ADA Law Suits Continue

Groups Now Talking, ADA Law Suits Continue
by Frank Pizzoli

"People who haven’t talked to each other in years are on speaking terms again," noted bon vivant Dorothy Parker upon reconciling with her husband.

Parker’s reconciliation reflects a recent 2-hour sit-down between "handicap accessibility" advocates and Harrisburg’s Midtown Market District (MMD), the area that essentially comprises North Third Street from Forster to Reily Streets. Although not yet reconciled, nine individuals gathered to discuss accessibility, namely for individuals reliant on wheelchairs and other mobility devices.

Representing MMD were president Joe DiComo; Frances Imler, who, in addition to serving as MMD secretary, supervised the ADA compliance renovations for Towne House Apartments Suites, where she is general manager; and MMD interim executive director Charles Schulz.

Also attending were Historic Harrisburg Association (HHA) executive director Ted Martin; Center for Independent Living (CIL) representatives Jeannette Green and Linda Riegel, CIL’s civil rights advocate; architect Edwin Junkin and Norma Keeney, both of JWF Architects and CIL board members, and City Planning Department representative Erik Hein. Invited but not in attendance was Jim Varhola, administrator for accessibility for the PA Department of Labor & Industry.

DiComo hosted the meeting at HHA, one of the locations recently sued and in the process of planning a ramp installation.

Pelted with Suits

The meeting followed "no response" from 18 of the 20 city businesses which Accessible Communities Today (ACT), affiliated with CIL, contacted by first class mail regarding their establishments’ "inaccessibility." Eventually, the group filed civil suits for violations of "accessibility standards" called for in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), passed by Congress in 1990 and mandating compliance by July 26, 1992.

According to information provided by CIL’s Linda Riegel, June 2, 1999 her organization began sending first class mail to midtown and other city businesses containing information on ADA access requirements, tax credits and financial incentives to ease compliance costs.

With little response to the mailing, ACT on July 26, 1999, ADA’s ninth anniversary, filed numerous civil suits in U.S. District Court, Middle District of PA. Since ADA is a federal law, federal courts exercise jurisdiction over complaints. Each suit lists two individuals reliant on wheelchairs or mobility devices and who live within the city’s midtown neighborhood or within a reasonable distance of the sued establishment.

In a somewhat confusing outline of events in the text of Riegel’s remarks on July 26, she mentions that, "We will file three lawsuits a month, from this list of inaccessible businesses. If these businesses do not get in touch with us, and agree to work with us towards letting people with disabilities into their businesses, they could be next." Sources informed MODE that another half dozen suits were ready to be filed last week against midtown establishments.

Riegel’s remarks that day also described the group’s mobilization. "After we received so many complaints, some group members walked through the neighborhood on Third Street between Forster and Verbeke and a few other areas."

"We went up and down the street and wrote down business names," says complainant Joanna Raver, who opines that ramps "help everyone, especially mother’s with baby carriages." She forecasts that as 75 million baby boomers age and become reliant on various mobility devices demands for easier accessibility will become commonplace, and not viewed as the sole problem of those in "wheelchairs."

"It’s nothing personal," says plaintiff Ron Henaman, pointing out that placement of names on various suits simply reflects places those individuals want to patronize but find inaccessible.

As of press time, the suits are in various stages, although a small number of businesses without much fuss have already satisfied accessibility requirements.

Raining Paper

With legal paperwork falling from the sky, MMD officials responded to a flurry of merchant questions — from dues-paying members, nonmembers within the group’s Third Street corridor, and businesses outside the organization’s immediate geographic purview. Additionally, on October 14, 1999, the group issued members a two-page summary trying to outline the confusing alphabet soup of laws, regulations, and organizations regarding ADA and its application to the current controversy.

"ADA allows a $15,000 annual tax deduction to any business for barrier removal," says Marion Yessels, ADA Information Center (1-800-949-4232). Small business tax credits for employers with up to $1 million annual budgets and fewer than 35 employees are also available. "There are provisions in the ADA for and ‘undue burden’," explains Yessels, meaning that a business may be able to successfully argue that compliance with ADA requirements isn’t financially feasible. (See Gotham City and Neato Burrito Shows ADA Weakness).

In related action, Rep. Ron Buxton, D-Harrisburg, and Sen. Mike Waugh, R-York, recently cheered the Senate when that chamber passed their proposed, six years in the making, establishing minimum statewide building code requirements. Governor Tom Ridge is expected to sign the bill fulfilling a 1994 campaign pledge. Regarding ADA, Buxton says his measure incorporates ADA requirements. "The Eastern Paralyzed War Veterans lobbied for and supported this bill," he says as testament to its stringent allegiance to ADA principals.

Even with stringent application of ADA language in all aspects of community life — at work and in commercial settings — there appears to be no legal morass for having the rules in place. According to public records tabulated from FY 92 to FY 98, the federal government saw 108,939 charges filed, 106,988 charges resolved, 92,259 charges dismissed for want of merit or closed for administrative reasons, and 14,729 charges settled.

The Next Step

DiComo felt by meeting’s end that doors had been opened. "We want to accomplish three goals: stop the lawsuits, educate all involved, improve communications," says DiComo. He encourages CIL and ACT to work through MMD. "We want to create an even larger customer base by making businesses accessible," he stresses.

"People with mutual concerns and interest weren’t talking to one another. MMD now has a forum to do that," DiComo concluded.

Although Riegel characterized the meeting as "excellent", her group was planning to mail additional suits — this time by registered, not first class, mail — to another round of midtown businesses.

In the meantime, DiComo noted that the group reached agreement on forming an ad hoc advisory committee of the MMD board. "We want to work with businesses on the corridor to ‘phase in’ accessibility so that it is affordable. Next, we want to make clear that some historic buildings will never be
‘accessible’."