[Namron] Gulf War issues...not a happy Tadhg

[Chass Brown]

Part 2 and Please dont blame me.. nad if you get sick of reading dont blame 
me lol ada law is long winded.
"
Dear "Master Morgan of Osprey":

Since I have been included in this email I will take it upon myself to 
provide a little information to you as to the requirements of the ADA and 
your organization. I will begin by commenting that I am a federal court 
acknowledged expert in the ADA and my expert testimony has been admitted in 
a number of federal court districts. I normally charge a substantial hourly 
fee for my guidance but will, based on Chass Brown belonging to an advocacy 
association of which I am the president, provide this information to you pro 
bono.

Your organization is in no way exempt from the ADA. The best guide that one 
can use to determine if a private club or organization is ADA exempt is to 
ask a simple question. Can you lawfully refuse to allow a person to attend 
your events, or to join your organization, based on that person being an 
African American, a person of Asian decent, or a person who is Islamic? The 
rights of these groups of people are protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
Only private clubs exempt from the requirements of the 1964 Civil Rights Act 
are exempt from the requirements of Title III of the ADA. Do your have or 
allow people of color to attend your events? Could you lawfully ban people 
of color from your events? Only if you can lawfully ban people of  color 
from your events can you ignore the ADA without being in violation of this 
federal civil rights law.

It is the position of the United States Congress that people with 
disabilities are not required to provide any documentation of disability as 
a condition of equal access. No American, or lawful resident of the United 
States, is required to carry and produce proof of citizenship or proof of 
residency simply to have access to places of public accommodation The civil 
rights law known as the ADA simply requires the same unfettered access for 
people with disabilities as is provided to the general public. The 
requirement of documentation was clearly stated by Congress to be an 
unreasonable imposition on a class of Americans who have historically faced 
discrimination. Demands for proof of disability is a fast and one way street 
into federal court. This is not the case when seeking reasonable 
accommodations in employment under Title I of the ADA or in seeking 
reasonable accommodations in housing under the Fair Housing Amendments Act 
of 1988.

A campground is deemed to be a place of public accommodation by the United 
States Department of Justice in the definition of places of public 
accommodation provided in §36.104 of Title III of the ADA. The architectural 
requirements for ALL places of public accommodation built after July 26, 
1992 are contained in the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). For 
facilities constructed before that date, or for facilities where the first 
use or occupancy was subsequent to July 26, 1993, Title III of the ADA 
requires the removal of all architectural barriers the removal of which is 
"readily achievable". If the campground that your organization rents was 
first used as a campground after the above stated first use date then it 
must fully comply with the ADAAG. If first use was before that date then all 
elements for which ADAAG standards exist, which do not meet those standards, 
must be altered so as to meet the ADAAG standards if doing so is readily 
achievable.

ADAAG section 4.1.2(2) requires that an accessible route be provided within 
a site that connects all accessible elements within the site, not just 
"major buildings". All elements that are provided for the use of the public 
(that is those people with use of the facility who are neither owners of the 
facility nor employees of the owners) must be accessible to people with 
disabilities. That includes, in a campground environment, everything from a 
percentage of the campsites, fire rings, pavilions and shelters, restroom 
and toilet facilities, showers, cooking and dinning facilities, etc. ADAAG 
section 4.3.6 requires that the surfaces of accessible routes be firm, 
stable, and slip resistant. ADAAG section 4.3.3 requires that accessible 
routes be no less than 36 inches wide. ADAAG section 4.3.4 requires a 
passing/turning section no less than 5 feet wide and 5 feet long at least 
every 200 feet along accessible routes. ADAAG section 4.3.7 requires a 
maximum slope along accessible routes of 5% except where ramps are provided. 
When ramps are provided ADAAG section 4.8.2 requires a maximum slope of 
8.33%.

Returning to Title III of the ADA for a moment (the ADAAG is Appendix A of 
Title III of the ADA) it is clearly stated in 28 CFR Part 36 Subpart B 
§36.201(b) that an entity renting a facility is as responsible for the ADA 
compliance of the facility as is the owner of the facility:

"Both the landlord who owns the building that houses a place of public 
accommodation and the tenant who owns or operates the place of public 
accommodation are public accommodations subject to the requirements of this 
part."

When a place of public accommodation that predates the ADA is unable to 
remove architectural barriers because the removal is deemed to not be 
readily achievable then the place of public accommodation is required to 
provide accommodations to people with disabilities who would otherwise face 
discrimination due to the unremoved architectural barriers. This requirement 
is clearly stated in 28 CFR Part 36 Subpart C §36.305:

"Where a public accommodation can demonstrate that barrier removal is not 
readily achievable, the public accommodation shall not fail to make its 
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations 
available through alternative methods, if those methods are readily 
achievable."

There is no provision in Title III of the ADA that would allow a place of 
public accommodation to not make its goods, services, facilities, 
privileges, advantages, or accommodations fully and equally available to and 
accessible to people with disabilities. Therefore, it would appear that your 
organization has only three options available. You can rent facilities for 
your events that are in full compliance with the requirements of Title III 
of the ADA (or have the facility you are renting perform the architectural 
barrier removal required by Title III of the ADA). You can provide 
reasonable accommodations to patrons with disabilities, including the 
modification of rules, policies, procedures, etc., so that people with 
disabilities can have equal access in the face of architectural barriers not 
removed due to the removal being deemed to not be readily achievable. You 
can violate the ADA and get prepared to defend that position through 
litigation in the United States District Court.

It is my understanding that the facility where your event will be held, and 
where your events have been held in the past, has numerous architectural 
barriers the removal of which is in all likelihood readily achievable. The 
owner of this facility has failed to engage in the minimum work required by 
Title III of the ADA and your organization has ignored the civil rights 
violation by renting this facility for events over and over. Many of my 
members would long ago have sued this facility owner and your organization. 
You appear to have one or more members of your organization, or people who 
attend your events, who have been discriminated against due to the unremoved 
architectural barriers at your events. Since the path of travel through the 
site does not meet the minimum requirements of Title III of the ADA the 
provided paths of travel are not usable by people using manual wheelchairs, 
power wheelchairs, and/or scooter type power wheelchairs. Requests to use 
alternative means of mobility, specifically golf carts, are being rejected 
by your organization while no appropriate means of mobility is being 
provided as an alternative. Demanding that people use wheelchairs in a 
facility where there is no wheelchair accessible route is unacceptable and a 
clear act of intentional discrimination against people with disabilities who 
depend on wheelchairs for mobility.

If your organization does not want people with disabilities due to mobility 
impairments to use golf carts at your events, including this upcoming event, 
then provide an accessible route that meets the requirements of the ADAAG. 
If you do neither, do not provide an accessible route and do not allow such 
patrons to use golf carts, they you are asking to spend all of the resources 
of your organization defending a federal lawsuit charging your organization 
with discrimination against people with disabilities.

Title III of the ADA is very clear when it comes to service animals. You are 
required to allow people with disabilities to be accompanied by service 
animals unless the specific behavior of a service animal places the health 
and safety of others at risk. If a service dog attempts to bite a person 
then that service dog can be excluded. If  a service animal causes a 
fundamental alteration of the ability of a place of public accommodation to 
provide its goods and services to the public then the service animal can be 
excluded. A person with a service dog in a movie theater where the dog 
barked over and over and where the barking could not be stopped by the 
handler can be excluded from the movie theater. The requirement that you 
modify your rules to allow service animals is stated in 28 CFR Part 36 
Subpart C §36.302(c)(1):

"Generally, a public accommodation shall modify policies, practices, or 
procedures to permit the use of a service animal by an individual with a 
disability."

Since you seem to have taken exception to my comment about people with 
disabilities do to mental illness I will try to briefly explain this matter 
to you. Whether a person is limited do to a physical or mental impairment is 
not the relevant issue. The issue is whether the person is "substantially 
limited" in the ability to engage in one or more major life activities - 
that is the standard of disability under the ADA. A person who cannot walk 
is clearly substantially limited in the ability to engage in the major life 
activity of walking. People who are deaf, people who are blind, people with 
extremely  limited mobility such as those with MS, people who have lost 
limbs, these are all people who are unable to do something that has been 
deemed to be a major life activity. However, the vast majority of people 
with mental illnesses, while they face day to day difficulties, typically 
are not "substantially limited" in their ability to engage in any major life 
activities. In the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 
Toyota v. Williams it was established that a "substantial limitation" is an 
almost total inability. Based on that court established standard most people 
with impairments based on mental illness do not meet the definition of 
disability under the ADA. Those people who are virtually house bound due to 
mental illness are substantially limited in their ability to care for 
themselves and some people with severe depression are also substantially 
limited in some major life activities. But it is unlikely that such people 
are going to be attending organized events in a campground. While many 
people with mental illnesses might have been limited to the degree of being 
disabled, medications often mitigate these impairments. In the decision of 
the United States Supreme Court in the case of UAL v. Sutton it was 
established that in determining disability under the ADA the person's 
impairment must be evaluated in the context of medications and appliances 
that serve to mitigate the person's impairment.

The regulatory law that addresses service animals was written by the U.S. 
Department of Justice. Therefore their statements as to what this regulatory 
law means is given great weight by the federal courts. It is the opinion of 
the U.S. Department of Justice that emotional support dogs that provide 
benefit to people with disabilities due to mental illnesses are not service 
dogs and the ADA does not provide a right of public access with such dogs. 
In order to be a service animal an animal must be individually trained to do 
work or perform tasks that are of benefit to a person with a disability and 
that mitigate the impairment that is the basis of the person being disabled. 
Providing emotional support, a feeling of security, or companionship, do not 
constitute trained tasks that result in the animals meeting the ADA 
definition of a service animal.

If the decision of your organization is to deny my members request for a 
reasonable accommodation it will be my advice to him to file a federal 
lawsuit against both your organization and against the owner of the 
campground where this event is being held. Of course you have the right to 
deny his requested accommodation(s) by simply having the owner of this 
campground bring this facility into compliance with the requirements of 
Title III of the ADA so that accommodations such as using a golf cart will 
not be needed.

"

Chass of Rundel, Ansteorra
Teller of Truths and pissing off the nobility;
(telling the truth can harm your sca career?? its a Career?)
aka Charinthalis Del Sans of the portable Chariot
Muddler of Mead, Ailment of Ale, Whiner of wine.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "William Herron" <fitzbubba at gmail.com>
To: "Chass Brown" <chass at allegiance.tv>
Cc: "Barony of Namron" <namron at ansteorra.org>
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Namron] Gulf War issues...not a happy Tadhg


>> Replied to privately
>> Chass of Rundel, Ansteorra
>
> I invited Chass via private email to respond directly to the list and
> continue the discussion.  I'm not going to argue this matter in
> private...it's too important to us.
>
> Care,
> Bubba
>