act had the potential to "deprive millions of people of affordable intercity public transportation and thousands of rural communities of their only link to the outside world." The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the costs of the ADA would be "enormous" and have "a disastrous impact on many small businesses struggling to survive." The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that lobbies for small businesses, called the ADA "a disaster for small business." Pro-business conservative commentators joined in opposition, writing that the Americans with Disabilities Act was "an expensive headache to millions" that would not necessarily improve the lives of people with disabilities.
There are thousands of code jurisdictions in the United States that enforce some combination of state building codes. Some, but not all of these include accessibility requirements. Although many are based on a model code, there are major variations among the state codes. Design and construction in accordance with these codes will not constitute compliance with the ADA, unless the codes impose requirements equal to or greater than those of the ADA.
In 2014, the DOJ filed a Complaint in Intervention on a pending case between the National Federation of the Blind and H & R Block. According to that Complaint, “the inaccessibility of H&R Block’s website prevents people with disabilities from independently preparing and filing taxes online, downloading tax preparation software, etc.” The settlement was broken down into two phases: Phase I- (to be completed by 01/2015) H&R Block shall ensure that www.hrblock.com and the Online Tax Preparation Product conform to, at minimum, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level A and AA Success Criteria (“WCAG 2.0 AA”). And Phase II- (to be completed by 01/2016) H&R Block shall ensure that its mobile applications conform to, at minimum, the WCAG 2.0 AA.
We often see projects of gas station replacing old fuel dispensers with access compliance fuel dispensers (reach range, operable parts, point-of-sale). According to Section 11B-202.4, Exception 10, these projects would be required to comply with accessibility for primary accessible path to inside the convenient store at the gas station, public restrooms, drinking fountains, public telephones, and signs (with 20-percent limit of adjusted construction cost). Is my understanding correct regarding the replacement of old/addition of new fuel dispensers?