Implementation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act: 

Challenges, Best Practices, and 

New Opportunities for Success 

National Council on Disability 

July 26, 2007 
National Council on Disability 

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 

Washington, DC 20004 

Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Challenges, Best Practices, and 

New Opportunities for Success 

This report is also available in alternative formats and on the award-winning National Council 

on Disability (NCD) Web site (www.ncd.gov). 

Publication date: July 26, 2007 

202-272-2004 Voice 

202-272-2074 TTY 

202-272-2022 Fax 

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the Administration as 

this and all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 executive branch review process. 
 National Council on Disability 

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and Congress 

to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their families. 

Letter of Transmittal 

July 26, 2007 

The President 

The White House 

Washington, DC 20500 

Dear Mr. President: 

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is charged with gathering information about the 

implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 

keeping with this requirement, I submit this new report, entitled Implementation of the ADA: 

Challenges, Best Practices, and New Opportunities for Success. This report reflects the 

experiences and ideas of ADA stakeholders from around the country, including small and large 

businesses, employers, judges and legal professionals, governmental entities, and individuals 

with disabilities, concerning ADA implementation. Through this extensive stakeholder input, 

NCD learned of the many strategies for ADA implementation that have been successful, as well 

as obstacles that are preventing ADA implementation. 

One important finding is that meaningful ADA implementation is both possible and practicable. 

Some effective ADA implementation practices were identified that can serve as models and that 

illustrate how diverse covered entities are going about making the promise of the ADA a reality. 

However, in many areas, the ADA remains unimplemented, and gaps in information, knowledge, 

and interest in complying with the ADA still exist. Therefore, this study also focused on 

understanding why certain sectors of our society have made little progress in ADA 

implementation and on developing recommendations to address those implementation gaps. 

The ADA implementation report contains extensive recommendations for improving ADA 

implementation, and NCD remains committed to working with the Administration, Congress, 

and the public to achieve the promise of the ADA for all Americans—the elimination of 

disability-based discrimination in all aspects of society. 

Sincerely, 

John R. Vaughn 

Chairperson 

1331 F Street, NW  Suite 850  Washington, DC 20004 

202-272-2004 Voice  202-272-2074 TTY  202-272-2022 Fax  www.ncd.gov 

1 
National Council on Disability Members and Staff 

Members 

John R. Vaughn, Chairperson 

Patricia Pound, First Vice Chairperson 

Glenn Anderson, Ph.D., Second Vice Chairperson 

Milton Aponte, J.D. 

Victoria Ray Carlson 

Chad Colley 

Robert R. Davila, Ph.D. 

Graham Hill 

Young Woo Kang, Ph.D. 

Kathleen Martinez 

Lisa Mattheiss 

Anne M. Rader 

Marco Rodriguez 

Cynthia Wainscott 

Linda Wetters 

Staff 

Michael C. Collins, Executive Director 

Martin Gould, Ed.D., Director of Research and Technology 

Mark S. Quigley, Director of Communications 

Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor 

Joan M. Durocher, Senior Attorney Advisor 

Geraldine Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Senior Program Analyst 

Mark Seifarth, Congressional Liaison 

Pamela O’Leary, Sign Language Interpreter 

Brenda Bratton, Executive Assistant 

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant 

Carla Nelson, Secretary

2 
Acknowledgments 

The National Council on Disability wishes to express its appreciation

to Susan Henderson, Managing Director, Mary Lou Breslin, Senior Policy

Advisor, Silvia Yee, Staff Attorney, and Marilyn Golden, Policy

Analyst, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), Linda

Toms Barker, Principal Research Analyst and Kathleen P. Magill, Senior

Analyst, Berkeley Policy Associates, and Karen Peltz Strauss, KPS

Consulting, for conducting the ADA Implementation Study and for

drafting this report. 

3 
Table of Contents

Executive Summary........................................................................................................................ 7 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 19 

I. Background ............................................................................................................ 19 

II. Purpose and Scope of the Report ........................................................................... 22 

III. Report Structure ..................................................................................................... 24 

PART 1. Stakeholder Observations and Effective ADA Implementation Practices............. 25 

Introduction....................................................................................................................... 25 

I. Stakeholder Observations ................................................................................................. 26

A. Employment (Title I) ............................................................................................ 26 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion ............................................. 26 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations......................................................... 36 

3. Topics for Further Research...................................................................... 45 

B. Public and Private Transportation (Title II and III).............................................. 46 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion ............................................. 46 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations......................................................... 57 

3. Topics for Further Research...................................................................... 61 

C. Public Accommodations (Title III)....................................................................... 62 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion ............................................. 62 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations......................................................... 73 

3. Topics for Further Research...................................................................... 85 

D. Telecommunications (Title IV)............................................................................. 90 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion ............................................. 94 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations......................................................... 99 

3. Topics for Further Research.................................................................... 110 

E. Disability Community......................................................................................... 111 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion ........................................... 111 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations....................................................... 118 

4 
F. Observations by Stakeholders from Diverse Cultures........................................ 120 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion ........................................... 120 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations....................................................... 122 

G. Judicial Stakeholders .......................................................................................... 124 

1. Participants.............................................................................................. 124 

2. Discussion............................................................................................... 125 

3. Conclusions............................................................................................. 132 

II. Effective ADA Implementation Practices ...................................................................... 132 

A. ADA Implementation Best Practices.................................................................. 134 

B. ADA Implementation Notable Practices ............................................................ 140 

1. Employment—Title I.............................................................................. 140 

2. Public Accommodations—Title III......................................................... 145 

3. Public and Private Transportation—Title II and III................................ 151 

4. Telecommunications—Title IV .............................................................. 155 

5. Federal Government Agencies................................................................ 157 

PART 2. Legal and Enforcement Tools .............................................................................. 165 

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 165 

I. Private Right of Action ................................................................................................... 166 

A. Introduction......................................................................................................... 166 

B. Title III and Voluntary Compliance.................................................................... 169 

C. Reasons for Widespread Noncompliance with Title III ..................................... 179 

D. Title III and Serial Litigation .............................................................................. 186 

E. Conclusion and Recommendations..................................................................... 196 

II. Class Actions and Settlements........................................................................................ 204 

A. Introduction......................................................................................................... 204 

B. Problematic Class Action Cases ......................................................................... 207 

C. ADA Class Action Education and Alternatives.................................................. 213 

D. Other ADA Class Action Cases.......................................................................... 216 

E. Recommendations for Further Research and Conclusion................................... 218 

5 
PART 3. Strategies for Improving Public Awareness......................................................... 221 

Introduction..................................................................................................................... 221 

I. Rationale and Implementation Strategy for the Easy Access Prototype......................... 223 

II. The Easy Access Prototype............................................................................................. 231 

Appendices 

Appendix F – Summary of ADA Implementation Recommendations 

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 306

Endnotes...................................................................................................................................... 310 

Appendix A – Sample Structured Negotiations Agreement ........................................... A-1 

Appendix B – Stakeholder Dialogue Participants .......................................................... B-1 

Appendix C – Attorneys Interviewed for Part 2 – Legal and Enforcement Tools ......... C-1 

Appendix D – Judicial Stakeholder Focus Group Methodology.................................... D-1 

Appendix E – Public Awareness Research Methods and Findings .................................E-1 

 by Targeted Audience...............................................................................F-1 

Appendix G – Mission of the National Council on Disability........................................ G-1 

6 
Executive Summary 

Introduction 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been a catalyst for significant progress 

in bringing about equality of opportunity for people with disabilities. It has spurred 

increased architectural accessibility, particularly in newly constructed buildings and 

facilities, an increase in accessible fixed-route public transportation in most locales, and 

readily available telecommunications services for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. 

Some effective responses to certain implementation issues can be considered best 

practices and can serve as models. 

The other side of the picture depicts areas where it has been very difficult to bring about 

full or even partial implementation of the law by covered entities, and where a gap in 

expectations between people with disabilities and covered entities remains or has even 

widened. These intractable pockets of resistance to implementation exist under various 

titles of the ADA and can be either specific or broad in their scope. One example in the 

area of transportation is that stop announcements on public fixed-route bus systems 

remain inconsistent. A broader example under Title III is the ongoing widespread lack of 

implementation among such small businesses as restaurants, hotels, medical offices, and 

retail establishments. 

Without minimizing the successes that have been achieved since the ADA’s enactment in 

1990, it is evident that progress cannot continue without addressing the underlying 

reasons some areas remain intractable and where the law has been implemented either 

sporadically or not at all. On one level, underlying factors such as a lack of appropriate 

and consistently available information and education about the ADA, cost concerns, and 

limited enforcement underlie virtually all the problem areas. On a deeper level, however, 

intractability in any given area or on any given issue seems to occur when these factors 

interact with one another and augment the already powerful stereotype that people with 

disabilities are fundamentally and deeply incapable and, of necessity, live lives that are 

separate from the rest of the population. 

7
This is exemplified by indifferent voluntary compliance by smaller Title III entities with 

narrower profit margins when their concern about the potential cost of access combines 

with a perceived lack of information, uncertainty about achieving technical ADA 

compliance, and inadequate Federal Government enforcement. The prevalence of 

businesses operating in inaccessible buildings and not accommodating patrons makes it 

difficult for people with disabilities to go out and about, and participate and function in 

their communities. This, in turn, fuels widespread lack of awareness about disability in 

general and fosters a lack of knowledge about the extent to which disability is pervasive 

in the communities that businesses and other entities serve. Such lack of awareness 

perpetuates the view that people with disabilities do not represent a potential customer or 

client base and the attitude that “I don’t have customers who need accommodation.” 

The same deeply embedded stereotype arguably is behind limitations placed on the law 

by decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ADA has produced mixed 

results in employment, in part because the Court has narrowed the definition of disability, 

thus denying civil rights protections to some people with disabilities who encounter 

workplace discrimination or who could increase their work performance with an 

accommodation. These cases, in combination with another Supreme Court decision that 

has placed limits on the circumstances under which attorneys can recover fees when they 

represent clients in discrimination cases under Title III of the ADA, has made it more 

difficult for people with disabilities to obtain representation, curtailing a major 

enforcement tool of the law. 

While the recommendations that ultimately arose out of a national ADA stakeholder 

dialogue, research, and identified best practices might differ in detail and in target 

audience, they all seek to or actually do redress one or more of the underlying factors 

impeding implementation of the law. Taken together, the recommendations advocate for 

increasing the ready availability of ADA information, education, and technical assistance 

to all covered entities and people with disabilities; creating financial incentives and 

developing cost-sharing measures; or strengthening federal and private enforcement 

measures. 

8
Disability community stakeholders recognized the need to break the cycle created by 

false assumptions and gaps in information, perceived implementation costs, and weak 

enforcement that perpetuates areas that have been intractable to implementation. The 

ADA’s goal of promoting full community participation cannot be achieved without 

eliminating the perception that people with disabilities are a wholly separate group that 

exists functionally, practically, and conceptually apart from the rest of the population. 

The great attraction of the paradigm, referred to by some as universality and closely 

aligned with the movement for universal design, is that it envisions a physical, social, and 

economic environment that is designed for the entire range of human function, and this 

ideal transcends virtually every aspect of ADA implementation. 

Many stakeholders recognized the active interface between the media and public 

perception, especially when stereotypes are involved. Moreover, public perception of the 

ADA has been greatly influenced by negative media portrayals that generally 

misrepresent the intent of the law and that recently have focused on the motives of 

individuals who bring multiple access lawsuits, rather than on the impact of successful 

ADA implementation. The disability community and other stakeholders recognized that 

this longstanding problem calls for a robust and creative strategy that will change the 

direction of reporting on the ADA and will use the media to correct rather than perpetuate 

stereotypes. 

Key ADA Implementation Issues 

Title I – Employment 

In addition to the negative impact of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings that narrowed the 

definition of disability, the right to reasonable accommodation in the workplace has not 

been consistently understood or honored by either employers or the courts. Providing 

reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees with disabilities should 

become a standard and ordinary cost of doing business. Decisions about accommodations 

should not rest with a departmental level manager who is concerned about cost overruns. 

Rather, businesses should adopt an accommodation policy that sets forth the steps 

9
required to request an accommodation and establishes an entity-wide fund that can be 

used to pay for accommodations and related costs. 

A crucial, unmet need related to ADA Title I implementation is ongoing, targeted 

training for employers on all aspects of Title I of the ADA, as well as disability 

awareness for employers at all levels. People with disabilities require similar training in 

order to know their employment rights and to advocate successfully for themselves. 

The movement for flexibility in the workplace brings people with disabilities to the 

center of the discussion in which the workplace needs of all employees are taken into 

account. The ADA establishes the principle of reasonable accommodation, which can 

serve as both a guide and the moral authority for developing methods to support the 

needs of workers with and without disabilities. 

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and other federal agencies concerned with 

implementation of the ADA should launch a new educational campaign that informs 

businesses about the financial incentives and tax credits associated with hiring 

individuals with disabilities. This information should be widely disseminated in tax filing 

information and through other channels. 

Titles II and III – Public and Private Transportation 

While public transportation has achieved significant levels of accessibility, ongoing 

implementation issues include lack of sufficient resources for ADA transportation 

enforcement and lack of funding and resources for ADA implementation at the local 

level. A systemic organizational challenge is the need for ongoing transit staff training on 

ADA requirements for all modalities, and a focus on good customer service. To achieve 

meaningful implementation, disability access must be integrated into all the components 

of large transit organizations. 

Increasing demands for ADA paratransit is creating new implementation challenges, 

including concerns that strict eligibility assessments may be inadvertently discouraging 

riders from trying the fixed-route system for fear of losing paratransit eligibility. Other 

problems include poor access to transportation in rural areas, lack of accessibility to 

10
privately operated over-the-road buses, accommodating oversized wheelchairs, stop 

announcements on fixed-route bus systems, ensuring that the gap between the train car 

and the platform does not exceed ADA specifications, elevator maintenance, and the need 

for adequate securement devices. 

Title III – Public Accommodations 

Significant problems remain in achieving meaningful implementation of the ADA by 

small businesses. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and others have created and 

disseminated extensive technical assistance materials designed to help businesses comply 

with the law, yet businesses indicate that they do not know where to go for reliable 

information about the ADA. Businesses express frustration that they cannot know with 

certainty what the ADA requires of them, and they resent that they might be sued without 

being informed beforehand about accessibility and other ADA problems. Furthermore, 

many have difficulty equating access with discrimination. On the other hand, people with 

disabilities think that widespread and ongoing lack of access to many small businesses is 

indefensible 16 years after enactment of the law. They interpret the lack of compliance to 

mean that businesses do not recognize or value people with disabilities as bona fide 

customers or clients. 

Poor implementation stems in part from the limited federal enforcement role established 

in the ADA. DOJ is not required to enforce every Title III complaint it receives; thus, as 

a practical matter, people with disabilities have only two methods available to them to 

achieve Title III compliance by small businesses: They can file a private lawsuit or 

request that the business voluntarily take steps that are readily achievable to make its 

facility accessible. 

While businesses indicate that they would comply with the ADA if they were informed 

about access and other problems, the experience of many people with disabilities is that 

their initial requests for barrier removal are met with misunderstanding, condescension, 

or hostility, or are simply ignored. Organized efforts by the disability and small business 

community to educate businesses and request voluntary compliance have also been met 

with indifference. For example, 18 months after such a collaborative effort began in San 

11
Francisco, less than 3 percent of 2,200 businesses that were offered information and 

assistance responded, and less than 0.02 percent requested grants that were offered by the 

group for accessibility surveys or modification planning. The group was forced to 

conclude that litigation achieved greater compliance with state and federal law and 

greater accessibility than a nonlitigious collaborative approach. 

Practically speaking, however, many people with disabilities do not have the resources to 

file private lawsuits. Most private attorneys lack adequate knowledge about the ADA, 

and the U.S. Supreme Court has created strong disincentives by limiting the 

circumstances under which attorney fees can be recovered in ADA cases. As a result, 

Title III is overwhelmingly underenforced in most of the country. During 2005, 1,383 

disability rights cases were filed in federal courts, including cases brought under Titles II, 

III, and IV of the ADA, as well as cases brought under the Individuals with Disabilities 

Education Act (IDEA). This is hardly a national “flood” of litigation, as the media 

suggest, especially in the face of acknowledged widespread noncompliance with the 

readily achievable barrier-removal provisions of the ADA. 

Class action lawsuits against larger entities such as retail department store chains have 

been among the more successful cases of Title III litigation since the class action tool 

inherently tends to spread risk and potential relief among an entire class of plaintiffs. 

Unfortunately, the past few years also have brought problems in Title III class action 

lawsuits through the use of an overly expansive class definition of affected people with 

disabilities who were not adequately represented; the overbroad release of access claims 

under both federal and state laws, which foreclosed future litigation for years; and the 

binding of class members to architectural access standards that were below the 

undisputed minimum standards established in the ADA Accessibility Guidelines 

(ADAAG). These problems highlight the need for greater education and training for 

disability rights attorneys working in Title III, and for developing efficient ways to 

monitor against potential abuse and collusion in the use of national and regional Title III 

class actions. 

Widespread Title III compliance cannot be achieved without business and public 

outreach, a visible and efficient administrative enforcement procedure, the wide 

12
availability of qualified accessibility expertise, and economic incentives such as tax and 

other credits. 

Title IV – Telecommunications 

Title IV has a financing mechanism that allows companies that are charged with 

providing telecommunications relay services (TRS) to benefit financially from the 

provision of these services. Since Title IV first went into effect in July 1993, relay 

consumers and telephone companies have enjoyed a cooperative relationship that has 

fostered innovative technologies and high service standards. These innovations and 

improved standards have been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC), the agency that bears responsibility for implementing Title IV. Recently, 

increased competition among companies entering the interstate relay business—many of 

which are not traditional telephone companies—has provided added stimulus for 

improving and enhancing relay products. Open rulemaking proceedings on every facet of 

relay services have provided extensive and unparalleled opportunities for consumers and 

providers to provide input on their needs and objectives, and have resulted in rulings that 

have enabled relay services to evolve along with the rapid pace of modern technologies. 

Despite the considerable success of relay services, some implementation issues remain in 

the areas of training and awareness, funding, and service quality. Many potential relay 

users still are unaware of the existence of relay services or have not received training on 

how to use them, and there is a lack of knowledge about the availability and use of relay 

services. Some businesses and governmental agencies refuse to use relay services to 

exchange confidential information. 

The traditional funding base is in jeopardy, as more services are provided over the 

Internet and there are no low-income subsidies for broadband access. Most state 

equipment distribution programs do not provide funding for the devices required to use 

high-tech relay services and there is no funding mechanism to reimburse providers for the 

technical customer support needed to operate video equipment used with Video Relay 

Service (VRS). Interpreter shortages in many communities impede the effective provision 

of VRS. 

13
No federal standards exist that assess the skills of communication assistants (CAs) and 

interpreters who provide Internet-based text and video relay services, and previous 

oversight mechanisms employed by the states do not work for Internet-based relay 

services. New TRS delivery methods that are Internet-based need the same level of 

oversight on the federal level as exists for traditional TRS on the state level. Furthermore, 

state relay services vary considerably in quality. 

Examples of ADA Best Practices 

Well-established ADA best practices illustrate that successful implementation is both 

possible and practicable, and serve as models for other covered entities. The following 

models also directly address at least one of the underlying issues or stereotypes behind 

intractable implementation areas. They range from an aggressive top-down commitment 

to recognizing people with disabilities as a desirable market share, to a simple elimination 

of the pay discrepancy between transportation employees who work with people with 

disabilities and employees who work with the nondisabled population, to an intermediate 

agency that fills the information/education and technical assistance gap between 

employees and employers. The following examples meet specific structural and 

procedural criteria, and the entities engaging in the practice collect and publish 

quantitative outcome data that reveals the practical benefit for people with disabilities. 

• Microtel Inns & Suites, the chain of newly constructed budget/economy hotels, offers 

ADAAG-compliant sleeping rooms, strong advertising, and significant staff training 

for franchise operators on serving customers with disabilities. The company reported 

gains in its 2004 bookings for ADA room nights across all distribution channels by 

nearly 275 percent over the previous year. In addition, net revenues for ADA room 

nights increased by more than 260 percent. 

• Resolving discrepancies in pay between paratransit and fixed-route drivers resolves 

some of the chronic difficulties that persist in paratransit service, such as high driver 

turnover. Tri-Delta Transit in Antioch, California, made this change in the late 1990s 

and lowered paratransit driver turnover by 50 percent. In Wenatchee, Washington, 

Link Transit’s average operator has driven for 10 years, compared with most 

paratransit systems, which have turnover of around 50 percent per year. This longevity 

14
has resulted in skilled drivers who rarely get lost, know nearly all their passengers, and 

operate at high productivity. 

• The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a service of the Office of Disability 

Employment Policy (ODEP) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). JAN’s mission 

is to facilitate the employment and retention of workers with disabilities by providing 

employers, employment providers, people with disabilities, their family members, and 

other interested parties with information on job accommodations, self-employment 

and small business opportunities, and related subjects. In a recent evaluation, JAN 

customers reported that implementation of worksite accommodations would 

significantly reduce the individual’s level of limitation due to the disability. Further, 

JAN customers reported having made highly effective accommodations at very little or 

no cost. 

Key Recommendations 

A complete list of ADA implementation recommendations for specific audiences can be 

found in Appendix F. 

Recommendations for Congress 

• Congress must enact legislation that reverses the Supreme Court decisions narrowing 

the definition of disability so individuals with disabilities who were intended to be 

covered by the law are again eligible to use it to challenge discrimination. 

• Congress must enact legislation that effects a statutory repair of Buckhannon’s 

condition of a “judicially sanctioned” change in the parties’ relationship for the 

recovery of attorney fees under Title III, so that attorney fee-shifting rules will apply if 

a Title III plaintiff or would-be plaintiff has been the catalyst for a public 

accommodation’s coming into compliance with its Title III obligations. 

• Congress must make compensatory damages available under Title III. 

• Congress must establish a statutory minimum damages amount for the denial of access 

rights under Title III. 

15
• Congress must provide specific funding and a mandate to DOJ and all technical 

assistance organizations, such as the ADA & IT Technical Assistance Centers, for 

outreach to chambers of commerce, Rotary Clubs, and other small business 

organizations, especially those serving rural areas and smaller towns. The assistance 

and cooperation of these business associations, as well as any local disability advocacy 

groups that work with small businesses, is needed to accurately inform businesses of 

their obligation to comply with Title III, to disseminate technical resource information, 

and to help lower the level of tension and fear in the business community. 

• Congress must provide additional resources for enforcement of the ADA 

transportation provisions. 

Recommendations for Federal Agencies 

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), DOL, Small Business 

Administration (SBA), and other federal agencies concerned with employment of 

people with disabilities should acknowledge the substantial need for ADA training by 

employers at all levels and should join forces to create a campaign that responds to this 

need. 

• Key federal agencies that are charged with a role in enforcement of the ADA should 

join in a collaborative effort to fund a substantial nationwide ADA training initiative 

for people with disabilities. 

• The EEOC, DOL, SBA, and other federal agencies concerned with employment of 

people with disabilities; business trade and membership organizations such as regional 

chambers of commerce and Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM); and 

disability organizations should collaborate on development and dissemination of 

model policies for establishing entity-wide funding mechanisms that can be used by 

divisions, departments, and cost centers to pay for accommodations. 

• Key federal agencies charged with a role in enforcement of the ADA—for example, 

EEOC, DOJ, and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), DOED, and 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—should establish a center of excellence 

either within their agency or through a qualified contractor. Each center’s mission 

would be to conduct research and collect information about effective methods of ADA 

16
implementation related to the agency’s sphere of concern, rigorously evaluate those 

methods to determine their quantifiable impact on people with disabilities, and report 

and widely disseminate results that can serve as models. 

• DOJ should devote substantially more resources and time to investigation of Title III 

complaints, especially those regarding small businesses, in light of widespread 

noncompliance by these covered entities. 

• Key federal agencies charged with a role in enforcement of the ADA, disability 

organizations, and other leaders and experts in accessibility should partner with 

entities such as the National Association of State Fire Marshals, city departments of 

health, mortgage and construction lenders, and associations of city and county 

government to identify legislative, regulatory, and other methods to embed ADA 

information, incentives, and, where appropriate, penalties, in their interactions with 

Title III covered entities. 

• ADA federal enforcement and allied agencies—for example, the Access Board and the 

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR)—should join 

forces to commission research (e.g., focus groups, surveys, interviews) designed to 

elicit structured responses from a variety of Title III entities about the extent to which 

specific technical assistance and informational materials that are currently available 

from DOJ and others provide the ADA implementation guidance they seek, and, as 

appropriate, make specific recommendations for content, formats, and distribution 

mechanisms that would meet their needs. 

• The FCC should accelerate approval for new relay technologies and should establish 

clear guidelines to govern new technologies at the time they are approved. 

• The FCC must include Internet-based providers among the categories of companies 

that must contribute to state and interstate relay support in order to ensure the viability 

of relay funding and to distribute costs fairly among all subscribers of communication 

services. 

17
Recommendations for Legal Advocates 

• Continue monitoring for litigation abuse, but also explore strengthening the current 

system by creating the possibility of recovering attorney fees for raising reasonable 

objections to national and regional class action settlements. 

• Develop ways to link the disability class action notice that is sent to state and federal 

officials to the actual notice that is sent to cross-disability legal groups and to 

Protection and Advocacy agencies in all affected states. 

• Educate the judiciary concerning the need for vigilance on national ADA class action 

settlements that would allow public accommodations to avoid or water down ADAAG 

requirements and broadly bind an overinclusive class of people with disabilities to a 

settlement that gives many of them inadequate or no relief. 

Recommendation for Collaboration Among Businesses, the Disability 

Community, and Professional Organizations and Associations 

• As a condition of ongoing licensing, everyone involved in design, construction, 

engineering, landscape architecture, architecture, and city planning should be required 

to take universal design courses that include explanations of the ADAAG and access 

codes and standards, and these courses should be offered through continuing education 

programs. Sponsorship should be provided by state and national professional 

organizations such as the Building Officials and Code Administrators International, 

Inc., known as the International Code Council (ICC), and the American Institute of 

Architects (AIA). 

Recommendation for Business Organizations and Associations 

• Leading business associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the 

Council of Better Business Bureaus should endorse and support a new ADA education 

project with their members. This would involve notifying members about the ADA 

through mailings, providing information on their respective Web sites and at 

conferences and regional and national meetings, and informing them that the 

organization has the capacity to distribute ADA implementation materials published 

by DOJ and other federal agencies. 

18
Recommendation for Disability Community Organizations and 

Advocates 

• The leaders of local independent living centers and other disability organizations 

should seek out leaders in culturally diverse neighborhoods to hold discussions on 

ADA implementation and to understand the needs of citizens and businesses. The 

objective is to inform leaders about the benefits of the ADA and build partnerships 

that provide mutual benefit for the disability and culturally diverse communities. The 

goals are for local leaders to demonstrate that the ADA can be implemented in a 

meaningful way in their communities, to promote implementation, and to serve as a 

model for others. 

Introduction 

I. Background 

This report on implementation of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), part 

of a research and policy initiative of the National Council on Disability (NCD), responds 

to the NCD statutory responsibility to foster effective enforcement and implementation of 

the ADA. The report presents the views and opinions of diverse stakeholders about ADA 

implementation challenges and issues, and their recommendations for improvement. It 

contains analyses of issues and concerns that have arisen in recent years concerning ADA 

litigation—particularly as a tool for implementing Title III, the provision of the law that 

applies to public accommodations and commercial facilities—and the outcomes of 

judicial focus groups. The report also presents examples of best ADA practices that 

illustrate methods some covered entities are using to implement the law that have 

demonstrated lasting, positive, and measurable results for people with disabilities. 

Finally, the report offers an analysis of public education about the ADA and preliminary 

strategies for increasing public awareness about the ADA. 

In 1984, Congress established NCD as an independent federal agency and charged it with 

reviewing federal laws, regulations, programs, and policies affecting people with 

disabilities and with making recommendations to the President, Congress, officials of 

19
federal agencies, and other federal entities regarding ways to better promote equal 

opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and integration into all 

aspects of society for Americans with disabilities. 

NCD first proposed a broad civil rights law for people with disabilities and drafted the 

initial ADA legislation, which was published in the 1988 NCD report entitled On the 

Threshold of Independence. In 1995, NCD issued a report entitled Voices of Freedom: 

America Speaks Out on the ADA that presented testimony gathered from individuals with 

disabilities all across the country. The report concluded that, although the ADA was 

relatively new and not yet fully implemented, it had begun to bring about dramatic 

improvements in the lives of people with disabilities. In 2000, NCD published Promises 

to Keep: A Decade of Federal Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which 

described a variety of weaknesses in the federal enforcement of the ADA and presented 

recommendations to correct these deficiencies. 

Since 2000, NCD has focused on identifying problems or gaps in ADA implementation 

and understanding factors that either enhance or impede ADA implementation. The 

2003–2004 NCD initiative, Righting the ADA, analyzed the effects of unfavorable U.S. 

Supreme Court interpretations in ADA cases and developed legislative recommendations 

for restoring the ADA to its original intent. As part of the initiative, NCD published a 

series of policy briefs analyzing the Supreme Court’s ADA decisions, subsequent lower 

court rulings, and media coverage. In the final report, entitled Righting the ADA, NCD 

summarized these analyses and made recommendations for restoring the rights and 

protections the ADA was intended to provide. 

In 2005, NCD undertook an ADA Impact Study that sought to develop an understanding 

of the successes the ADA has achieved and the problems that remain, from the 

perspective of diverse stakeholders. This study, taken together with previous research 

conducted by NCD, revealed that much more needs to be done to achieve the full promise 

of the ADA. People with disabilities report ongoing problems obtaining accommodations 

in the workplace and a reticence among businesses that are open to the public to comply 

voluntarily with the law, thus perpetuating the exclusion of customers with disabilities. 

Despite widespread dissemination of extensive technical assistance materials that 

20
describe in detail the rights the ADA affords and methods for complying, many 

individuals and covered entities still do not understand the requirements of the law. Many 

businesses report that they are unable to determine when they are in compliance. Some 

businesses and programs covered by the ADA are unfamiliar with the relay service or 

how to use it, or the need to provide information in accessible formats to ensure effective 

communication. 

Furthermore, certain litigation issues are thought to have a negative impact on ADA 

implementation. Some class action cases fail to protect adequately the interests of the 

class at large. The defendants in a number of ADA Title III lawsuits and administrative 

settlements have not followed through with agreed-upon accessibility improvements. 

Moreover, the media have produced numerous negative reports that perpetuate the 

perception that certain individuals and their attorneys are making a career out of suing 

establishments for ADA violations by filing ADA lawsuits over minor accessibility 

problems. 

Against this backdrop, NCD initiated the ADA Implementation Study to develop a 

deeper understanding of issues and problems that impede implementation, and to identify 

solutions. Activities included the following: 

• Bringing together diverse ADA stakeholders and engaging them in a dialogue that 

would result in recommendations on how to improve the implementation of the ADA 

and how to make the goals of the ADA a reality for individuals with disabilities. 

• Identifying ADA implementation best practices that could serve as models to illustrate 

how some entities are achieving effective implementation. 

• Studying the implementation benefits, outcomes, and challenges that have derived 

from various ADA litigation activities, particularly as they relate to Title III of the 

ADA, and making recommendations for addressing any identified problems. 

• Evaluating information and outreach methods used to inform the public about the 

ADA from the viewpoint of diverse stakeholders, and developing strategies for 

promoting awareness about the ADA, including the development of a prototype public 

relations campaign. 

21
II. Purpose and Scope of the Report 

The purpose of this report is to present the outcomes from the following activities: 

A. Stakeholder Dialogues 

The report presents the outcomes of 10 stakeholder dialogues conducted in various 

locations around the country. Two-hundred eighty-two individuals with diverse interests 

and viewpoints participated in these dialogues, meeting to discuss ADA implementation 

issues and challenges, recommend strategies to improve implementation, suggest 

additional needed research, and identify methods to increase and improve public 

awareness and public education about the ADA. 

Stakeholders met in groups that focused on implementation issues related to the specific 

subjects of the ADA. Groups composed solely of disability community participants also 

met to discuss implementation of the ADA as a whole, with an emphasis on rural 

implementation issues and concerns, and perspectives of stakeholders from diverse 

cultures. 

B. ADA Best Practices 

Research was conducted to identify ADA best practices that illustrate how effective 

implementation can have a lasting and measurable impact on individuals with disabilities, 

and could serve as models. Practices were sought that relate to the requirements of the 

law, educate people about those requirements, or enhance systems, infrastructures, and 

technologies that bear directly on practical aspects of implementation (for example, 

Internet and computer accessibility) as well as on the spirit of the ADA (practices that 

encompass, for example, universal design principles). 

C. Legal Research 

The impetus for the legal research component of the report arose out of concerns brought 

by various ADA stakeholders about specific aspects of litigation under the ADA. One 

major area of concern is problematic national class action settlements that are 

22
characterized by extremely wide class definitions, an overly broad release of plaintiff 

rights (including state law claims), physical accessibility requirements that fall below the 

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) standards, and 

insufficient monitoring. The other major area of concern focuses on private individual 

plaintiffs and plaintiff attorneys who bring successive lawsuits alleging the same or 

similar accessibility complaints primarily against small businesses in existing buildings. 

The businesses tend to settle for excessive attorney fees and ultimately fail to make the 

required accessibility changes. It is important to note that both areas of concern arise 

almost exclusively under Title III of the ADA, and both are prompted primarily by 

concerns about the potential for abuse of the private right of action available as an 

enforcement tool under Title III. 

The parameters of each area of concern were identified and the underlying issues 

analyzed to determine what created the potential for abuse. Some of these underlying 

issues are inherent in any private right of action, which of necessity relies to some extent 

on the professional integrity of both plaintiff and defendant attorneys, but fundamental 

aspects of how Title III compliance has or has not been achieved and enforced over the 

past sixteen years may also raise significant issues. The research in this section looked at 

how allegations of abuse and the underlying issues have had an impact within the 

disability community and on wider public perceptions of the ADA. Finally, this section 

includes a brief discussion of potential legal solutions for dealing with the underlying 

causes and the potential for abuse. 

D. Judicial Focus Groups 

The dearth of research into the judiciary’s knowledge of, experience with, and attitudes 

concerning litigation brought under the ADA prompted us to convene judicial focus 

groups. Judges play a significant role in ADA enforcement and constitute a key 

stakeholder group for achieving compliance with the law. While the attorneys in any 

particular case bear primary responsibility for bringing correct law and jurisprudence 

before the court, the judiciary’s acceptance of the ADA as a broad civil rights law and its 

willingness to connect that right to the details of physical accessibility requirements is 

critical. As a federal law, the ADA is primarily understood to be within the compass of 

23
federal courts, but state judges may also encounter ADA claims when they are joined 

with, for instance, state disability law claims. This project therefore sought out the 

opinions of judges concerning not only ADA litigation but also ADA enforcement, 

compliance, and overall goals. 

E. Public Awareness and Public Education 

The report presents the outcomes of a comprehensive assessment of the state of the art in 

public information campaigns and analyzes existing awareness of the ADA and the ADA 

“information environment.” A prototype for an ADA public relations campaign is 

presented in Part 3. 

III. Report Structure 

The report begins with an Executive Summary, which presents findings and 

recommendations, followed by this section, the Introduction, which provides 

background, and the purpose, scope, and structure of the report. Part 1 presents key 

outcomes from stakeholder dialogues on employment, public and private transportation, 

public accommodations, and telecommunications, as well as from dialogues that were 

conducted with members of the disability community. These outcomes include key ADA 

issues and concerns that stakeholders identified as well as recommendations for 

improving implementation. Part 1 also presents the outcomes of judicial focus groups 

conducted with state court judges, topics for further research identified by stakeholders, 

and effective ADA implementation practices. Part 2 presents a detailed analysis of legal 

and enforcement tools. Part 3 presents a prototype public information campaign aimed at 

increasing small business awareness of Title III of the ADA. 

The Conclusion follows Part 3. The report also contains appendices that include the 

names of attorneys who participated in discussions related to legal enforcement of the 

ADA, a list of stakeholder dialogue participants, the judicial focus group methodology, a 

sample structured negotiations settlement agreement, a table listing existing ADA public 

awareness and information materials, and a summary of ADA implementation 

recommendations for specific audiences. 

24
PART 1. Stakeholder Observations and Effective ADA 

Implementation Practices 

Introduction 

In the years since its enactment, the extent to which people with disabilities perceive that 

the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act has been effective in challenging 

discrimination and eliminating architectural, communication, and policy barriers reflects 

the combined impact of federal enforcement, private litigation, and disability community 

advocacy and education. 

However, persistent problems in ADA implementation remain for people with 

disabilities. Among these are ongoing difficulty obtaining accommodations in the 

workplace and poor voluntary implementation by small businesses that are open to the 

public, which has perpetuated the exclusion of customers with disabilities. Despite 

widespread dissemination of extensive technical assistance materials by the U.S. 

Department of Justice (DOJ) and others—materials that describe in detail the rights 

afforded by the ADA and methods for complying—many individuals and covered entities 

still do not understand the requirements of the law. 

Against this backdrop, the National Council on Disability (NCD) initiated an ADA 

implementation study to develop a deeper understanding of implementation issues and 

problems, and identify solutions. 

Part 1 presents the outcomes of 10 stakeholder dialogues conducted in various locations 

around the country. Two-hundred eighty-two individuals with diverse interests and 

viewpoints participated in these dialogues. Stakeholders met in groups that focused on 

implementation issues related to specific sections of the ADA. Groups composed solely 

of disability community participants also met to discuss implementation of the ADA as a 

whole, with an emphasis on rural implementation issues and concerns, and perspectives 

of stakeholders from diverse cultures. Also presented are the outcomes of judicial focus 

25
groups conducted with state court judges who met to discuss their awareness of disability 

rights laws and to identify potential learning opportunities. 

Part 1 also presents outcomes from research to identify ADA best practices that illustrate 

how effective implementation can have a lasting and measurable impact on individuals 

with disabilities, and can serve as models. 

I. Stakeholder Observations 

A. Employment (Title I)1 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion 

Stakeholders who participated in discussions related to ADA Title I implementation 

acknowledged that issues related to employment of people with disabilities are complex 

and can include, for example, the extent to which employees with disabilities have equal 

educational opportunities, access to transportation, health care, appropriate assistive 

technology, adequate support services such as personal assistance services, sign language 

interpreters, volunteer employment opportunities, and job internships. 

Stakeholder observations, insights, and recommendations reflect various perspectives 

about how these issues interrelate and their combined impact on employment 

opportunities and outcomes for people with disabilities. These observations also reflect 

stakeholder perceptions about the continued prevalence and impact of disability stigma 

and misinformation, and the lack of ADA information. Their recommendations identify 

methods for improving implementation of the ADA and for advancing the broader goals 

of employment, equal opportunity, and community integration that are the purposes of 

the law. 

Legal Issues 

Disability community, advocacy, and attorney stakeholders pointed to the narrowing of 

the definition of disability in the courts as a central ADA Title I implementation problem. 

They noted that some employers are applying the restrictive definition of disability when 

26
an employee requests an accommodation; thus, some people are not eligible to request 

the accommodation under the law even though they have an impairment that substantially 

limits a major life activity. Attorney stakeholders specifically noted that the narrowed 

definition limits use of the administrative and judicial remedies available to people with 

disabilities who think they have experienced employment discrimination. 

Several employer stakeholders said that the “regarded as” prong of the ADA disability 

definition presented some problems from the employer standpoint because it unfairly 

protects job seekers. Specifically, their concern centered on the fact that individuals with 

past records of certain disabilities, including psychiatric disabilities and substance abuse, 

could not be excluded from employment on the basis of the employer’s past negative 

experience with an employee who had one of these disabilities. Others noted that they 

thought it difficult to establish that discrimination has taken place when an individual’s 

employment status is “at will”—that is, when an employee can be fired with or without 

cause—even though employers are barred from terminating an employee on the basis of 

protected factors such as race, sex, national origin, or disability. 

Several disability community stakeholders observed that, from their perspective, some 

employers craft job descriptions specifically to eliminate people with certain disabilities 

from consideration and to avoid potential workers’ compensation liability. 

Many employer stakeholders mentioned the overlap and interrelationship between the 

ADA and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). For example, some reported that it can 

be difficult to determine when leave days should be counted as a reasonable 

accommodation under the ADA or as leave under FMLA, and they noted that it can be 

both complex and time-consuming to determine the correct answer. 

Employer stakeholders said they think the EEOC should provide specific answers 

concerning their legal liability so they know where they stand. 

27
Limits of the Diversity Model 

Several attorney stakeholders commented that they think the traditional civil rights 

model—which embodies the principle of nondiscrimination based on race, religion, 

national origin, and sex—does not adequately embrace the reasonable accommodation 

model in the workplace. They stated that they think it is more important to have an 

overarching policy and process that helps all employees work efficiently and fit in rather 

than a model that requires people with disabilities to identify themselves as having a 

disability in order to secure the help and support they need to work and function 

effectively. This approach, which is the procedure set forth in the ADA to determine 

whether an individual is entitled to request a reasonable accommodation, can lead 

employers to “count” people who do not necessarily have significant impairments in 

order to show that the company employs people with disabilities. They noted that, in their 

experience, the reasonable accommodation model does not necessarily lead to hiring 

people with more significant disabilities. 

Flexible Workplace Culture 

Diverse stakeholders discussed the need to envision different ways work can be 

accomplished. Some noted that this shift is especially important because many 

workplaces blur the traditional eight-hour workday, tacitly or explicitly requiring that 

employees be either readily available or on call. Attorneys and representatives of state 

and local governments and organizations that serve people with disabilities discussed the 

importance of advocating for and promoting a flexible workplace culture that 

acknowledges that all employees have personal and family needs that require a certain 

amount of flexibility. Providing methods to accommodate all workers encourages 

employee loyalty, employment satisfaction, and higher performance. Some referred to 

this flexibility as “naturalizing” accommodation. 

Attorney stakeholders mentioned that laws in several states contain definitions of 

disability that are more expansive than the definition found in the ADA, even before 

judicial decisions restricted who is considered to have a disability under the statute. They 

said that in these states a trend is developing among some employers who are 

28
emphasizing meeting an employee’s accommodation needs first, rather than spending 

time and effort to determine whether the person meets the strict definition of disability. 

Several suggested that this approach recognizes the value and positive impact of 

workplace flexibility, and can and should be a starting place for the creation of policies 

that could lead to best practices. 

Attitudes and Perceptions 

Diverse disability community stakeholders discussed extensively the prevalence of 

disability stereotyping and paternalism, especially when it comes to hiring for entry-level 

jobs. In particular, people with psychiatric disabilities, they said, face profound problems 

gaining entry to the workforce. Several disability community participants said they 

thought some employers think that people with disabilities are “damaged goods” but they 

have to hire them anyway. 

Many disability community stakeholders mentioned that they think employers still fear 

the ADA and the potential for the “floodgates effect”; that is, that once they have 

accommodated one employee with a disability, other employees will also request 

accommodation. They mentioned that smaller employers, in particular, continue to think 

that they cannot fire a person with a disability once the person has been hired. 

Several attorneys and people from disability service organizations mentioned that the 

culture of an organization can dictate the extent to which the ADA is implemented 

successfully. When organizations allow a certain amount of flexibility as a general rule, 

accommodating workers with disabilities appears to be easier and more successful. 

Organizations that have more rigid cultures—such as law firms, for example—find it 

much harder to accommodate employees, especially if the accommodations require 

flexible work schedules or time off. They also observed that they think it is difficult for 

employers to expend the time and effort required to identify and acquire appropriate 

accommodations for people with disabilities when the workforce as a whole is working 

longer and harder than in the past. 

29
Diverse stakeholders engaged in significant discussion about their perception that some 

people with disabilities do not have adequate communication and negotiation skills and, 

therefore, cannot advocate successfully for themselves when they require an 

accommodation or need to find a different way to do a particular job. Several employers 

and service providers stated that they think it is the responsibility of the applicant with a 

disability to demonstrate how he or she will fit in with the culture of the workplace and 

dispel employer fears about the perceived burden of providing an accommodation. 

Diverse stakeholders discussed their perception that people with disabilities have poor 

motivation and expectations related to work. Some observed that probably the most 

important reason people with disabilities think they cannot strive for employment is that 

they fear they will lose certain essential government benefits, such as income support, 

health care coverage, personal assistance services, and affordable housing. This fear is a 

powerful disincentive to employment for people with disabilities, even though the Ticket 

to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 and its Ticket to Work Program 

were created to address some of these problems. The perceived and real impact of the 

loss of these benefits—and the difficulty people encounter when they attempt to reinstate 

them when a job ends—represents a survival risk and a central reason some people with 

disabilities do not seek employment. 

Employer-sponsored health insurance can present significant cost and coverage concerns 

for both employers and people with disabilities. Some insurance plans cap payments for 

durable medical equipment, which includes items such as wheelchairs, crutches, braces, 

and ventilators; in effect, making coverage for these items unavailable. Mental health 

services are limited by most policies, and frequently only prescription drugs that are 

included on an approved list are covered by a plan. Several disability community 

stakeholders pointed out that under these conditions, many working people with 

disabilities do not have access even to partial help to pay for life-sustaining assistive 

devices and prescription drugs, while limited mental health services can result in crises 

leading to job loss for people with psychiatric disabilities. 

Some employers also noted that employer health care premiums can rise significantly 

when a covered employee requires expensive care for a serious injury or illness. 

30
Some employers and service providers suggested that it is important to recognize the 

need for a “fit” between the employee and the work environment. They noted that people 

with certain disabilities might not be a match with certain work cultures because of their 

disability. Some stakeholders observed that this is a reality of the world of work and 

should be openly acknowledged so that employment matches are more likely to succeed. 

They said that those involved in job training, placement, and employment advocacy for 

people with disabilities should attempt to determine when a match is likely to be 

appropriate and when it is likely to fail. Other community stakeholders suggested that 

while cultural fit is, indeed, an employment factor for many workplaces, it should not be 

used to justify disability-based discrimination. 

Various employer and community stakeholders noted that disability stigma prevents 

some people from identifying themselves as having a disability even when they might 

require an accommodation. Such people fear that identifying themselves as having a 

disability will trigger a negative response from an employer. They are willing to risk 

performing poorly on the job because they lack a needed accommodation rather than risk 

negative retaliation if they disclose their disability. Older workers who are reentering the 

workforce are especially likely to engage in this behavior. 

Several advocacy and service provider stakeholders observed that, from their perspective, 

some companies that recruit candidates for certain jobs on behalf of employers simply do 

not treat an individual with a disability as a bona fide prospect, regardless of the person’s 

qualifications. It appears that these companies often do not pass on the applicant’s résumé 

or promote the individual with their clients. Several disability community participants 

noted that they thought this practice was fairly common because employers 

fundamentally do not want to hire someone with a disability for a position at the level at 

which professional recruiters become involved. 

Information, Education, and Training 

Significant discussion took place about the need to increase ADA training at all levels of 

business and management. Diverse stakeholders observed that smaller businesses simply 

do not know how the ADA’s employment provisions apply to them. In larger companies, 

31
human resources personnel (who generally understand the intent of the ADA) require 

ongoing training to stay up to date, and require information about how to manage the 

overlap between ADA, FMLA, and state workers’ compensation programs. 

Some advocacy and service provider stakeholders reported that they had been successful 

in persuading employers to hire people with disabilities by combining basic ADA 

education with disability awareness, which they think helps dispel employer fear and 

uncertainty, and affords an opportunity to demonstrate that certain benefits can be 

derived from hiring individuals with disabilities. Some community stakeholders said that 

such nonthreatening intermediaries helped pave the way by providing an opportunity for 

prospective employers to express their fears and concerns, and to obtain information in a 

safe environment. Others noted that the need for intermediaries to assist people with 

disabilities attain employment demonstrates the extent to which myths and fears about 

disability are still prevalent among some employers. 

Many diverse stakeholders mentioned that youth with disabilities are not adequately 

prepared to enter the workforce. They noted that preparation goes beyond an adequate 

formal education to include real-world opportunities for internships and volunteer 

positions that will expose young people to the expectations and practices of the 

workplace. Youth also require intensive job preparedness training that includes 

interviewing and résumé-preparation skills, knowledge of ADA rights and 

responsibilities, awareness of workplace culture, and methods to solve practical problems 

such as transportation and acquisition of assistive technology. Mentoring opportunities 

were cited as particularly important for youth with disabilities, and various stakeholders 

suggested that more effort is required to ensure that people with disabilities have 

opportunities to participate in job and career mentoring programs. 

Similarly, employer and service provider stakeholders noted that some people with 

disabilities find it especially difficult to find work because they are seeking entry-level 

work, which is in short supply. Furthermore, people with disabilities who are seeking 

entry-level jobs find that it is even more difficult to secure those positions if they require 

expensive accommodations. 

32
Others mentioned that while they think it is effective to demonstrate the consequences 

when an employer fails to provide an accommodation, employers also need to perceive a 

benefit to the operation of their organization when they comply with the ADA. In 

addition to the value of a qualified employee joining or remaining in their workforce, 

employers need to be informed about practical incentives such as tax credits and other 

financial incentives that are available when they hire and accommodate a worker with a 

disability. Service providers and community stakeholders observed that employers are 

still unaware of the various incentives available, or think that the process of taking 

advantage of the incentive is too time-consuming and complex. 

Another theme that emerged from stakeholder discussions is the importance of conveying 

the message to employers that people with disabilities can fill jobs when there are labor 

shortages. This point was made by diverse stakeholders who think that people with 

disabilities represent an untapped labor pool and that employers should be educated about 

this underutilized resource. 

Accommodation Issues 

Much discussion focused on the perception of some disability community and service 

providers that some employers continue to deny accommodations because the cost is not 

covered in their departmental or cost-center budget allocation, suggesting that the 

company or entity as a whole does not provide funds for accommodation that are 

available organization-wide. Some larger public and private employer stakeholders noted 

that their organizations have established entity-wide accommodation funds, which help 

departmental supervisors provide needed accommodations while relieving their concern 

about budget shortfalls that could be caused in part by the cost of an accommodation. 

Most stakeholders acknowledged that this approach calls for significant upper echelon 

commitment and leadership; however, when implemented, it can be the most effective 

method to address funding concerns for many medium to large businesses and other 

entities. 

Employer stakeholders mentioned that they thought one of the more difficult 

accommodation problems they face concerns employees with disabilities who are 

33
frequently absent from work. While certain employees are permitted to use paid leave as 

an accommodation, their absence from the workplace sometimes creates problems for 

other employees and can impede production. These stakeholders observed and discussed 

the conflict between their ADA obligations and their desire to help a valued worker, and 

the need to accomplish specific tasks in a timely manner. 

Service providers and disability community stakeholders noted that some employers 

agree to provide certain accommodations, such as sign language interpreters, but fail to 

follow through. This failure puts deaf and hard-of-hearing employees at a significant 

disadvantage when they need to participate in meetings or other job-related activities, 

where effective communication is essential and the inability to participate fully threatens 

their job performance. 

Various employer stakeholders expressed concern about the time it takes to determine 

which accommodation might be effective for an employee with a disability and the effort 

required to acquire the accommodation and arrange for payment. From the perspective of 

these stakeholders, this expenditure of their time represents a nonreimbursable cost and, 

therefore, lost revenue. 

Several community stakeholders mentioned some creative ways in which revenue is 

being generated by local governments to pay for accommodations. In one example, 

parking fines levied when a driver parks illegally in a space designated for drivers with 

disabilities go into an accommodation pool that departments of city government can draw 

from. 

Various service providers and community stakeholders discussed specific employment 

concerns related to people with some psychiatric disabilities. Some said they think it is 

very difficult for people with psychiatric disabilities to find work if they disclose their 

disability in order to request an accommodation. Others noted that accommodating 

people with such disabilities in the workplace can sometimes present significant 

challenges. Several people mentioned that employees who acquire physical disabilities 

while on the job can be reassigned relatively easily to other jobs upon their return to 

work, especially if they work for a large entity. On the other hand, they observed that 

34
there appears to be significantly less such flexibility when people who experience a 

mental disability while on the job attempt to return to work. 

Lack of Collaboration 

From the viewpoint of various diverse stakeholders, state and federal agencies do not 

collaborate effectively to promote employment of people with disabilities. Similarly, 

many stakeholders observed that they think there are many opportunities for 

collaboration among nonprofit organizations, state and local governments, and 

representatives from the private sector, yet insufficient collaboration takes place. 

Furthermore, when models of collaboration are developed, they are difficult to sustain, 

according to some. 

In particular, service provider and community stakeholders noted that there appears to be 

little or no collaboration and model project development among local, state, and Federal 

Government agencies and departments concerned with employment of people with 

disabilities, organizations of people with disabilities, and Internet job boards such as 

Monster, HotJobs, and others of similar size and scope. Many stakeholders think that 

significant potential exists to increase employer awareness about the ADA as well as to 

broaden employment opportunities for people with disabilities through creative 

collaborations with these entities. 

Several employer stakeholders observed that in larger organizations communication 

between human resources and legal departments tends to be minimal. Others observed 

that communication among human resources, line supervisors, and upper level 

supervisors and directors can also be weak. While human resources staff likely will be 

aware of the key requirements of the ADA as it relates to employees within their 

organization, the details of the ADA often do not necessarily reach managers and others 

who direct hiring, firing, and other decisions concerning employee benefits, 

accommodations, work assignments, and workplace flexibility. 

35
2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations 

Implementation Issue: The U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the definition of 

disability, thus barring many people with disabilities from being eligible to use the 

ADA when they encounter employment discrimination. 

Recommendation: Congress should enact legislation that reverses the Supreme Court 

decisions narrowing the definition of disability so individuals with disabilities who were 

intended to be covered by the law are again eligible to use it to challenge discrimination. 

Implementation Issue: Finding ways to use the principle of job accommodation as a 

method to promote the concept of a flexible workplace. 

Diverse stakeholders observed that a more flexible workplace brings people with 

disabilities to the center of the discussion in which the workplace needs of all employees 

are taken into account. Because of the increased demands on most workers and the 

blurring of the lines that have traditionally defined work, workplace flexibility is gaining 

attention and currency. The ADA establishes the principle of reasonable accommodation, 

which can serve as both a guide and the moral authority for developing methods to 

support the needs of workers with and without disabilities. Stakeholders also observed a 

relationship between workplace flexibility and principles of universal design, which 

encourages the creation of systems that foster ease of participation by as many people as 

possible, thus strengthening the case for work environments that meet the needs of many. 

The following recommendations derive from an extensive discussion among diverse 

stakeholders about the benefits of flexibility to workers with disabilities and others. 

Recommendation: Accreditation bodies such as the Association to Advance Collegiate 

Schools of Business should require as a condition for accreditation of management and 

business programs, course content or courses that explore the principle of workplace 

flexibility—and the reason such flexibility is beneficial to employers and employees 

alike—and that introduce the concept of reasonable accommodation for people with 

disabilities as a template for workplace flexibility. 

36
Recommendation: Workplace Flexibility 2010—an initiative of Georgetown University 

Law Center that supports the development of a comprehensive national policy on 

workplace flexibility at the federal, state, and local levels—should increase attention to 

the concerns facing workers with disabilities. 

One goal of the initiative is to identify ways in which the workplace can be restructured 

to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce. While the campaign recognizes 

that the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA establish methods for 

workplace flexibility and that issues of concern to people with disabilities must be 

included in the dialogue, the initiative thus far has emphasized the changing needs of 

families and older workers. At this critical juncture, as the initiative gathers momentum, 

it is critical that issues of concern to people with disabilities be fully included. The 

initiative holds the potential to integrate job accommodations in the workplace as an 

accepted and routine practice and also to demonstrate that such flexibility can benefit all 

workers and employers. 

Implementation Issue: People with disabilities do not know their rights under the 

ADA and, therefore, cannot advocate successfully for these rights in all aspects of 

the employment process. 

Various stakeholders observed that job seekers with disabilities require training and 

orientation on topics such as job preparedness, interviewing skills development, résumé 

preparation, and tools for conducting prospective employer research. They also noted that 

in addition to these more traditional areas of training, it is equally important for job 

seekers and employees with disabilities alike to be aware of and understand their 

employment rights under the ADA so they can advocate successfully for themselves 

during the job search process and in the workplace. The following recommendations 

respond to this identified need. 

Recommendation: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) should 

develop partnerships with public agencies such as Employment Development 

Departments, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) One-Stop Career Centers, state 

departments of rehabilitation, and national, state, and local disability organizations to 

37
develop training modules and deliver targeted training to job seekers and employees with 

disabilities. Modules should be developed that recognize and respond to the specific and 

unique needs of subgroups of people with disabilities, such as youth, workers seeking 

entry-level employment, reentering workers, older workers, and individuals who are 

changing careers. Training should enable people with disabilities to understand their 

ADA employment rights and should promote skills and methods whereby they can use 

this information to advocate for themselves successfully during all aspects of the job 

search, as well as in the workplace. Training should be offered as an ongoing service of 

the collaborating agencies and organizations. 

Recommendation: The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) of DOL should 

collaborate with leaders in the field of mentoring—such as the National Mentoring 

Partnership and Netmentors—to identify methods to ensure that youth with disabilities 

are fully included and accommodated in all mentoring programs and that mentoring 

program staff receive appropriate ADA training and information to ensure that they have 

the capacity to meet the needs of youth with disabilities.2 

Implementation Issue: There is a lack of ongoing ADA training and education, and 

disability awareness, for employers at all levels. 

From the perspective of diverse stakeholders, the greatest needs related to ADA Title I 

implementation are ongoing, targeted training for employers on all aspects of Title I of 

the ADA, as well as disability awareness for employers at all levels. The stakeholders 

acknowledged the efforts by federal, state, and local government and by business 

volunteers to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities, but think 

that these efforts have fallen short by not including ongoing ADA training for employers. 

Specifically, various stakeholders said that business associations and membership 

organizations must become involved in ongoing ADA training and education because 

employers, especially business owners, prefer to obtain information from organizations 

that they perceive represent their interests. The stakeholders also suggested that the 

Federal Government should step up its efforts to create and disseminate training materials 

aimed at specific industries and businesses, and strengthen relationships with business 

38
leaders to foster commitments that ensure that training is ongoing and embedded in their 

respective operations. Likewise, the Federal Government should step up its efforts to 

provide technical assistance to employers using the highly effective Job Accommodation 

Network as a model. 

Stakeholders identified specific ideas and methods for creating training opportunities and 

delivering training; these are presented in the following recommendations. 

Recommendation: The EEOC, DOL, Small Business Administration (SBA), and other 

federal agencies concerned with employment of people with disabilities should 

acknowledge the substantial need for ADA training by employers at all levels and should 

join forces to create a campaign that responds to this need. Such an initiative must have 

adequate financial resources and the commitment of key federal agency, business, and 

industry leaders, associations, and trade unions. The goal would be to foster commitment 

to systematic, nationwide, annual ADA and disability awareness training for boards of 

directors, management and human resources staff, union stewards and representatives, 

and others involved in the hiring and retention of workers. The initiative could be 

launched in concert with an existing public awareness campaign focused on promoting 

workplace diversity that includes employees with disabilities. 

The initiative should develop training modules that 

• are targeted to specific industries (for example, health care, hospitality, 

manufacturing); 

• contain a complete package of substantive ADA information and materials, handouts, 

and multimedia resources; 

• contain materials and recommendations for presenting updates throughout the year 

that can be delivered by e-mail, Web site referral, and newsletters, and that can be 

integrated with other ongoing training provided by the employer or union; 

• are easily obtained from a Web site; and 

• are available in alternative formats. 

39
Recommendation: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, state and local chambers, fraternal 

organizations such as Rotary International and Lions Clubs, and national trade and 

membership associations such as the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) 

should proactively disseminate information to their members and partners about the ADA 

and employment generally, and specifically should announce, promote, and disseminate 

training modules developed in response to the annual ADA training initiative previously 

discussed. 

Recommendation: Trade union leaders should proactively disseminate information to 

representatives and stewards about the ADA and employment generally, and specifically 

should announce, promote, and disseminate training modules developed in response to 

the annual ADA training initiative previously discussed. Unions should be encouraged to 

promote training at worksites where they represent workers in order to build capacity to 

solve problems and prevent them from escalating. 

Recommendation: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, regional and local chambers, and 

national trade and membership associations such as SHRM should proactively include 

people with disabilities as members of the diversity community in all informational and 

promotional materials, including podcasts, listservs, and other relevant online discussions 

of topics with broad interest to the business community. 

Recommendation: The SBA should establish partnerships with disability organizations 

and institutions of higher education to develop and add an ADA Title I training course to 

its roster of free online courses for small businesses. The SBA should sponsor local and 

regional ADA Title I trainings as an ongoing element of its national training seminars for 

small businesses. 

Recommendation: The SBA should identify methods to ensure that participants in the 

SCORE project—retired executives who advise small businesses—possess adequate 

knowledge of the employment provisions of the ADA and incorporate this knowledge 

and information when they consult with small business owners and executives. 

40
Recommendation: Accreditation bodies such as the Association to Advance Collegiate 

Schools of Business should require as a condition for accreditation that a disability 

curriculum module be incorporated in professional training programs related to business 

administration, leadership, and management. The module should contain elements on the 

requirements of Title I of the ADA, disability awareness, and the inclusion of people with 

disabilities in discussions of workplace diversity. 

Recommendation: ODEP should identify methods to promote the message that people 

with disabilities represent a significant pool of available labor that can be drawn upon to 

fill jobs when there are labor shortages. 

Recommendation: ODEP should consider new ways to expand advertising and 

promotion of the services of the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) and to educate 

employers about the availability of the service. ODEP also should ensure that funding for 

JAN meets the demand for its services. 

Recommendation: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) should update its 

2002 tax credit study (which was based on 1999 business tax returns) to determine 

whether businesses have increased their use of the tax credits and other incentives related 

to hiring individuals with disabilities. On the basis of the study results, the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS)—in consultation with relevant federal agencies, businesses, and 

disability community representatives—should make recommendations to NCD and 

Congress for changes in the tax credit system, which could include increasing the credits 

as an incentive to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities. 

Recommendation: The IRS and other federal agencies concerned with implementation 

of the ADA should launch an educational campaign that informs businesses about the 

financial incentives and tax credits associated with hiring individuals with disabilities. 

This information should be widely disseminated in tax filing information and through 

other channels to small and large business networks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 

local and regional chambers, online sources, unions, and disability organizations. 

41
Recommendation: The National Conference of State Legislators should work with 

national disability organizations and employers to develop and adopt a position that urges 

members to propose state legislation that would require anyone who either receives a 

promotion or accepts a job requiring supervision of others to undergo mandatory training 

on the ADA, just as certain states currently require such training on sexual harassment.3 

Recommendation: When businesses apply for a new license, or renewal of an existing 

business license, they should receive basic information about the ADA and where to 

obtain additional information. 

Recommendation: The EEOC should step up its efforts to ensure that business partners 

in the Youth at Work program proactively identify, reach out to, and include youth with 

disabilities in all their activities. 

Implementation Issue: Providing job accommodations is not perceived as a 

standard and ordinary cost of doing business. 

Stakeholders discussed the need for employers to perceive that providing reasonable 

accommodations for applicants and employees with disabilities is a standard and ordinary 

cost of doing business. Decisions about whether an accommodation will be provided 

should not rest with a departmental-level manager who is concerned about cost overruns. 

Rather, businesses should adopt an accommodation policy that sets forth the steps 

required to request an accommodation and establish an entity-wide fund that can be used 

to pay for accommodations and related costs. Title II entity representatives also suggested 

methods to generate funds for accommodation. The following recommendations 

summarize these suggestions. 

Recommendation: The EEOC, DOL, SBA, and other federal agencies concerned with 

employment of people with disabilities; business trade and membership organizations 

such as regional chambers of commerce and SHRM; and disability organizations should 

collaborate to develop and disseminate model policies for establishing entity-wide 

funding mechanisms that can be used by divisions, departments, and cost centers to pay 

for accommodations. These models should include provisions for compensating 

42
managers for the time they spend identifying and acquiring accommodations, so that time 

allocations for these tasks can be calculated accurately and factored into long-range 

financial planning. These models should promote the principle that providing 

accommodations is a standard and ordinary cost of doing business. 

Recommendation: Cities and counties should consider placing into an accommodation 

pool the funds from fines collected when people park illegally in spaces designated for 

drivers with disabilities. 

• Collaboration 

Stakeholders discussed methods to broaden employment opportunities for people with 

disabilities through creative collaboration with Internet job boards such as Monster and 

HotJobs. At least one large Internet board already includes disability in its diversity and 

inclusion postings, message boards, and resource listings, and several representatives 

from the disability community serve as advisors. While these steps acknowledge that the 

board recognizes that people with disabilities are bona fide members of the diversity 

community, stakeholders think that the resources and information available to both 

employers and job seekers should be strengthened and expanded. The following 

recommendation presents suggested methods to accomplish this goal. 

Recommendation: The EEOC, SBA, DOL, IRS, Social Security Administration (SSA), 

and other federal agencies concerned with enforcement of the ADA and employment of 

people with disabilities should collaborate with large Internet job boards such as Monster, 

HotJobs, and others of similar size and scope to determine methods to increase awareness 

of the ADA by employers and methods to encourage increased outreach to and hiring of 

people with disabilities. Areas for collaboration could include the following: 

• Development of an online column featuring information of interest to employers and 

job seekers alike (e.g., examples of effective accommodation, hiring and tax 

incentives, Ticket to Work). 

• Adding informational resources for employers and job seekers alike, such as the Job 

Accommodation Network, location and function of the One-Stop Career Centers, and 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about ADA rights and responsibilities. 

43
Recommendation: EEOC, DOL, and other federal agencies concerned with 

implementation of the ADA and employment of people with disabilities should foster 

methods whereby employers such as those who participate in business leadership 

networks and organizations such as SHRM and the National Association of Workforce 

Boards (NAWB) can engage in peer-to-peer discussions about ADA implementation. The 

goal is for business leaders themselves to demonstrate that the ADA can be implemented 

in a meaningful way and to illustrate by example the beneficial outcomes of 

implementation, which will serve as a model for others. 

Recommendation: EEOC, DOL, and other relevant federal agencies concerned with 

employment of people with disabilities should explore the feasibility of establishing a 

national alternative dispute resolution program, possibly in connection with existing 

private mediation services, which would help employers and people with disabilities 

resolve workplace disputes related to ADA rights and responsibilities. Financing could be 

secured from a combination of public funding and private subscription fees from 

businesses. 

• Health Insurance 

While stakeholders recognized that recommendations for systemic health care reform are 

beyond the scope of this report, they thought that certain steps should be taken, 

nevertheless, that will raise awareness about some specific concerns of people with 

disabilities who rely on employer-sponsored health insurance and that hold some 

potential for future reform. Such individuals increasingly face the possibility of leaving 

paid employment in order to become eligible for public health insurance that will pay for 

necessities that are becoming less available under private policies, such as motorized 

wheelchairs and ventilators, mental health services, and prescription drugs. The following 

recommendations identify specific steps. 

Recommendation: The federal agencies charged with improving employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities should convene a working group of agency 

leaders, disability leaders, insurance company representatives, and others to develop 

strategies to address the impact on working people with disabilities of decreasing benefits 

44
from employer-sponsored health care insurance. Subjects for discussion should include 

the increasing prevalence of benefit caps on durable medical equipment and restrictions 

on mental health services and prescription drugs. 

Recommendation: Disability advocacy groups should educate state legislators about the 

impact on working people with disabilities of private health insurance coverage 

limitations, and advocate for legal and policy reforms at the state level that prohibit 

coverage caps for durable medical equipment and other necessary services. 

3. Topics for Further Research 

Various stakeholders pointed out that the lack of data on accommodation requests, 

outcomes, employee satisfaction, and long-term retention makes it difficult to evaluate 

the extent to which midsized and large employers are successfully implementing the 

accommodation provisions of the ADA. 

The reasonable accommodation practices of various large employers (for example, the 

University of California, San Francisco; Alaska Airlines; State of Maryland) are profiled 

in books, articles, and reports. Yet, upon closer scrutiny, few of these employers collect 

sufficient information to evaluate whether their policies have produced measurable 

outcomes. In some cases, stakeholders pointed out, the data that exist conflate ADA 

accommodations with return to work measures called for under a workers’ compensation 

agreement, thus further obscuring the impact of ADA implementation. Such data are 

critical because they serve as indicators that an entity is engaging in an activity that could 

be promoted as a best practice. 

Both employer and community stakeholders noted that leaders in the field of education 

have established centers of excellence—sometimes called communities of practice—as a 

strategy to collect and evaluate information about effective educational practices that 

might have the potential to become best practices, and to provide technical assistance to 

educational professionals and researchers. Such centers are being used to evaluate 

numerous approaches to the delivery of educational programming and the respective 

outcomes related to their stated objectives. Using this example as a guide, the following 

45
recommendation calls for establishing centers of excellence devoted to effective ADA 

implementation. 

Recommendation: Key federal agencies charged with a role in enforcement of the ADA 

(for example, EEOC and the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and 

Education) should establish a center of excellence either within the agency or through a 

qualified contractor. Each center’s mission would be to conduct research and collect 

information about effective methods of ADA implementation related to the agency’s 

sphere of concern, rigorously evaluate those methods to determine their quantifiable 

impact on people with disabilities, and report and widely disseminate results that will 

serve as models. 

Specifically, the centers established to evaluate Title I implementation practices should 

build collaborative relationships with businesses, which could include providing technical 

assistance and other incentives to help them develop methods to collect relevant data, for 

example, on the effectiveness of procedures for requesting job accommodations, the 

number and type of requests, and outcomes. 

B. Public and Private Transportation (Title II and III)4 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion 

Insufficient Resources for Implementation and Enforcement 

The lack of sufficient resources for ADA enforcement in the area of transportation 

concerns advocates and Department of Transportation (DOT) personnel. One staffer 

pointed out that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) receives four times as many 

disability complaints as any other type of complaint. The situation with the ADA was 

compared to enforcement of the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), which, over a period of 

time, came to be funded at a sharply higher level. Increased funding has had a very real 

and positive impact on ACAA enforcement. 

Paralleling DOT’s comments on insufficient resources, some transit agencies mentioned 

lack of funding and resources available for ADA implementation. 

46
A novel approach to monitoring compliance was raised by the ADA coordinator of a 

nationwide transportation company, who pointed out that his company’s brochure about 

accessible services and the rights of riders with disabilities is available in poster form, 

and it is company policy to display the poster prominently at every station the company 

has nationwide. The brochure and poster provide customers with the contact number and 

mailing address for the ADA Compliance Department and advise customers with 

disabilities to contact the Department if they believe their rights have been violated. The 

ADA coordinator said this is how he harnesses the power of riders with disabilities to be 

his eyes and ears across the country where he cannot go on his own; he was proud of this 

system, which alerts him to problematic drivers, staff, and other compliance issues. The 

same company has a disability advisory committee that includes riders who have made 

complaints. No other transportation providers represented at the dialogue could cite a 

similar effort to identify their own organization’s areas of noncompliance. 

One group suggested that to increase provider knowledge, information accompanying the 

licensing of a vehicle should explain the ADA requirements for that vehicle type, whether 

it is an over-the-road bus, a van with a particular passenger load, or any other vehicle. 

Another group suggested publications and training for undercover rider programs to link 

such programs and share information about them. 

Oversized Wheelchairs and Other Mobility Equipment 

What transit agencies call “oversized wheelchairs” are a major concern. One group 

reported that very heavy mobility devices are a real issue, because lifts are not strong 

enough to withstand the weight of these devices. Another transit provider pointed out that 

chairs with fiberglass shells do not allow for securement, and that scooters require a lot of 

space. A government regulator noted that the so-called “wheelchair envelope” in the 

Access Board vehicle rule has been used improperly; it was intended to describe a 

performance standard for vehicle manufacture, not to screen out particular users of 

wheelchairs. Another government staffer said, “You need to be the weight of a car to 

really break a lift, even though a lot of users are told, ‘You’re too heavy; you broke the 

lift.’” 

47
Information, Education, and Training 

The systemic organizational challenge of training staff on ADA requirements and good 

customer service was a hot topic. Stakeholders agreed that to achieve compliance, it is 

necessary for disability access to be integrated into all the components of large transit 

organizations. All personnel should consider access, not just staff assigned to disabilityspecific issues. One transit agency staffer commented that when a paratransit-related taxi 

program exists, the agency may thoroughly train its paratransit drivers, but taxi drivers 

remain untrained. 

Participants shared a number of strategies to improve training. One group recommended 

involving people with disabilities more in the training of drivers. Dialogue participants 

felt it was necessary to train boards of directors, managers, and policymakers in their 

legal responsibilities under the ADA. One transportation provider shared his company’s 

efforts to achieve high training standards. All his company’s staff, including 

management, receive an eight-hour sensitivity training, both in the classroom and in 

hands-on in-service training that includes testing. Training topics cover ADA 

requirements, good customer service, assisting customers with disabilities, using lifts, and 

maintaining accessible equipment. The training program includes computer-based 

continuing education for some staff and has received union support, which adds to its 

strength and effectiveness. 

Another group recommended training on ADA transportation rights and requirements at 

the onset of vocational rehabilitation and in educational programs in which youth with 

disabilities participate. It was recommended that DOT work with the Department of 

Education (DOED) to make this training a part of the transition process from school to 

work for youth with disabilities. 

Fixed-Route Bus Service Issues 

Several participants pointed out that stop announcements remain a challenge. Some 

participants focused on the benefits of automatic annunciators, but one transit agency 

48
reported achieving great success with stop announcements without the use of this 

technology. 

Effectively securing mobility devices in vehicles—including the difficulty of securing 

certain mobility devices and, in some locations, uneven driver performance in proper 

securement—is another significant challenge. One provider began a lively discussion by 

declaring that scooters cannot be secured and the ADA regulation that requires that they 

be secured could be challenged legally as arbitrary and capricious. A government 

technical assistance expert explained that scooters could, in fact, be properly secured. 

One advocate lamented what he called “the human side—getting 2,000 bus drivers in [his 

city] to follow the securement rules.” He reported conducting a study on securement by 

drivers that resulted in a highly disappointing 95 percent failure rate. One recommended 

strategy to address this problem is the wide replication of programs begun by some transit 

agencies that equip the wheelchairs of volunteer riders with securement straps and 

markers showing proper securement points. One group reported that the ANSI/RESNA 

WC-19 standard for four-point securements be promoted more aggressively to device 

manufacturers. 

ADA Paratransit Issues 

Much discussion centered on ADA paratransit. One general concern of transit agencies 

was expressed in several different ways: Some called it the high cost of paratransit, and 

others viewed it as too much paratransit demand by people with disabilities who, it was 

suggested, could possibly use fixed-route transit instead. Participants suggested a number 

of strategies to address this issue. One speaker mentioned offering free rides on the fixedroute service for people who are paratransit-eligible. He pointed out that many systems 

now allow self-selection on a given day, and he chastised systems that do not trust riders 

but instead “worry about a $2 loss and lose a $20 gain.” An advocate explained the 

Miami-Dade system’s “frequent transit user” program, which provides benefits such as 

free entry into the museums, the aquarium, and other local destinations. A transit provider 

pointed out that her system awards prizes such as tickets and dinner passes for customers 

with disabilities if they switch from the paratransit system to the fixed-route system. 

Other transit agencies offered examples of service models that provide cost efficiencies. 

49
For example, Chicago has a taxi voucher system on which paratransit riders can take 

subscription trips. This public/private partnership results in a lower cost than providing 

paratransit without the voucher system. One transit agency representative pointed out that 

his system guarantees next-day service but accommodates same-day service whenever 

possible; this system also uses accessible taxis, which goes beyond the ADA’s mandated 

minimums. Another participant mentioned that a Los Angeles consultant’s study revealed 

what was perhaps an unexpected result: that a mixture of same-day and next-day 

paratransit service, with at least 10 percent same-day service, resulted in a lower total 

cost than 100 percent next-day service. 

Discussion also focused on paratransit eligibility. One transit agency representative 

expressed the challenge of in-person eligibility assessments. Advocates viewed the 

increasing strictness of eligibility assessments as a challenge and commented that riders 

may be inadvertently discouraged from trying the fixed-route system for fear of losing 

paratransit eligibility. 

On-time performance in ADA paratransit is a very real implementation challenge in 

many locales. Issues include consideration of desired arrival or appointment times; 

protecting the pick-up time negotiated between the agency and the rider; and establishing 

limits on trip length. One government participant lamented that the ADA regulation was 

never intended to allow a paratransit provider to respond to a rider wanting a ride at 1:30 

p.m. by providing a ride at 2:15 p.m. DOT’s intention was to require a genuine 

negotiation with a one-hour deviation as the maximum allowable time gap, but this 

ceiling has become a widespread de facto practice. 

Some ADA paratransit providers discussed what one termed “unreasonable requests”— 

for example, to transport someone in a coma, or to provide personal care. Another cited 

“demanding, aggressive customers who don’t understand the limitations of the transit 

provider.” 

There was a lively discussion of the origin-to-destination service issue. Many transit 

agencies have based their paratransit systems on what they view as a choice given to 

them in the DOT ADA regulation to establish either door-to-door service or curb-to-curb 

50
service, but recent DOT policy guidance clarifies the ADA requirement that even 

agencies with curb-to-curb policies are sometimes required to provide additional service 

if necessitated by an individual’s particular disability. DOT has proposed to add to its 

ADA regulation a requirement for reasonable modification of policies, practices, and 

procedures when necessary to avoid discrimination, in the wake of a Fifth Circuit Court 

decision stating that the DOJ regulation under Title II of the ADA does not cover public 

transit agencies.5 Several transit agency representatives felt that DOT has not provided 

adequate guidance on what the new policy would require of their agencies. For example, 

when would it be legitimate to make a finding of undue financial and administrative 

burdens, fundamental alteration, or direct threat? Some were concerned about the 

documentation requirement for such findings. Others felt that they provided such 

accommodations already but were not sure if a requirement to do so would impose 

additional burdens. 

One advocate presented a concern with the lack of ADA paratransit subscription service 

in some communities, which makes regular trips to work or school difficult. A transit 

agency representative pointed out that many ADA paratransit providers are not aware that 

they are allowed to exceed the DOT regulation limit of 50 percent of capacity to be 

dedicated to subscription service if there are no denials or other capacity constraints on 

the service. If properly understood, this exception to capacity regulations could result in 

more subscription service in many locations. 

A number of comments at the dialogue centered on the goal of attaining equity in wages 

and benefits between fixed-route and paratransit operators (drivers), an idea that has been 

discussed increasingly in transit circles because of its potential to benefit ADA paratransit 

implementation by reducing driver turnover and increasing driver competence. Many 

transit agencies appear to be implementing measures that lessen the discrepancies in 

experience and training between the two groups of drivers. For example, one transit 

agency representative reported that his fixed-route operators work at least two hours with 

ADA paratransit during their training. Another discussed the benefits his system has 

realized by having fixed-route drivers go through what he called “the paratransit 

experience,” because it gives them a closer familiarity with securement procedures and 

51
tie-down devices, and makes working with people with disabilities a routine and 

acceptable part of the job. He said he could see a clear educational benefit to drivers as a 

result of having some paratransit experience—he called it an opportunity “to mold their 

minds” on disability access issues. 

Several transit agency representatives discussed how paratransit is viewed, in the words 

of one participant, as a “second-class offspring” in their organizations and addressed the 

challenge of keeping paratransit from being marginalized. Ensuring that paratransit 

managers attain equity in pay, benefits, and status within their organization is a related 

challenge. Some transit agencies discussed their successes in resolving this problem, such 

as upgrading paratransit within a transit agency. For example, if bus and rail divisions are 

managed at the vice president level, the paratransit division should also be managed at 

that level. Pay equity among these managers was an important strategy for improving the 

skill level of ADA paratransit managers, seen as key to providing quality service. One 

transit agency representative reported success in elevating accessibility issues at the 

management level. 

Contracting for Paratransit Services 

Methods and approaches in paratransit contracting are a much-discussed topic among 

ADA paratransit providers. Participants seemed to agree that many ADA paratransit 

implementation challenges stem from difficulties in contractor management, monitoring, 

and quality. It was pointed out that some transit agencies monitor their fixed-route service 

much more actively than they monitor their paratransit service. One provider stated that 

there are an inadequate number of qualified paratransit contractors. He felt that while it is 

easy to state the need to hold the contractor’s feet to the fire, if other qualified contractors 

are unavailable, the agency is without options. Regarding strategies, one provider pointed 

out that most transit agencies use a low-bid process but should use a value-based analysis 

of the bids they receive. He said they should analyze what would be provided for a 

particular amount of money and possibly accept a higher and more qualified bid. Another 

provider mentioned providing bonuses to contractors who meet and exceed expectations. 

52
One provider discussed a number of approaches his agency has developed in the 

contracting process. For example, the agency awards the contract based on best value, not 

lowest cost, by looking at factors such as better driver wages, better staff benefits, and 

better employee training. Also, the contract is structured to minimize risk for the 

contractor by paying a monthly fixed cost and a monthly variable rate based on the 

number of revenue hours the contractor operates. The fixed cost includes utilities, the 

lease cost of the building, and salaries of key management staff. The contractor can count 

on receiving the fixed-cost amount and is less apt to pad the charges. The contractor must 

document every item in the variable rate, which includes charges related to paratransit 

operations. The agency charges the contractor liquidated damages in particular categories 

for events such as “no driver available,” “no vehicle available,” “late to the first pick-up 

of the run,” “failure in timely preventive maintenance,” “no field supervision,” and 

“vehicle replacement.” The agency requires that a malfunctioning vehicle be replaced 

within one hour, or it charges liquidated damages. This works because the agency does its 

own dispatching. The vehicles have automatic vehicle locators (AVLs) and mobile data 

terminals (MDTs), so the agency can track its vehicles. 

Rail Issues 

In the area of rail transit, a number of participants mentioned DOT’s current proposal to 

require high-level boarding platforms for commuter and intercity rail systems. Providers 

and government regulators alike regarded level boarding as a challenge. 

Access to rail stations was discussed as an important issue in rail transit. One transit 

agency representative noted the challenge he faces in providing access to 44 light rail 

stations. One nationwide transportation provider lamented the challenge of an upcoming 

deadline by which it must provide access to its many stations across the country. A 

government official responded by pointing out that this provider waited too many years 

to begin addressing this requirement, adding that it would have been easier with thorough 

planning and gradual implementation from the time the requirement was established in 

1990. One advocate discussed how even ADA-compliant rail systems could still be 

virtually inaccessible to people with disabilities, because the law requires only key 

stations to be accessible. 

53
Ensuring that the gap between the train car and the platform does not exceed ADA 

specifications was mentioned as a challenge by several participants. One suggested 

strategy is a “gap filler”—a rubber strip just under the door. This two-inch gasket has 

helped at least one transit agency perform more consistently within ADA specifications. 

Elevator maintenance and the provision of information on elevator outages are other 

issues of concern to rail providers and advocates. In general, information on elevator 

outages should be communicated in a widely accessible manner. Examples include a 

centralized phone system to report out-of-service elevators, signage at each station to 

provide information on elevator service throughout the system, and systemwide 

announcements made over a public address system when an elevator goes into or out of 

service. One transit agency has a system to send an e-mail to a list of interested riders if a 

particular elevator is out of service. 

One participant discussed a number of rail issues for people who are deaf or hard of 

hearing, including visual announcements to complement audible announcements. He 

suggested that DOT and the Access Board consider the issue of visual announcements on 

both the rail platform and the train. 

Private Companies Using Over-the-Road Buses 

Several participants mentioned the problem of new companies providing curbside overthe-road intercity bus service but ignoring the ADA requirements. One government 

official mentioned that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration of DOT is not 

yet very familiar with this challenge, although it is the logical agency to address it. The 

representative from the private bus company trade association explained that there are 

4,000 companies in the United States using over-the-road buses. He said that it is easy to 

become a licensed company, yet there is no oversight of operations once a license has 

been granted. Many of these companies are not aware of their ADA obligations. For 

example, charter bus companies often say, “We don’t have an accessible bus, and we 

don’t know anyone who does.” 

54
Rural Issues 

The need for better transportation for people with disabilities in rural areas was also a 

theme at this dialogue. There are few transportation services in most small towns and 

rural areas, which adversely affects a significant percentage of people with disabilities in 

the United States. Rural advocates discussed the challenges they face in bringing more 

transportation to rural areas. For example, some advocates regard the proposed FTA rules 

for the New Freedom Initiative, which could provide rural transportation, as inflexible 

because they would preclude voucher and volunteer driver programs, even though these 

models have been successful in rural areas. One rural advocate lamented, “There is no 

ADA service in rural areas because there is no fixed-route service. Rural areas get 

electricity and roads, but no transportation.” 

ADA paratransit in rural areas was a topic of discussion in one group. In smaller 

communities, there is even more of a shortage of resources to fund ADA paratransit than 

in higher density urban areas. One suggested strategy is for rural transportation providers 

in smaller communities to place priority on education, employment and medical trips. 

Additional Implementation Issues Identified 

• Maintenance of accessibility equipment remains an issue, but the acquisition of lowfloor ramp-equipped buses that are easier to maintain than lift buses has significantly 

ameliorated this concern. 

• One advocate raised the concern that jurisdictional boundaries create problems in an 

ADA paratransit context. On the fixed-route system, if one’s city or town borders 

another city, nondisabled people can travel from one system to the next. However, 

paratransit service frequently stops at the jurisdictional border. Contiguous 

jurisdictions are encouraged to coordinate paratransit systems but are not required to 

do so by the ADA. These arbitrary barriers impose difficult limitations on paratransit 

riders if there is no way to transfer from system to system. 

55
• One advocate raised the issue that the DOT ADA regulation mandates next-day 

service in ADA paratransit, not same-day service, even though fixed-route riders 

always can avail themselves of same-day transportation on bus and rail systems. 

• Capacity constraints in paratransit still present challenges, according to some 

participants. Paratransit ride denials and long telephone hold times were cited as 

challenges that remain in some communities. 

• In some cities, lack of full ADA implementation on the fixed-route system (for 

example, low rates of stop announcements on the bus, or sizable gaps between the 

train car and the platform) steers many riders with disabilities toward the paratransit 

system. 

• ADA paratransit providers sometimes find significant numbers of rider no-shows to be 

costly. In some transit systems, advocates report that riders are not informed of, or 

accorded, their right to contest that a particular no-show was beyond their control, or 

their right to appeal no-show suspensions imposed by the transit agency. Some transit 

agencies impose penalties for fewer no-shows than FTA has suggested would 

constitute a pattern or practice of missing scheduled trips. 

• Some transit agencies have cut paratransit service back to minimum ADA 

requirements in order to limit costs. In the view of some riders and advocates, some of 

these cuts have significant adverse effects on riders. 

• Some transit agencies have stated that when they attempt to involve the disability 

community in decision making, it is challenging to know how to attain good 

representation. Which organizations and individuals should they involve? How much 

diversity among disability categories do they need? Who represents the disability 

community? 

• Two other issues arose: difficulties in the use of taxi service faced by people with 

disabilities who use service animals; and barriers encountered by wheelchair users due 

to the lack of accessible vehicles on the part of airport shuttle services, despite ADA 

requirements. 

• One government enforcer identified as a challenge the lack of standardized data being 

reported from agency to agency, and suggested building in financial incentives toward 

56
standardization of data. Reflecting a similar concern, DOT recently published a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (still out for public comment at the time of this writing) that 

asked whether it should require standardization in how ADA paratransit denials are 

counted. 

• One participant discussed the challenge of emergency transportation and how it needs 

to include planning for people with disabilities in a meaningful way. Most localities do 

not consider this aspect of transportation, or pay it lip service at best. 

Discussion of Successes 

Participants discussed many successes and advances in ADA transportation. One 

included the successful use of AVLs and MDTs to track vehicles and communicate with 

drivers. 

The public involvement process counts as another significant success reported by one 

transit agency representative. He described two components. The first is an advisory 

group that met monthly for a number of years. At this point, so many issues have been 

resolved that the group does not need to meet monthly; now they meet quarterly instead. 

The second component is quarterly public meetings. At one time, all the issues raised at 

these meetings involved paratransit; today, they are mostly fixed-route issues. In earlier 

times, strife and bitterness filled the meetings; now they are “more like family reunions.” 

There is a public comment section at the beginning of each meeting, and approximately 

85 percent of the comments are complimentary. This agency is committed to a public 

involvement process to discuss all issues, even if there is not always agreement. 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations 

Implementation Issue: A lack of resources for enforcement hampers ADA 

compliance by transportation providers. DOT receives four times as many 

complaints related to disability as any other issue. 

Recommendation: Congress should provide additional resources for enforcement of the 

ADA transportation provisions. Additional staff to conduct complaint investigations, 

57
additional funds for ADA compliance reviews, and funding for a complaint reporting 

mechanism could have a significant impact on implementation. 

Recommendation: Transit operators should provide brochures and posters that inform 

riders about their rights and how to reach the provider’s ADA compliance office. This 

strategy would enlist riders with disabilities to report information about ADA 

implementation and compliance problems with drivers, equipment, and service. 

Implementation Issue: Some transportation agencies and consumers lack 

information, education, and training on how the ADA applies to them. 

Recommendation: Transit agencies should include ADA training for boards, managers, 

and policymakers as well as for frontline staff who are delivering services. 

Recommendation: DOT should work with DOED to include training on riding public 

transportation as a component in the Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) of 

students with disabilities. Vocational rehabilitation clients also should receive training on 

public transportation skills. 

Recommendation: As a condition of the program, contracts between transit agencies and 

taxis that participate in an ADA paratransit service using a voucher system or other 

arrangement must include mandatory training on the ADA for the taxi service provider. 

Implementation Issue: Sporadic stop announcements. 

Recommendation: Transit agencies should provide strong oversight of drivers and other 

staff responsible for stop announcements. 

Recommendation: Transit agencies should use progressive discipline in cases of 

operator failure to announce required stops. 

Recommendation: Transit agencies should institute secret rider programs to assess 

compliance with the ADA stop announcement provisions. 

58
Recommendation: Transit agencies should acquire equipment such as lapel and sleeve 

microphones to help drivers announce stops. 

Implementation Issue: Effectively securing mobility devices in vehicles—including 

the difficulty of securing certain mobility devices—and, in some locations, uneven 

driver performance in proper securement. 

Recommendation: To improve securement of mobility equipment in transit vehicles, 

transit agencies should institute voluntary programs to install securement straps, if 

needed, on riders’ wheelchairs and to mark the wheelchair’s best securement points. 

Implementation Issue: Transit agencies are concerned with the impact on strained 

budgets caused by the high demand for paratransit by people with disabilities who 

may be able to use fixed-route transit. 

Recommendation: Transit agencies should encourage use of the fixed-route service by 

offering incentives such as free or reduced-fare rides on the fixed-route system, discounts 

to local venues for fixed-route riders, and symbolic awards such as tickets and dinner 

passes for former paratransit riders who are now using the fixed-route service. 

Recommendation: Paratransit programs should investigate whether offering same-day 

taxi voucher rides in combination with next-day service leads to reduced costs. 

Implementation Issue: The lack of ADA paratransit subscription service in some 

communities makes it very difficult to arrange regular trips to work or school. 

Recommendation: DOT should distribute periodic announcements that the ADA allows 

paratransit providers to exceed the regulation limit of 50 percent of capacity to be 

dedicated to their subscription service, if the demand is present, as long as there are no 

capacity constraints on the service. 

59
Implementation Issue: High turnover in ADA paratransit personnel jeopardizes 

compliance with the ADA. 

Recommendation: Transit agencies should equalize the salary and benefits of their 

fixed-route and paratransit drivers as much as possible, and provide them with the same 

or similar training components. If possible, operators should have experience driving in 

both systems rather than only one. 

Recommendation: Transit agencies should recognize and compensate their paratransit 

managers at a level equal to that of other management positions in the agencies. 

Implementation Issue: ADA paratransit implementation challenges stem from 

difficulties in contractor management, monitoring, and quality. 

Recommendation: Transit agencies should award contracts according to best value, not 

necessarily the lowest bid. 

Implementation Issue: Elevator outages and the provision of information on 

elevator outages are barriers to riders of rail transit systems. 

Recommendation: Transit operators should communicate information on elevator 

outages using a variety of accessible methods. Examples include a centralized phone 

system to report out-of-service elevators, signage at each station to provide information 

on elevator service throughout the system, system-wide announcements made over a 

public address system when an elevator goes into or out of service, and sending an e-mail 

to a list of interested riders if a particular elevator is out of service. 

Implementation Issue: Barriers to equal access to transportation remain for people 

who are deaf or hard of hearing. 

Recommendation: The Access Board should consider whether visual announcements 

should be required when audible announcements are present on buses, in trains, and on 

train platforms. 

60
Implementation Issue: There is inconsistent compliance among small, private overthe-road bus operators, vans with a particular passenger load, and other types of 

passenger vehicles. 

Recommendation: When an over-the-road vehicle is licensed, the licensing agency 

should include information with the license that explains the ADA requirements for that 

type of vehicle. 

Implementation Issue: There are few transportation services in most small towns 

and rural areas, which adversely affects a significant percentage of people with 

disabilities in the United States. 

Recommendation: Federal Transit Administration rules for the New Freedom Initiative 

should not preclude voucher and volunteer driver programs, which have been effective in 

bringing additional transportation to rural areas. 

3. Topics for Further Research 

Stakeholders identified the following research needs related to transportation: 

• Document the extensive unmet transportation needs of people with disabilities. 

• Document the social and financial benefits of an accessible, integrated society. For 

example, when transportation and other services are not available, institutionalization 

can be the result, at a high cost to the individual and society. 

• Document the hidden costs of the lack of transportation for people with disabilities, or 

of the transportation systems that are not in compliance with the ADA. 

• Research best practices in paratransit contracting. 

• Research the reasons companies purchase wheelchair-accessible taxis. Are there 

specific incentives, or other reasons that motivate the purchase? 

• Document the link between stable transit agency personnel and the quality of transit 

service. 

61
C. Public Accommodations (Title III)6 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion7 

Stakeholders discussed their perceptions about the difficulty some businesses have 

knowing when they are in compliance with the ADA and the extent to which businesses 

have failed to implement the ADA. They also discussed problems that flow from lack of 

awareness about disability, the principle of “universality,” and the deep lack of training 

and knowledge in the building and construction community. These overarching issues 

and other implementation concerns are loosely grouped and summarized below. 

Limited ADA Implementation 

Stakeholders with disabilities consistently said that they perceive that Title III entities— 

especially smaller businesses, medical providers, and certain social service 

organizations—have done too little to implement the law, with the consequence that 

people with disabilities do not have full and free access to facilities, goods, and services. 

They expressed the view that some businesses do little to comply with the ADA, 

apparently in part because of concern for cost but also because they do not perceive that 

people with disabilities comprise a significant customer base. Many disability community 

stakeholders observed that, in their experience, businesses are not responsive even when 

specifically requested to remove an architectural barrier or provide a particular 

accommodation. (See Chapter IV for a discussion of the effectiveness of informal 

requests for compliance.) These stakeholders observed that their frustration with the lack 

of implementation was further compounded by the fact that there is no legal enforcement 

mechanism, other than litigation, available to resolve most individual complaints of 

noncompliance by Title III entities. (DOJ investigates charges of discrimination by Title 

III entities when it has reason to believe that a covered entity is engaging in a pattern or 

practice of discrimination, but DOJ does not investigate each individual complaint.) 

Furthermore, according to disability community and attorney stakeholders, the lack of 

monetary damages under Title III hinders the development of case law that could help 

clarify what steps covered entities are required to take to comply. 

62
Difficulty Determining Compliance 

Representatives of covered entities, especially smaller businesses, strongly expressed the 

view that they find it difficult or impossible to know when they are in compliance with 

the ADA and what constitutes compliance, particularly with respect to the barrierremoval provisions of Title III as they apply to existing facilities. They cited the lack of 

easily obtained, appropriate, industry-specific information that could guide them in 

determining what actions are required and how much money they must spend to meet the 

requirements. Some business stakeholders said that regardless of how much effort they 

devote to becoming accessible, they fear that minor construction problems will leave 

them vulnerable to litigation. One person suggested that businesses do not know how to 

calculate the fiscal benefits of compliance, so the cost to achieve implementation is 

regarded as an unnecessary expense. 

There was general agreement among stakeholders that small businesses in particular 

either are not aware of or do not understand the “readily achievable” barrier-removal 

requirements of Title III. Representative business stakeholders indicated that they would 

prefer clear-cut guidelines rather than the current flexible standard that represents, from 

their perspective, a constantly moving target. Small business stakeholders mentioned that 

they think some form of certification—such as that provided by health departments— 

would verify that the steps they had taken to comply with the law, particularly those 

concerning readily achievable barrier removal, had fulfilled their obligations. Such 

certification would serve as an incentive to take action and would help shield them from 

litigation. 

Lack of Disability Awareness 

The stakeholders as a group also acknowledged that one of the greatest challenges to 

ADA implementation is widespread lack of awareness about disability; in particular the 

extent to which disability is pervasive in the communities that businesses and other 

entities serve. This lack of awareness perpetuates the view held by some businesses that 

people with disabilities do not represent a potential customer base. Inaccurate information 

and perceptions about disability also have influenced the extent to which implementation 

63
has been carried out by some entities. One access specialist stakeholder reported that 

some businesses still say they think wheelchair users do not patronize their establishment, 

so they do not have an incentive for complying with the architectural access requirements 

of the ADA. Several business stakeholders said they think accessibility features present 

in hotel rooms and public transportation, for example, are underutilized; therefore, 

implementation requirements should be more flexible so industries can determine the best 

way to achieve access. 

However, disability community members noted that if access, auxiliary aids, and other 

accommodations are available, people will come; but because access cannot always be 

predicted, people with disabilities do not want to waste their time or money, or risk 

disappointment, so they tend to patronize facilities they know will welcome them. Some 

suggested that there still is a pervasive attitude among certain businesses that people with 

disabilities should be grateful for whatever is provided for them, thus suggesting that 

voluntary charitable responses to disability are still considered appropriate. Others noted 

that many small businesses are owned and operated by people from diverse cultural and 

linguistic backgrounds. Not all cultures use the same rights framework, so the challenge 

is reaching these individuals with understandable, culturally relevant, and meaningful 

information and training. 

Market Share Should Motivate ADA Implementation 

From the disability community perspective, there was significant discussion about how 

people with disabilities who go out to restaurants, movies, sporting events, and other 

entertainment, as well as those who travel for business and recreation, are frequently 

accompanied by their friends, family, and colleagues. An inaccessible business loses not 

only the patronage of the individual with a disability but also that of his or her family and 

friends. Therefore, market share should be a strong motivation for implementing the 

ADA. One access specialist mentioned that he had worked with numerous retail 

establishments over the years and found that every one thought that accessibility was 

worth the cost after it led to increased business. 

64
Several community stakeholders observed that some businesses call for both flexibility 

and specificity in implementing the ADA, suggesting that their real issues might have 

less to do with what businesses are required to do under the law and more to do with their 

perceptions about the importance of accessibility and the extent to which people with 

disabilities are valued as customers. 

Principle of Universality 

Diverse stakeholders discussed at some length and in various contexts the idea that one 

overarching goal should be to eliminate the perception that people with disabilities are a 

separate group that exists apart from the rest of the populations that businesses and other 

covered entities serve. This perception of separateness perpetuates negative stereotypes 

and discourages ADA implementation actions that some business stakeholders perceive 

meet the needs of only a small, discrete group. While ways must be found to increase 

disability awareness, a central tenet of methods to enhance ADA implementation must 

require strategies to ensure that disability is also perceived as an ordinary, indeed 

common, aspect of human experience. This strong message—referred to by many as 

“universality”—was linked to discussion about the urgency of promoting principles of 

universal design at every opportunity. Most stakeholders think that these principles blur 

the artificial distinctions that currently exist between people who do and do not have 

disabilities by focusing on the functional needs of the largest and most diverse population 

possible, and identifying solutions that meet those needs. 

Information, Education, and Training 

Diverse stakeholders identified education and training at all levels of business and among 

architecture, design, and construction professionals and people with disabilities as critical 

and essential elements of meaningful ADA implementation. They pointed out many 

situations in which the lack of professional training has a negative impact on 

implementation, the absence of ongoing training for frontline staff undermines customer 

service, and people with disabilities are unaware of their rights and what the ADA 

provides. 

65
Many stakeholders acknowledged that poor ADA implementation by some Title III 

entities stems from widespread lack of knowledge as well as misinformation about the 

requirements of the ADA and state accessibility codes and guidelines among design, 

construction, and other building professionals. One accessibility expert reported that 

corporate attorneys and others with whom he works incorrectly perceive that some 

businesses are “grandfathered”; that is, that the ADA does not apply to their facilities and 

operations. 

Stakeholders cited the shortage of qualified architects and other design and construction 

professionals as a significant problem; it can take up to three years of hands-on 

professional experience to acquire the knowledge that is necessary to ensure accessibility 

in accordance with federal and state accessibility guidelines. Stakeholders said that most 

design and building professionals do not fully appreciate that the work is not only highly 

detailed and contextual but also requires judgment, design creativity, and well-honed 

technical skills. Even for those design professionals who work primarily with ADA 

access issues, disability community and allied stakeholders noted that few take into 

account related programmatic access concerns in their own design work or while 

reviewing the work of others. For example, few are likely to understand the need to plan 

for additional space in an examination room in a medical office building to accommodate 

a wheelchair user who requires the assistance of a mechanical lift to get up on an 

examination table. 

As a practical matter, this pervasive lack of adequate training and experience has a direct 

impact on the work of building professionals, including plan checkers, inspectors, code 

officials, and architects who work in municipal building departments. Some local 

building officials do not have sufficient training or experience to determine whether 

architectural drawings submitted for approval meet accessibility requirements; thus, 

incorrect or missing access features can be overlooked at the plan stage. Various 

participants noted that, all too frequently, a significant difference exists between 

structural details called for in a construction blueprint and what is actually built. This 

problem demonstrates that onsite construction inspections are conducted less frequently 

66
than they are needed or that some inspectors have insufficient training on or experience 

with access features. Thus, access construction mistakes go unnoticed and uncorrected. 

Some stakeholders suggested that code officials and plan checkers have received 

adequate training but simply do not apply it, either because they think the level of detail 

in the current standards is unnecessary or because they have forgotten what they were 

taught. Others said that these individuals receive too little training and almost no 

explanation about the practical impact of accessibility requirements on the ability of 

people with disabilities to move about freely in their communities. 

Lack of knowledge among design professionals was considered to be so important that 

stakeholders devoted significant time discussing solutions aimed at every level of the 

design and construction industry. 

Poor Communication 

Another problem is poor communication between covered entities and local officials, 

particularly those charged with building plan approval, which stakeholders noted can be 

slow and fraught with incorrect information. In one example raised by several 

stakeholders, an entity that rents a facility owned by a city government was unclear on 

who was responsible for implementing the ADA in common areas and experienced 

significant difficulty obtaining information from city officials. 

Obligations of Lessors and Lessees 

In general, Title III entity stakeholders also expressed strong concern about the problems 

they have experienced trying to determine the respective ADA obligations of lessors and 

lessees. Some larger entities noted that they have developed model leases that require the 

parties to spell out their respective obligations before entering into a lease agreement. 

Others mentioned that the issue often comes up after a lease has been negotiated, when 

the lessee wishes to make accessibility modifications to its space but finds that the lessor 

either will not permit the work or will not share the cost of removing barriers from shared 

public space. Several small business operators mentioned that lack of implementation of 

67
the ADA’s access requirements by entities that lease temporary space—such as those 

sometimes used as art galleries—poses an additional problem. 

Add-Ons 

Some stakeholders mentioned that when a business seeks approval from building officials 

to modify its premises for accessibility, additional building code requirements frequently 

are added on to the project, making it either too costly or unfeasible to complete. Others 

expressed frustration with the length of time it takes to obtain a building permit and other 

approvals, which can serve as an additional deterrent to entities that want to remove 

accessibility barriers or improve accessibility. 

Include ADA Oversight in Existing Business Systems 

Much discussion was devoted to identifying methods to include ADA oversight in 

existing business systems. Representatives from several locales mentioned that they are 

in discussions with city officials about methods to expedite the permit process when the 

purpose of the request is the removal of architectural barriers. 

Confusion about Programmatic Access 

Many disability community stakeholders thought that businesses do not yet understand 

the difference between architectural accessibility and programmatic accessibility (for 

example, modification of policies and practices, provision of materials and information in 

alternative formats, and provision of auxiliary aids and services), or that these are civil 

rights issues for people with disabilities. For example, several community stakeholders 

observed that, in their experience, there is widespread lack of knowledge among covered 

entities about provisions of the ADA that permit service animals to enter most public 

accommodations. They noted that businesses think of the ADA only as a building code 

when, in reality, it provides methods that ensure that people with disabilities can 

participate fully in all aspects of community life. Access is about enabling people with 

disabilities to interact with and participate freely in all aspects of a business. Many 

businesses, moreover, are not aware that they have ongoing obligations under the ADA. 

68
Franchise Operations 

Several stakeholders associated with franchise operations noted that while they do not 

experience resistance from franchise owners to following the ADA, they find that they 

have to be very vigilant and aggressive about addressing the gap between good will on 

the part of the owner and the actual realization of accessibility in facilities and products. 

They also noted that they have experienced difficulty maintaining accessibility awareness 

among building professionals and even greater difficulty ensuring that contractors build 

ADA-compliant facilities. They said that they must directly oversee the work of 

subcontractors in the field because there is a dearth of competent general contractors. One 

person noted that access construction errors can reach 30 percent. 

Poor Implementation by Faith-Based Groups 

Several people noted that the trend toward increased federal funding for faith-based 

groups that provide social services has increased access problems because these groups 

tend to think they are exempt from compliance with the ADA. 

Widespread Problems in Delivery of Health Care Services 

Some stakeholders, including those representing Title III health-service-related entities, 

noted that medical systems—including state-funded health plans, clinics, hospitals, and 

the offices of health care professionals—thus far have failed outright to recognize the 

depth and breadth of the need for physical and programmatic access to health facilities 

and services for people with disabilities. Consequently, very few have explored, 

implemented, and evaluated solutions. While private health care providers have their own 

independent ADA Title III obligations, several community stakeholders expressed the 

opinion that health plans do not pay providers enough to help cover the cost for certain 

accessibility features and to provide effective communication, auxiliary aids, and other 

accommodations. Overall, there is limited awareness of the issues and little interest or 

coordination among states, health plans, providers, and others responsible for finding 

solutions. 

69
Poor Implementation in Culturally Diverse Communities 

Various disability community stakeholders observed that implementation of the ADA’s 

Title III requirements for architectural accessibility and barrier removal in culturally 

diverse communities and economically disadvantaged communities is particularly weak. 

Several people said that some of the One-Stop programs in their communities 

(comprehensive federally funded one-stop career centers) are inaccessible, as are other 

programs that provide essential support and services to members of the community. They 

note that lack of access compounds the difficulties people with disabilities face in these 

neighborhoods and communities, and further limits their capacity to lead productive and 

independent lives. 

Relationships between Title II and Title III Entities 

Stakeholders representing city governments noted that working with city contractors that 

are Title III entities (for example, day care centers, drug treatment programs, homeless 

shelters, health clinics) is challenging because service providers with whom cities 

contract are frequently unaware of the ADA or, if they are aware of the law, they do not 

know how it applies to them. Even when an entity is aware of the ADA and has taken 

steps to ensure equal access and participation for people with disabilities, high staff 

turnover in these organizations creates the problem of consistently ensuring appropriate 

responses to people with disabilities who have contact with the program. 

Several stakeholders from city governments discussed methods they use to improve ADA 

compliance by organizations with whom they contract. One person noted that his office 

has a small fund for auxiliary aids that a city contractor can use for limited purposes, and 

that his department provides contractees with ADA technical assistance, community 

resources for obtaining alternative formats, auxiliary aids, and other accommodations 

upon request. 

70
High Staff Turnover 

Many large entities noted that staff turnover in their industries can be as high as 100 

percent annually (for example, in large retail establishments, stadiums, budget 

restaurants), so maintaining an informed workforce equipped to provide high-quality 

customer service for people with disabilities presents a tremendous challenge. Without 

training that is deeply embedded and ongoing, the institutional memory loss created by 

such high turnover inevitably leads to poor service and potential discrimination against 

people with disabilities. 

Perception of Lack of ADA Information 

Some stakeholders observed that since the enactment of the ADA in 1990, significant 

ADA technical assistance material has been created, translated into many languages, and 

disseminated by various federal agencies, disability organizations, public interest groups, 

trade associations, membership groups, and others. Yet business stakeholders strongly 

indicated that they did not know precisely where to obtain information about the law or 

how to locate expertise that relates directly to their specific industry. 

Most stakeholders representing covered entities said they perceive a deep need for 

reliable, industry-specific information to help businesses understand their obligations and 

enable them to know when they are in compliance. One membership organization 

stakeholder said he would actively disseminate such information to members if it were 

available. Many business stakeholders said they would prefer to have the information 

delivered to them through the conventional business channels they rely on for other 

information. However, it was the view of several business stakeholders that some of their 

peers either do not take advantage of existing informational and educational resources or 

simply lack enough interest in the topic to investigate where information might be 

available. Others noted that the ADA was a high priority when the law was first enacted 

but is no longer perceived to be an important area of concern, so less effort is made to 

acquire information. 

71
Tax Credits 

Some businesses indicated that they were unaware of the tax credits available for access 

modifications, or thought the credits did not offer enough benefit to bother with the 

paperwork. This view was echoed by several disability community stakeholders, who 

said that research with which they were familiar showed that the federal tax credit has not 

been a sufficient incentive for businesses to initiate barrier removal. One person 

mentioned that certain devices—such as height-adjustable examination tables used in the 

offices of health care providers—might not qualify for a tax credit according to the IRS 

because they would be used by all patients, not just people with disabilities. Thus, the 

financial incentive for acquiring accessible equipment might be removed for some 

entities. 

Lack of Disability Community ADA Awareness 

Diverse stakeholders observed that many people with disabilities do not understand the 

ADA or what rights it affords. This knowledge gap has led some to hold unrealistic 

expectations about what is required of businesses and other covered entities, while others 

simply accept the lack of physical and programmatic access as an inevitable consequence 

of disability. Lack of knowledge also leads people with disabilities to provide inaccurate 

advice to businesses and other entities about their ADA obligations. 

Web Site Accessibility 

Businesses that operate a Web site expressed confusion and uncertainty about what is 

expected of them in terms of Web usability and accessibility. Some were unaware that 

Web access is even an issue, while others indicated that they do not understand the 

central tenets of Web accessibility, what they are legally required to do to ensure 

usability under the ADA, and where to obtain information and assistance. 

72
Health and Safety Risks 

Some disability community stakeholders observed that people with disabilities are 

sometimes perceived as either a health or a safety risk, whether or not they actually pose 

any risk, and are therefore refused service, excluded from participation, or otherwise 

discriminated against by various entities. This situation can occur when covered entities 

apply stereotypes about people with disabilities in the absence of objective evidence. 

Examples that stakeholders mentioned include wheelchair users who are incorrectly 

perceived as posing a hazard to pedestrians, or individuals with psychiatric, cognitive, or 

behavioral disabilities who are incorrectly perceived as possessing aggressive or violent 

behaviors. Others noted that failure of covered entities to maintain accessibility 

equipment can pose hazards to people with disabilities. 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations 

Implementation Issue: Many Title III entities, especially small businesses, have not 

complied with the barrier-removal provisions of the ADA. 

In order to change the current pattern of ADA noncompliance that stakeholders reported, 

especially on the part of smaller businesses and other covered entities, new mechanisms 

for elevating and imbedding ADA awareness, spurring and rewarding implementation, 

and establishing penalties for failure to act must be created. This observation led to 

recommendations that call for enhanced federal enforcement and enlisting support from 

and establishing alliances with many organizations and governing bodies that play 

diverse roles in state and local government, and from fields such as health, safety, 

business development, financing, design and construction, and insurance. 

Recommendation: DOJ should devote substantially more resources and time to 

investigating Title III complaints, especially those regarding small businesses, in light of 

widespread noncompliance by these covered entities. 

Recommendation: Disability community, government, and other leaders and experts in 

accessibility should partner with the following key organizations to identify legislative, 

73
regulatory, and other methods to embed ADA information, incentives, and, where 

appropriate, penalties in interactions they have with Title III covered entities: 

• National Association of State Fire Marshals: Marshals tend to be responsible for fire 

safety code adoption and enforcement, fire and arson investigation, fire incident data 

reporting and analysis, public education, and advising governors and state legislatures 

on fire protection. Methods should be identified and implemented that empower fire 

marshals, when they conduct routine fire and safety inspections, to inspect businesses 

and facilities for ADA-related accessible exits and paths of travel, evacuation plans, 

and any other ADA oversight that is relevant to fire safety for people with disabilities, 

and to inform the business about any problems. 

• City health departments: Department staff enforce laws and regulations that protect 

health and ensure safety. Methods should be identified and implemented that would 

empower health department officials to determine whether sanitary facilities also meet 

ADA accessibility requirements when they conduct routine inspections of businesses 

and facilities, and inform the entity about any identified problems. 

• Mortgage and construction lenders: If mortgage and construction lenders conduct plan 

reviews or undertake other compliance oversight as a routine part of processing a loan 

application for entities that would be covered by Title III, methods should be identified 

and implemented that would require lenders to require compliance with all applicable 

ADA requirements as a condition of loan approval for businesses and other covered 

entities. Lenders who do not otherwise conduct plan reviews or undertake other 

compliance oversight should provide information to prospective Title III borrowers 

about the ADA. State mortgage lender associations should adopt model policies on 

ADA compliance oversight and information dissemination that could help guide the 

practices of member lenders. 

• Associations of city and county government: Associations of city and county 

government—such as the League of Cities, National Association of Cities, and 

National Association of Counties—should provide leadership on the recommended 

initiatives related to state and local government by convening meetings with key 

experts, developing model policies, supporting any required legislative or regulatory 

initiatives, and disseminating information to members. 

74
Recommendation: When businesses apply for a new license, or renewal of an existing 

business license, they should receive information about complying with the ADA and 

where to obtain additional information. 

Recommendation: When health care professionals apply for a new license, or renewal of 

an existing business license, they should receive specific information about complying 

with provisions of the ADA that relate to health professionals. 

Recommendation: Cities should make incentives available to small and medium-sized 

businesses that want to remove architectural barriers in existing buildings and facilities 

by expediting the building permit and approval process when the purpose of the project is 

solely to achieve accessibility. Locales routinely provide various incentives to businesses 

to attract them to a particular neighborhood or prevent them from leaving; thus, precedent 

exists for expediting the permit and approval process. 

Recommendation: The Building Officials and Code Administrators International Inc. 

(BOCA), known as the International Code Council (ICC), should amend ICC 

International Codes to bar the addition of non-barrier-removal items by building officials 

when an entity seeks a permit solely for the purpose of removing an architectural barrier 

that prevents the full enjoyment and participation of individuals with disabilities. 

California has embedded such a requirement in the state access code, which serves as a 

model and a precedent. 

Recommendation: States should consider creating a credentialed access specialist 

program as Texas has done and California is in the process of doing. The program must 

have rigorous qualification and training standards, and methods to conduct ongoing 

evaluation of specialist knowledge and expertise. Specialists should be required to review 

and approve construction drawings when building permits are required, and should be 

trained to conduct site inspections and to advise businesses about barriers that can be 

removed in a readily achievable manner. 

Recommendation: When a business seeks a permit to undertake a general renovation, 

the request should trigger an ADA compliance review so the owner will know which, if 

75
any, aspects of ADA accessibility are required. For example, the City of Chicago now 

requires every business to pay a fee for an accessibility review each time an application is 

made for a building permit. 

Recommendation: Key federal agencies and private community development 

organizations should convene an experts meeting to explore methods for using various 

sources of community development funding—such as the community investment tax, 

small business administration loans, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

disaster relief funding, and community development block grants—to help bring about 

ADA compliance changes. This could be accomplished by requiring ADA compliance as 

a term and condition of funding, which would be supported with some financial help 

from the funding agency toward achieving the required accessibility features and by 

dedicating specific amounts of money from development funds to accomplish highpriority barrier-removal projects in the target communities. 

Recommendation: SBA, in collaboration with participating lenders, should require ADA 

compliance as a term and condition of eligibility for small business loans. In concert with 

this requirement, SBA should provide additional low-interest loan assistance to 

businesses to help them provide the required accessibility features. 

Recommendation: Local partnerships made up of community disability groups and 

various business associations should regularly recognize entities that have been especially 

successful at achieving architectural and programmatic access by publishing information 

about them on industry and community Web sites and in publications, and by honoring 

them at public events attended by their peers. 

Implementation Issue: It is difficult to ensure ADA compliance by chain businesses 

that are set up as franchise operations. 

Several business franchisor stakeholders expressed the view that it is essential for the 

various communities that are concerned about ADA implementation to work 

collaboratively with franchisors, franchisees, and their member organizations to promote 

compliance. They indicated that they thought key member franchise organizations would 

76
be eager to participate in a collaboration that could potentially produce results for both 

parties. These organizations provide an array of educational and support services to both 

franchisees and franchisors. Stakeholders noted that it is the role of franchisors to provide 

accurate information to franchisees, including information on legislative or regulatory 

changes that affect franchisee operations. A franchisor can be held liable by a franchisee 

that has not been informed that it is violating either federal or state law. Similarly, a 

franchisee can be charged liquidated damages by a franchisor if it fails to comply with 

laws and regulations of which it is aware, according to stakeholders. Stakeholders made 

the following recommendation: 

Recommendation: Organizations such as the American Association of Franchisees and 

Dealers (AAFD), a national nonprofit trade association that defines and promotes quality 

in franchising practices, and the International Franchise Association (IFA), which works 

to increase the knowledge and professional standards of the franchising community, 

should work with the disability community, DOJ, and representative businesses— 

• To include ADA implementation obligations in the Fair Franchising Standards created 

by AAFD and the Franchise Association Code of Ethics, which is intended to establish 

a framework for the implementation of best practices in the IFA’s relationship with its 

members. The Fair Franchising Standards provide the basis for objective accreditation 

of franchising companies seeking the endorsement of and membership in AAFD. The 

Fair Franchising Seal is conferred by AAFD on franchisors who demonstrate that they 

meet certain standards. 

• To ensure that all franchisors require that franchisees with whom they contract meet 

all applicable ADA implementation obligations. These should be spelled out to the 

extent possible, and any necessary technical assistance or informational materials— 

including facility plans that include ADA access features—should be made available 

when the contract is finalized. 

• To ensure that the annual monitoring carried out by the franchisor includes a review of 

ADA obligations to verify that the facility is fulfilling its architectural accessibility 

requirements and that it is capable of meeting the needs of customers with 

communication, alternative format, and other needs. 

77
• To ensure that a business owner who sells a franchise or chain company be required to 

show in the sales contract that the facility meets all applicable ADA accessibility 

requirements. 

Implementation Issue: Building officials and practitioners in the fields of design, 

construction, engineering, landscape architecture, architecture, and city planning 

lack adequate and ongoing training on accessibility guidelines and universal design 

principles, and this lack contributes significantly to ADA implementation problems. 

Several stakeholders said that from their experience and perspective it has been very 

difficult to instill a lasting commitment to principles of access and universal design in 

schools of architecture and in the architecture profession as a whole. While architecture 

schools are required to include accessibility in their curriculums, few explain and discuss 

the human factors that underlie principles of universal design and accessibility or monitor 

whether accessibility is being included as a design factor in studio courses. Change, they 

said, depends on leadership in these institutions, where the culture must be shifted so the 

need for accessibility is no longer perceived as an unwanted problem but rather as a 

creative challenge. Many stakeholders agreed that promoting universal design principles 

is the best approach from a design perspective, while accessibility standards and codes 

should be subsumed and explained as legal requirements. 

In light of these observations, stakeholders made the following recommendations to 

address specific aspects of training and education for practitioners in the fields of design, 

construction, engineering, landscape architecture, architecture, and city planning. 

Recommendation: As a condition of ongoing licensing, everyone involved in design, 

construction, engineering, landscape architecture, architecture, and city planning should 

be required to take universal design courses that include explanations of access codes and 

standards, and these courses should be offered through continuing education programs. 

Sponsorship should be provided by state and national trade and member organizations 

such as the ICC and the American Institute of Architects (AIA). 

78
Recommendation: The AIA should establish a task force empowered to make 

recommendations about activities the AIA should undertake to promote universal design 

and ensure that members and others become educated on the subject, and have access to 

appropriate and effective resources. 

Recommendation: The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), American 

Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), National Association of Schools of Art and 

Design (NASAD), and other accreditation bodies should require that schools they 

accredit teach a required course on universal design that includes a component that 

focuses on accessibility codes and guidelines. A model for this requirement is the current 

trend toward requiring environmentally friendly (“green”) architecture courses as a 

condition of accreditation. 

Recommendation: Decision makers from key federal agencies charged with 

implementing the ADA should convene to explore methods to advance the principles of 

universal design beyond what is currently being supported by the National Institute on 

Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). 

Implementation Issue: Health care systems and practitioners have failed to 

implement the ADA in many aspects of patient care. 

Stakeholders pointed out that ADA implementation is poor in the health care delivery 

sector. In addition to the recommendation that NCD undertake a separate initiative on this 

issue, they identified the following recommendations related to accreditation. 

Recommendation: The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the 

Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) should require that, in order to gain 

accreditation, medical schools increase disability knowledge and programmatic access 

awareness among prospective health care professionals by incorporating disability and 

ADA implementation issues and methods into curricula. The AAMC works to ensure that 

the structure, content, and conduct of medical education meet the highest standards, and 

accreditation by the LCME is required for schools to receive federal grants for medical 

education and to participate in federal loan programs. 

79
Recommendation: The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies should call for 

the AAMC and the LCME to require that disability knowledge and ADA programmatic 

access awareness be included in curricula for prospective health care professionals as a 

qualification for accreditation. 

Implementation Issue: Title III entities lack information, education, and training on 

how the ADA applies to them and how to take steps to comply. 

Recommendation: Leading business associations such as the U.S. Chamber of 

Commerce, the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the National Federation of 

Independent Businesses, and the National Restaurant Association should explore 

initiating an ADA education project with their members. This would involve notifying 

members about the ADA through mailings; providing information on their respective 

Web sites and at conferences and regional and national meetings; and informing them 

that the organization can distribute ADA implementation materials published by DOJ and 

other federal agencies upon request. 

Recommendation: The Small Business Council of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

should endorse and support the dissemination of information related to ADA 

implementation to Chamber members and to identify the most effective ways both the 

Council and the Chamber can engage in member education that comports with its mission 

and capacity. 

Recommendation: SBA should establish partnerships with disability organizations and 

institutions of higher education to develop and add an ADA Title III training course to its 

roster of free online courses for small businesses. SBA also should be urged to sponsor 

local and regional ADA Title III training as an ongoing element of its national training 

seminars for small businesses. 

Recommendation: SBA should identify methods to ensure that participants in the 

SCORE project—retired executives who advise small businesses—are provided 

information about the Title III public accommodation provisions of the ADA, and 

80
incorporate this information when they consult with small business owners and 

executives. 

Implementation Issue: Many people with disabilities do not understand the basic 

provisions of the ADA and, therefore, cannot advocate effectively for themselves or 

provide accurate ADA advice to covered entities. 

In light of the fact that robust ADA training for the disability community nationwide has 

not been undertaken since shortly after the law’s enactment in 1990, stakeholders 

observed that a new training initiative is overdue. 

Recommendation: The federal agencies that have ADA implementation and 

enforcement roles should join in a collaborative effort to fund a substantial nationwide 

ADA training initiative for people with disabilities. Training should accomplish the 

following: 

• Increase ADA awareness in low-income communities. 

• Raise awareness among people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. 

• Develop advocacy capacity among youth. 

• Increase awareness of the ADA’s potential to increase independence and community 

participation among seniors. 

• Promote leadership development. 

• Target specific areas in which ADA implementation has lagged behind (for example, 

health care and small businesses). 

Implementation Issue: Widespread use of the Internet has developed since the 

enactment of the ADA, yet many Title III entities have not taken steps to ensure that 

their Web sites are accessible. 

Stakeholders think that the Internet holds significant promise for social change and regard 

the issue of Web access as cutting edge. To the extent that businesses and other covered 

entities do business or provide information or services using the Internet, they think it is 

81
becoming increasingly important to find ways to promote the fact that people with 

disabilities represent a substantial part of their customer and service base and, therefore, 

should have full and free access to the goods and services entities offer. Stakeholders 

made the following recommendations to advance accessibility. 

Recommendation: Entities that register domain names should provide Web access 

information to applicants and a link to World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) information 

about Web site accessibility. 

Recommendation: Entities that register domain names should require assurances that 

sites that plan to sell goods and services online will be accessible as a condition of 

acquiring the domain. 

Recommendation: Federal tax credits available for architectural barrier removal also 

should be available to make existing Web sites accessible. 

Recommendation: Accreditation programs and industry associations (for example, the 

American Association of Museums) should require Web accessibility as a criterion for 

membership. 

Recommendation: Entities that contract for services (e.g., states and cities) should 

require that entities with which they contract have accessible Web sites as a requirement 

to receive contracts. 

Recommendation: Accreditation organizations should require educational institutions 

that offer information technology (IT) programs to include disability and Web site 

accessibility courses as curriculum requirements. 

Implementation Issue: Misperception of health or safety risks sometimes results in 

exclusion from participation of people with disabilities. 

Significant discussion took place about how people with disabilities are excluded from 

activities and programs based on misperception of health or safety risk. Stakeholders 

82
crafted specific recommendations regarding this problem, but they indicated that all 

recommendations must be built on the following guiding principles: 

• Avoid making assumptions about all individuals in a disability group on the basis of 

the behavior or conduct of one person in that group. 

• Exclusion is permitted only when bona fide evidence is available showing that the 

individual with a disability or others might be exposed to a legitimate risk. 

• Exclusion is a last and final resort after all other avenues have been exhausted (for 

example, providing accommodations, modifying policies). 

Recommendation: Key organizations concerned with ensuring that civil rights for 

individuals with disabilities are protected (for example, DOJ, American Diabetes 

Association, The ARC, National Disability Rights Network, and mental health consumer 

organizations) should collaborate with certain businesses (e.g., theaters, stadiums, 

performance centers, amusement parks) to create training and informational materials 

that provide practical, realistic information and guidance for businesses and entities, 

dispel stereotypes, and recommend policies the entities should adopt to guide their 

conduct if a bona fide safety risk arises. Policy guidelines must acknowledge that 

standards for behavior and conduct will differ according to the context and the situation, 

but a process must be set forth for determining whether a risk exists and whether an 

accommodation can be provided that will mitigate the risk. 

Implementation Issue: There is a lack of successful implementation models and 

examples of ADA best practices that can demonstrate effective methods for 

complying with the law. 

Stakeholders noted that leaders in the field of education have established centers of 

excellence as a strategy to collect and evaluate information about effective educational 

practices that might have the potential to become best practices. These centers evaluate 

numerous approaches to the delivery of educational programming and the respective 

outcomes related to their stated objectives. Using this example as a guide, the following 

recommendation calls for establishing centers of excellence devoted to identifying and 

promoting effective ADA implementation. 

83
Recommendation: Each key federal agency charged with a role in enforcing the ADA 

(for example, the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, 

and Transportation) should establish a center of excellence, either within the agency or 

through a qualified contractor. Each center’s mission would be to conduct research and 

collect information about effective methods of ADA implementation related to the 

agency’s sphere of concern; rigorously evaluate the methods to determine their 

quantifiable impact on people with disabilities; support activities that will enhance 

covered entities’ capacity to collect and report data on implementation activities that have 

the potential to become best practice models; and report and widely disseminate results. 

(The EEOC’s study of nine states’ implementation of the ADA’s employment 

requirements is an example of preliminary work of the type such centers would 

undertake.) 

Implementation Issue: Some businesses that are required to comply with the ADA 

want a certification or seal of approval indicating that the business has met its ADA 

barrier-removal obligations for existing buildings and facilities. 

Stakeholders discussed at length the benefits and disadvantages of some form of 

certification or seal of approval that would indicate that a business has met its ADA 

barrier-removal obligations for existing buildings and facilities. Many thought that a 

certification program was imperative, because it would shield against liability and 

indicate a good faith effort to comply with the ADA. Others thought that time and effort 

would be better spent helping businesses learn about the ADA and about methods to 

provide access, because doing so would actually attract customers with disabilities and 

their families and friends. The following recommendation is presented in light of these 

divergent views. 

Recommendation: To explore the feasibility of creating a certification or seal of 

approval program that would indicate that a business has met its ADA barrier-removal 

obligations for existing buildings and facilities, the Council of Better Business Bureaus 

(CBBB) should convene a working group of stakeholder representatives, such as 

neighborhood business networks, individual small businesses, and representatives from 

the disability community. CBBB should invite representatives from DOJ and the Access 

84
Board, as well as architects and other technical and policy experts familiar with barrierremoval issues in existing facilities, to serve as advisors. The group should be charged 

with determining the need, benefit to stakeholders, and feasibility of such a program. If it 

is determined that the concept should go forward, the group should recommend possible 

mechanisms for testing one or more program ideas in several pilot studies that include 

methods for evaluating outcomes. The following questions could serve as a starting point: 

• What is the purpose of the program (for example, promoting customer service, 

attracting customers with disabilities, avoiding liability)? 

• What are the criteria for participation? 

• What is the process for determining whether a business is eligible to participate? 

• Who would administer the program? 

• What are the qualifications of those who determine eligibility? 

• What is the frequency and process for renewal? 

• What is the cost of the program, and who pays? 

3. Topics for Further Research 

Creating Incentives for ADA Compliance 

Stakeholders discussed numerous ways ADA implementation could be enhanced by 

embedding rewards and incentives in existing business systems and points of contact for 

routine matters. These include the purchase of various types of insurance coverage and 

the sale of commercial property. 

In theory, mechanisms could be adopted whereby businesses that have taken steps to 

comply with Title III of the ADA can be acknowledged and rewarded through a reduced 

insurance rate structure. Some insurers already offer reduced premiums for certain 

coverages, including workplace safety, disaster preparation, and human resource 

intervention if certain requirements are followed; thus, there is a potential model for this 

strategy. Furthermore, since insurance companies frequently are required to pay for costs 

related to ADA barrier-removal litigation, taking steps that could reduce their liability 

85
holds potential financial benefit for their own operations while furthering the goal of 

enhancing ADA implementation. 

Certain insurance trade associations—such as the National Association of Insurance 

Commissioners (NAIC), the Insurance Information Institute, and the Insurance Institute 

of America—could serve as points of contact. Discussions should also include identifying 

methods and procedures whereby insurance companies can routinely provide information 

to prospective Title III entities about their responsibilities under the ADA and where they 

can find additional information when they apply for coverage. 

Another method to build ADA implementation into commonplace business interactions is 

to require that when commercial property is sold, the seller must disclose all known areas 

of ADA noncompliance. Under this scheme, the buyer has received notice about ADA 

violations, thus initiating the first step in a voluntary process of compliance. 

The following specific research recommendations are intended to build on these 

implementation strategies: 

Recommendation: An independent insurance research body should conduct a feasibility 

study to determine to what extent the insurance industry could offer reduced premiums 

on certain products (for example, property insurance, business interruption, and liability) 

as a result of the reduced risk of liability when entities implement the ADA. Such 

research should determine how the strategy to offer reduced insurance premiums can be 

implemented and whether amendments would be required to state insurance laws and 

regulations, and document the actions necessary to achieve this approach. Research 

results should be widely disseminated through industry publications, on the Internet, and 

to DOJ. 

Recommendation: A nonpartisan real estate research body should commission or 

undertake research on selected state laws and regulations governing the sale of 

commercial property to determine to what extent they would permit a requirement that 

those who are selling commercial property disclose all known areas of ADA 

noncompliance, and should make recommendations for achieving this requirement. 

86
Research results should be widely disseminated through industry publications, on the 

Internet, and to DOJ. 

Improving Programmatic Accessibility 

Stakeholders think that the underlying reason entities do not provide programmatic 

access when required to do so is rooted in the unmet need for education about disability 

generally and about the ADA as a civil rights law in particular. They discussed the role 

that negative attitudes and disability stigma play, and identified areas in which education 

could play a crucial role—in K–12 curricula; enhanced professional training for 

architects, designers, planners, medical professionals, and others; and an ongoing public 

education and public relations campaign. 

Various stakeholders identified the need for research to clarify why many covered entities 

either do not understand programmatic accessibility or are unaware of its principal 

requirements. Although lack of knowledge about the ADA and misperceptions about 

disability appear to be root causes, little structured investigation has been conducted to 

identify potentially effective solutions. Several stakeholders noted that people with 

disabilities, policymakers, legislators, and others currently have only anecdotes and 

litigation outcomes to help them shape responses. Stakeholders identified research 

strategies that would help clarify and define the various problems and perspectives, and 

inform potential solutions. 

Such research would, at a minimum, determine to what extent certain types of covered 

entities are aware of their obligations in this respect and what additional information and 

assistance they require to provide effective communication and alternative formats and to 

modify policies that exclude people with disabilities. Research would also reveal the 

impact of lack of compliance on people with disabilities, further define the impact of the 

limited role of federal enforcement, and potentially encourage collaboration with trade 

and membership associations for the purpose of promoting ADA education and 

enhancing implementation. 

87
Stakeholders determined that the enormous magnitude of poor ADA implementation by 

health care providers calls for specific, targeted research. 

Recommendation: Federal agencies charged with ADA implementation or ensuring full 

community participation for people with disabilities (for example, DOJ, the Access 

Board, NIDRR, the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]) should form a 

consortium to generate funding to commission research on the following general themes: 

• Identify obstacles and barriers to implementation of the ADA’s provisions related to 

programmatic access (for example, modification of policies and practices, provision of 

materials and information in alternative formats, and provision of auxiliary aids and 

services) by representative Title III entities such as social service organizations and 

health care providers, and recommend solutions. 

• Understand the extent to which the programmatic access needs of people with 

disabilities (for example, modification of policies and practices, provision of materials 

and information in alternative formats, and provision of auxiliary aids and services) 

are being met to enable them to enjoy or benefit from the programs and services 

offered by selected Title III entities such as social service organizations and health 

care providers, and recommend solutions. 

Recommendation: NCD should undertake a robust, independent qualitative and 

quantitative research project that identifies ADA implementation issues related to health 

care institutions and providers, and should make recommendations for reform. 

Evaluation of Technical Assistance Materials 

Stakeholders from trade and member associations, businesses, and other covered entities 

strongly stated that one key issue related to their capacity to determine whether they are 

in compliance is that they perceive that they do not have access to adequate, industryspecific information and materials in plain language that instruct them on how to comply 

with the ADA and what constitutes compliance. 

88
In light of the fact that DOJ created industry-specific ADA compliance materials soon 

after the enactment of the law, and that much of that material has been updated and 

translated into numerous languages, it is important to understand why Title III entities 

report that they do not have access to adequate information about how to comply with the 

ADA.8 

In response to discussion about where stakeholders go for ADA information, 

representatives from larger entities said that, for the most part, they rely on in-house 

sources, including legal counsel or their industry organizations. Smaller businesses said 

they would likely turn to their neighborhood associations, peers, and local chambers of 

commerce, if they sought information at all. According to some stakeholders, the rise of 

the Internet has made it difficult for businesses to know what sources of information are 

accurate and reliable without guidance or direction from trusted colleagues, peers, or 

trade associations. 

This situation suggests several research questions: 

• To what extent are leading information sources—for example, DOJ, the Access Board, 

regional Disability Business and Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs) and IT 

Centers, Protection and Advocacy organizations, and other disability rights and 

independent living groups—effective in reaching the key contact points where covered 

entities go for information? 

• If the material, or information about how to obtain it, is reaching the contact points, 

how effective is it in responding to the informational needs of the various 

stakeholders? 

• Does new material need to be created? 

• If new material is needed, what information should it contain? 

• How can distribution of materials and information be improved? 

• Why is the Internet perceived as a source of confusion, and how can it be used 

effectively to promote implementation? 

To answer these and related questions, the following research is recommended: 

89
Recommendation: ADA federal enforcement and allied agencies (for example, the 

Access Board, NIDRR) should join forces to commission research (e.g., focus groups, 

surveys, interviews) designed to elicit structured responses from a variety of Title III 

entities about the extent to which specific technical assistance and informational 

materials currently available from DOJ and others provide the ADA implementation 

guidance these entities seek. Specific recommendations should be made regarding 

content, formats, and distribution mechanisms that would meet the needs of these entities. 

Recommendation: DOJ and the Access Board should convene a work group composed 

of businesses, representatives from the disability community, disability law experts, city 

building officials, architects, and others with related knowledge and expertise to evaluate 

whether the federal interpretive guidance currently available on methods to comply with 

the readily achievable barrier-removal provisions of Title III provides sufficient 

information and detail to covered entities, and to determine whether the material should 

be revised or expanded. If the work group determines that new material should be created 

or the existing material revised, it should submit a detailed recommendation to that effect 

to DOJ and the Access Board. 

D. Telecommunications (Title IV)9 

Implementation of the Title IV mandates has differed somewhat from implementation of 

the other ADA mandates. Unlike the other titles, Title IV has a financing mechanism, 

allowing the companies that are charged with providing telecommunications relay 

services (TRS) to benefit financially from the provision of these services. Specifically, 

these companies are able to receive compensation for intrastate relay services through 

state jurisdictions and for interstate relay services through the federally administered 

Interstate TRS Fund. As a consequence, the tensions that have existed between people 

with disabilities and businesses and governments covered under Titles I through III have 

largely been absent when it comes to Title IV implementation. Rather, since Title IV first 

went into effect in July 1993, relay consumers and telephone companies have enjoyed a 

cooperative relationship that has fostered innovative technologies and high service 

standards. These innovations and improved standards have been authorized by the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the agency that bears responsibility for 

90
implementing Title IV. Recently, increased competition among companies entering the 

interstate relay business—many of which are not traditional telephone companies—has 

provided added stimulus for improving and enhancing relay products. 

Another difference between the implementation of Title IV and the other ADA titles is 

that—unlike other agencies charged with implementing the provisions of Titles I through 

III—the FCC has undergone a continuous and thorough review of its TRS regulations 

virtually since the passage of the ADA. Over these years, open rulemaking proceedings 

on every facet of relay services have provided extensive and unparalleled opportunities 

for consumers and providers to provide input on their needs and objectives, and have 

resulted in a string of rulings that have enabled relay services to evolve along with the 

rapid pace of modern technologies. Guiding these proceedings has been the overarching 

goal of achieving telecommunications access that is functionally equivalent to telephone 

access enjoyed by individuals without hearing or speech disabilities. While the past 13 

years have not been without tension or conflict between consumers and the FCC, the 

constant involvement of consumers in these proceedings has helped to allow 

telecommunications relay services to become a catalyst for achieving independence and 

integration into society. 

Title IV stakeholders identified a number of reasons that Title IV has been effective for 

people with hearing and speech disabilities: 

Ubiquitous Access 

The ability to make or receive calls 24 hours a day, without any limit on their number or 

content, has been beneficial to the health, safety, independence, employment 

opportunities, and social lives of relay users. Relay services have helped end the isolation 

of people who cannot hear by fostering strong relationships with family and friends. The 

growth in relay use over the past decade and a half is a testament to the success of Title 

IV. 

91
Innovative Services 

Two pivotal provisions in Title IV have facilitated improvements in the quality of relay 

services as technology has evolved. First, the ADA requires TRS to be functionally 

equivalent to telephone services that are available to hearing people who use 

conventional telephones. One stakeholder called functional equivalency a “moving 

target” that transitions with each new technology. Second, Title IV directs the FCC to 

ensure that its regulations “encourage . . . the use of existing technology and do not 

discourage or impair the development of improved technology.” Consistently, the FCC 

has relied upon this section to approve innovative technologies, such as captioned 

telephone, Video Relay Service (VRS), and Internet-based text relay. One of the 

stakeholders reported that the FCC’s orders have also changed the perspective of many 

states with respect to the types of relay services they should offer their residents. 

Stakeholders elaborated on the benefits of these new and innovative technologies: 

• By providing a means of achieving telephone communication for people whose native 

or preferred method of communication is sign language, VRS has empowered 

consumers who previously were not able to communicate by phone. Many individuals 

who now use VRS were not comfortable using written English to communicate by 

phone; therefore, they were not able to enjoy functionally equivalent telephone 

services through TTY-based text-to-voice services. VRS is particularly helpful to 

children who cannot yet express themselves in writing and to older deaf and hard-ofhearing people who may have difficulty typing. In addition, by allowing 

communication at the regular voice telephone speed (200 wpm) rather than the 40–60 

wpm typical of TTYs, VRS achieves a more natural and flowing conversation, can be 

used for conference calls, and enables callers to use interactive telephone voice 

response menus. 

• Captioned telephone service enables individuals with hearing loss to hear what the 

other party is saying and simultaneously to read that party’s responses, so that these 

people can enjoy a more private, natural, and interactive call that is functionally 

equivalent to real-time telephone communications. Callers can simply dial the number 

they are trying to reach and be connected automatically to a captioned telephone 

communication assistant (CA), affording a new level of relay transparency. Two-line 

92
captioned telephone service also enables callers to receive calls directly and to have 

direct 911 access with captions, without first dialing a CA who then has to link the 

incoming number to a special 911 database. This service has been particularly popular 

among hard-of-hearing senior citizens who were reluctant to use TTY-based relay 

services. 

• Wireless relay options that allow access through pagers, PDAs, laptops, and other 

wireless Internet-enabled devices have been extremely beneficial in allowing people to 

maintain their independence, privacy, and productivity. As our society as a whole 

becomes more mobile, these options have afforded people with hearing and speech 

disabilities the same opportunities to achieve communication that others have when 

they are on the move. 

Available Funding 

Title IV allows both intrastate and interstate relay providers to recover the costs of 

providing relay services. Having a ready and available funding source to support these 

services has been critically important to their success. 

Varied Services 

Various types of relay modalities enable people with differing needs to choose the 

modality that is best suited to their telecommunications access needs. This enables people 

with hearing and speech disabilities to achieve the type of communication that is most 

effective in any given situation. 

Consumer Choice 

Internet-based relay services offer TRS consumers more choice in relay providers than 

ever before. Competition among new entrants now regularly brings innovative options 

and allows users to switch providers any time they wish. 

93
Universal 711 Access 

Universal 711 access has been very effective—not only for people with disabilities, but 

for hearing people who do not have TTYs and need to call people with hearing or speech 

disabilities. This three-digit code is easy to remember and can be used anywhere in the 

country for most relay services that are initiated over the telephone network. 

Mobility 

Internet relay enables consumers to make calls when they are away from their homes or 

businesses. For example, when they are on vacation, relay users now can use computers 

at hotels to make their calls rather than being limited to hotels that have a TTY. 

However, the provision of TRS is undergoing significant change, as these telephone 

services join in the migration away from the public switched telephone network (PSTN). 

Originally merely a service that connected calls between TTY users and voice telephone 

users, relay service is now capable of providing an assortment of communication options, 

many of which use text or video applications over the Internet. Newer, creative types of 

services have expanded the number of users who can make telephone calls. This 

evolution of relay services raises many issues for achieving effective implementation of 

Title IV. The goal of the Title IV dialogue was to gather feedback from consumers, 

providers, and government officials on strategies to achieve the desired objectives of the 

ADA’s relay mandates as these technological changes are taking place. 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion 

When the ADA was enacted, several states had already established statewide relay 

programs or were in the process of doing so. After the passage of the ADA, all these 

states applied for and received approval from the FCC to continue administering and 

enforcing these programs; indeed, by 1993, every state plus the U.S. territories had 

received such certification. Local telephone companies that were obligated under the 

ADA to fund relay services—and that bore ultimate responsibility for Title IV 

compliance—fulfilled their responsibility through these individual state programs. 

94
Typically, each of the states chose a single relay provider to provide these services to all 

people residing in their state. Once certified, the state was required to meet—or could 

exceed—the FCC’s mandatory minimum TRS standards, including requirements to 

provide relay services 24 hours a day, seven days a week; prohibitions against limiting 

the content, length, or frequency of relay calls; and mandates for calls to be answered 

within a certain amount of time. This arrangement ran relatively smoothly, with many 

states raising the bar with more stringent requirements designed to produce better relay 

services. For example, although FCC rules required 85 percent of all calls to be answered 

within 10 seconds, several states demanded faster answer speeds. Although the FCC 

retained ultimate authority over the provision of all relay services nationwide, the actual 

administration and enforcement of these systems occurred almost exclusively at the state 

level. 

Since March 2000, relay services have undergone a major transition. In an order released 

that month, the FCC approved various new types of relay services that have taken 

advantage of innovative technologies. Many of the newly approved relay services— 

including video relay, speech-to-speech (STS) relay, and, more recently, captioned 

telephone relay (approved in 2003)—have changed dramatically the nature of and vastly 

improved telephone communication for people with hearing and speech disabilities. The 

introduction of new services, and the overall transition of many relay services from the 

PSTN to the Internet, has created implementation challenges that did not exist during the 

first 10 years of Title IV implementation. At the stakeholder dialogue, many of these 

challenges emerged. They have been loosely grouped below. 

Lack of Training and Education 

• Despite the considerable success of relay services among various user communities 

and the rapid growth of these services over the past few years, many potential relay 

users—especially those who could benefit from using VRS and STS—are still not 

using these services. Many people are not aware of the existence of relay services or 

have not received training on how to use them. 

95
• There exists a lack of knowledge about the availability and use of relay services 

among the general public. Individuals and businesses not acquainted with relay 

services often mistake these services for commercial solicitations and refuse to accept 

relay calls. 

• Increased abuse of Internet-based relay services by pranksters and hearing individuals 

who anonymously use them to make fraudulent credit card purchases has caused many 

businesses to become distrustful when they receive a relay call. Their lack of 

awareness often causes these entities to hang up on relay users. 

• Some businesses and even some governmental agencies are unfamiliar with the 

ADA’s promises of confidentiality and refuse to use relay services to exchange 

information about confidential matters, such as those concerning banking or 

investment transactions, tax information, and health matters. 

• Many parents and schools are unaware of the availability and function of relay 

services. 

Funding 

• As the public migrates away from using telecommunications services provided 

through the PSTN and transitions to using communications services provided over the 

Internet, the traditional funding base for TRS, which relies on revenues from PSTNbased services, is in danger of drying up. A stable and reliable funding source is 

needed to ensure the communication access required by Title IV. 

• Newer types of relay services require broadband access to the Internet, for which there 

are no low-income subsidies. 

• Consumers need to acquire computers, video equipment, captioned telephones, or 

other expensive devices to be able to use new types of high-tech relay services. Most 

state equipment distribution programs do not provide funding for these devices, many 

of which are Internet-based. 

• There is no funding mechanism to reimburse providers for the technical customer 

support needed to operate video equipment used with VRS. 

96
• Interpreter shortages in many communities impede the effective provision of VRS. 

Funding is needed to train additional American Sign Language (ASL) and oral 

interpreters, so that there are enough interpreters to handle both VRS and community 

interpreting demands. 

Service Quality and Oversight 

• Stakeholders expressed concern that there are no federal standards to assess the skills 

of CAs and interpreters who provide Internet-based text and video relay services. 

• Previous oversight mechanisms employed by the states do not work for Internet-based 

relay services. New TRS delivery methods that are Internet-based need the same level 

of oversight on the federal level as exists for traditional TRS on the state level. 

• State relay services vary considerably in quality: Some states have dedicated 

administrators who are careful about providing high-quality services; other states pay 

less attention to relay service quality. When state contracts last for a long time and 

quality fluctuates, there is not much consumers can do to improve the services they are 

receiving, because they are bound by the relay provider chosen by their state and may 

not switch providers at will. 

• State relay program administrators frequently are approached about problems with the 

quality of Internet relay and VRS. However, these governmental bodies neither 

oversee nor have any authority over complaints received about Internet-based services 

because of technological limitations in determining the location of Internet-based 

callers. New mechanisms are needed to handle relay complaints at the federal level. 

• Despite the existence of two relay advisory bodies at the federal level—the Interstate 

TRS Council, which advises the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) on 

interstate cost recovery issues, and the TRS Subcommittee of the Consumer Advisory 

Committee—there is no formal federal mechanism that oversees interstate relay 

service quality or provides ongoing advice to the FCC with respect to the quality of 

these services. Consumers want a structured means of influencing the FCC process 

with respect to issues of relay quality. 

97
Other Factors 

• It is a challenge for the TRS regulations to keep up with new technologies. 

Specifically, it often takes years for the FCC to grant provider approval to implement a 

new technology. This prevents relay consumers from taking advantage of relay 

innovations as soon as they become available. 

• The FCC has decided not to compensate providers for research and development for 

technologies that are not needed to meet the agency’s minimum TRS standards. This 

can create a chilling effect on research and development needed to achieve true 

functional equivalency, discourage innovation, and prevent consumers from reaping 

the benefits of advanced technologies that can better meet their telecommunications 

needs. 

• Attitudinal barriers that impede full telecommunications access still exist, especially at 

police departments and hospitals, where personnel seem unwilling to make their 

emergency services accessible to consumers who use modern relay technologies. 

These entities do not realize that the telecommunications access mandated by the ADA 

is a civil right. 

• For most relay services, the process of first connecting to a CA and then connecting 

the second leg of the call to the receiving party is not transparent to the call 

participants. Consumers would prefer that there be automatic connections for all relay 

modalities, for both incoming calls and outbound dialing. 

• Although some relay calls are made between people with hearing or speech 

disabilities, most relay calls include at least one hearing person. Often the experience 

of the hearing person to the call is not fully considered in the planning of relay 

implementation. These needs must be considered to ensure that the call flows as 

seamlessly and naturally as possible, with few interruptions. 

• For a number of reasons, the telecommunications needs of people who are deaf-blind 

still are not being met as well as they are for other populations of relay users. First, 

TeleBrailles—devices that consist of a TTY connected to a Braille keyboard—have 

gone out of production because of their high cost (each device costs approximately 

$6,000) and low market demand. Second, VRS is not accessible to deaf-blind people 

98
unless they have access to costly equipment for receiving Braille output and unless 

VRS companies cooperate in offering dual sign language/text services. Third, deafblind people do not have access to pagers to facilitate their mobility. 

• Although access to 911 emergency assistance through traditional TTY-based relay 

services has been relatively effective, because relay services depend on third parties, it 

is not clear what would happen if a pandemic broke out that threatened relay staffing. 

Consumers believe that the telecommunications industry needs to prepare for such 

contingencies, because another 15–20 years will pass before the third party to relay 

calls can be eliminated entirely. 

• Significant relay innovation has originated in state relay programs. For example, the 

provision of VRS, STS, and captioned telephone service all began as state initiatives. 

Stakeholders raised concerns about losing these local perspectives as the nation’s relay 

services migrate to the interstate jurisdiction. 

• Sometimes businesses, such as airlines, request people with hearing loss to use a direct 

TTY line instead of VRS. Stakeholders expressed an interest in being able to choose 

how they communicate with businesses and governmental agencies. 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations 

Implementation Issue: The laws governing relay services have not been able to keep 

up with the fast pace of ever-changing relay technologies. 

The FCC must approve a new relay technology or service before it can become eligible 

for reimbursement from the Interstate TRS Fund. Many consumers feel that the process 

for granting such approval is too drawn out and has been unfairly preventing consumers 

from benefiting from innovations until long after they are technically feasible. The 

problem is that relay technology is evolving at an unprecedented pace, which is being 

accelerated by the migration from PSTN to Internet-based technologies. As a 

consequence, technology has pushed ahead much faster than the law has allowed; one 

stakeholder explained that there is a mismatch between the speed at which technology is 

being developed and the pace at which the laws are amended. One recent instance in 

which this occurred concerned video mail, a technology that enables a hearing person to 

99
leave a video message through an interpreter for a VRS recipient. Although this 

technology is the functional equivalent of voice mail, it took over a year to get it 

approved by the FCC after the technology to provide this feature became available. 

Recommendation: The FCC should accelerate approval for new relay technologies and 

should establish clear guidelines to govern new technologies at the time they are 

approved. (The latter concern grew out of events that occurred following approval for 

VRS, when the lack of FCC standards resulted in several unfair marketing practices later 

banned by the FCC.) 

Recommendation: Rather than deal with new technologies on a piecemeal basis, the 

FCC should look at the big picture and chart a forward-looking course for TRS over the 

next 5–10 years that considers new mainstream technologies and that drives decisions 

that respond to these innovations. The communication technology that relay users need 

and want is melding with the technology desired by mainstream consumers, such as 

videoconferencing, VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) services, and enhanced 

multimedia that provides text and video. It is important to get on the technology 

bandwagon, to ensure that people with disabilities become players in the development of 

mainstream technologies. 

Implementation Issue: A viable and stable funding source for TRS is needed as 

telecommunications services migrate from the PSTN to the Internet. 

Under the ADA, relay services are supported with funds that come from intrastate, 

interstate, and international end user telecommunications revenues. As telephone users 

migrate away from the traditional telephone network to the Internet, this funding source 

is declining. The decreasing revenue base is accompanied by unprecedented growth in 

relay services, brought on by new technologies. Virginia was the first state to pass 

legislation (effective January 1, 2007) that changes the funding mechanism for state TRS 

services from a surcharge on landlines only to a surcharge on landline and wireless 

telephone services, as well as cable, satellite, and VoIP services. In addition, the U.S. 

Senate is considering legislation that would require universal service contributions from 

these entities. 

100
Recommendation: Congress and the FCC should consider regulatory or legislative 

actions that include Internet-based providers in the categories of companies that must 

contribute to state and interstate relay support to ensure the viability of relay funding and 

to distribute costs fairly among all subscribers of communication services. 

Recommendation: The FCC should develop a reliable and consistent funding 

methodology to ensure the stability of VRS, as well as all other types of TRS. The 

funding mechanism currently used by the FCC for interstate relay services—especially 

VRS—has been in a state of flux since 2003. 

Implementation Issue: Although VRS has become extremely popular among people 

whose first or preferred language is sign language, and Internet-based text relay has 

become popular among people who enjoy its versatility and mobility, not all 

potential users of these services are able to afford the high-speed broadband needed 

to use them. 

Recommendation: Congress should amend the Communications Act or the FCC should 

initiate a rule change regarding provisions governing universal access. As people with 

disabilities migrate from the public switched telephone network to Internet-based text and 

video communications, state utility regulators should allow universal service subsidies 

that are used to defray the high costs of telephone service for low-income people—such 

as subsidies available under the Lifeline program (which provides a monthly discount for 

telephone service) or the Link-Up program (which provides a discount for initial 

telephone connection charges)—to help defray the costs of broadband service. 

Implementation Issue: As the jurisdiction for relay services shifts away from the 

state to the interstate arena, complaint handling and oversight for these services 

must be redefined. Currently, most businesses and consumers are not aware that 

states have no jurisdiction over Internet-based relay services, and relay service 

complaints continue to come to their state-based relay authorities. 

Recommendation: The FCC should supplement the current TRS complaint procedure, 

which requires consumers to bring complaints to the states first and then—after 180 

101
days—to the FCC, with new procedures for Internet-based calls. This would be consistent 

with the FCC’s new certification process for Internet-based and VRS providers. 

Recommendation: Additional oversight of Internet-based relay services is needed, either 

through a new structure at the FCC or through a new federal-level advisory body that can 

monitor Internet relay activity and provide regular feedback to the FCC on the need for 

revisions to the agency’s relay standards. 

Recommendation: State relay administrators, state relay service providers, and other 

telecommunications providers should educate businesses about how and where to report 

Internet relay misuse. This can be done in part through programs such as Maryland’s 

relay partner program, which educates businesses about the functions and purposes of 

relay services. 

Recommendation: The FCC should establish a mechanism whereby consumers can 

contact an Internet-based relay provider when they have a complaint about that provider 

or wish to report relay misuse. One way of enabling consumers to identify the provider 

on any given relay call is to assign each provider a series of unique numbers for each of 

its CAs. For example, Sprint could be given the 1000 series of numbers, Verizon the 

2000 series, MCI the 3000 series, and so on. That way, the employer of every CA could 

be identified easily by the enforcing agency. 

Implementation Issue: Despite improvements in the percentage of individuals and 

businesses that accept relay calls, hang-ups by businesses, and even by government 

agencies, are still common. 

Since the inception of relay services, lack of awareness about TRS has caused many 

businesses and individuals to hang up on relay calls, believing them to be commercial 

solicitations. Over the past year or so, this problem has been exacerbated by an onslaught 

of inappropriate or abusive Internet-based relay calls. In addition to pranksters, the 

perpetrators often are hearing individuals from other countries who make calls over 

Internet-based relay services to con unsuspecting businesses into sending them products 

using fraudulent credit cards. It has now become common for some sales establishments 

102
that are afraid of being victimized to refuse relay calls; several of these establishments 

have even requested that relay providers block all calls to their numbers, a practice that 

the FCC has specifically prohibited. As a consequence, relay consumers frequently find 

themselves in the difficult position of having to plead with retail businesses simply to 

accept their calls. 

Recommendation: State relay administrators, state relay service providers, and other 

telecommunications carriers should identify and implement methods to educate the 

general public and, in particular, business establishments about the purpose and function 

of relay services to put an end to the resistance coming from the business community. 

Recommendation: Greater efforts need to be made to prosecute individuals who misuse 

Internet relay services. In the nonrelay context, when fraud is committed by telephone, 

law enforcement officials can obtain subpoenas that allow them to secure the telephone 

records of the alleged perpetrators. The same can be done here. The FCC currently has an 

open rulemaking proceeding to explore the most effective ways of curbing Internet relay 

misuse. 

Recommendation: Technical solutions are needed to automate the identification of the 

location of someone initiating an Internet-based relay call. This will help deter abuse, 

facilitate calls to 911, and facilitate accurate billing. The FCC should track these 

technical developments so they can be implemented as this function becomes available. 

Implementation Issue: No common strategy yet exists for the handling of emergency 

calls made using Internet relay or VRS. 

Recommendation: The FCC has an open proceeding to determine how VRS and Internet 

text-based providers can best handle incoming emergency calls. At the same time, the 

Department of Transportation (DOT) has been designated the point agency for the 

development and testing of next-generation technology for 911. The two agencies should 

coordinate with one another to ensure that relay providers are able to accept and swiftly 

connect incoming calls with appropriate public safety answering points.10 

103
Implementation Issue: Few state equipment distribution programs have modernized 

their equipment to keep up with technological innovations. 

Various states have programs through which they distribute specialized customer 

premises equipment (SCPE) designed to facilitate telephone communication by people 

with disabilities. Some of these programs make loans for equipment, others distribute 

vouchers, and still others grant recipients outright ownership of the devices. 

Traditionally, the equipment given out by these programs has been geared largely to 

address the needs of TRS consumers. While the programs have successfully distributed 

SCPE to hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities, restrictions in their scope are 

keeping most of these programs from meeting the communications needs of these people. 

The vast majority of states continue to offer only legacy technologies that rely on the 

landline network and that are becoming obsolete in a rapidly changing communications 

environment. This excludes all wireless devices, including mobile phones and pagers. 

Many programs also fail to offer equipment needed to use STS relay, such as artificial 

larynxes or biofeedback devices. In addition, TeleBrailles needed by deaf-blind relay 

users are often not available. Similarly, the programs rarely pay for computers or 

computer-like equipment. Thus, a deaf person with low vision who wants to use VRS, 

but needs a larger screen to do so, is not likely to be able to acquire that screen through 

these programs. To make matters worse, some states require recipients to keep their 

equipment for at least five years before they are allowed to acquire new equipment. The 

consequences of this policy are severe. For example, an individual given a TTY just two 

years ago would be unable to exchange this device for a captioned telephone, even if the 

latter better meets his or her telecommunications needs. 

Recommendation: State equipment distribution programs need to take a harder look at 

the needs of the consumers they serve. These programs should reevaluate the scope of 

their offerings in light of new computer, electronic, and Internet-based technologies, and 

should allow consumers to trade in their equipment sooner. One state that has already 

made some of these changes is Missouri; in 2000, it began distributing adaptive computer 

equipment for access to the Internet and e-mail. Finally, state programs should coordinate 

104
with one another to ensure that they are consistent and uniform in providing the best 

options for relay consumers. 

Recommendation: The introduction of new technologies has expanded both the need 

and the role of equipment distribution programs. Now, along with relay users, other 

people with disabilities often need specialized equipment to obtain access to technology 

and telecommunications. As a result more people are now competing for limited state 

funds, and new funding sources need to be identified. Disability advocates are interested 

in making universal service funding available to subsidize the cost of the expensive 

SCPE that is needed by people with disabilities to access broadband technologies. Such 

“broadband bucks” would allow these individuals to select the accessible equipment they 

need to accommodate their specific disabilities. 

Implementation Issue: Relay users still find that businesses and other individuals 

are reluctant to use TRS to return their calls. 

More than a decade and a half after passage of the ADA, relay users still find that 

receiving return calls through TRS remains a problem. This situation is especially the 

case when it comes to potential employers, who tend not to want to bother when they see 

“To contact me, call this number.” As an access gateway to all PSTN-based relay 

services, 711 relay dialing has improved significantly the rate of traditional TRS return 

calls, but even this access code has not eradicated the problem. To exacerbate matters, 

paper and electronic forms and applications typically do not provide room for a relay 

number (even if it is only three digits); these forms typically only have a single space for 

the applicant’s 10-digit phone number. 

Recommendation: An FCC rule change may be needed to require connections for 

outgoing and incoming relay calls that are automated to the same extent as those for 

conventional voice telephone calls. The technology for automatic connections through all 

relay modalities exists but is not mandated by the FCC.11 

Implementation Issue: Greater efforts need to be made to provide STS relay users 

with information and training on STS. In part, this is because unlike the culturally 

105
Deaf community, which uses a number of networks for the distribution and flow of 

information, individuals with speech disabilities often are not members of disability 

organizations where they can distribute or acquire this information. Although STS 

relay services are mandated by the FCC, use of these services over the past year 

declined at a rate of 2.4 minutes per day. 

Recommendation: The underutilization of STS relay services can be reversed by 

identifying and training potential STS users. Training of this type, which typically takes 

three hours in the person’s home, must be done on a one-on-one basis. (Minnesota and 

California are two states that are conducting such training.12) 

Recommendation: States should release information about STS call volume so 

consumers can determine where outreach is needed. In the past, some states have been 

reluctant to give out this information; for example, in a 2006 call volume study, only 26 

states provided this information. 

Recommendation: The telecommunications companies could establish a national 

nonprofit organization to advance the use of STS.13 

Implementation Issue: It is not clear whether relay calls using the services and skills 

of more than one type of communications assistant are eligible for compensation 

from state and interstate relay funds. 

In recent years, innovative types of relay technologies have made it possible for 

individuals with disabilities who use one type of relay to call people using other types of 

relay or text devices. For example, a captioned telephone user now can speak to a TTY 

user, and an STS user can converse with a VRS user. In these instances, more than one 

CA, each of whom has different skill sets, is needed to assist in relaying the call. 

Similarly, on occasion, more than one CA will be needed to accommodate a single 

individual’s disability during a relay call. For example, a person who is deaf-blind may 

wish to use VRS to sign to someone else but may need to receive conversation back in 

Braille (using a TTY connected to a Braille display). In this instance, one CA would need 

to perform sign language interpreting while a second would need to type back the 

106
responses. Virginia, Maryland, and Massachusetts are three states that provide 

reimbursement for these and other multiple CA calls. Maryland indicated that it will also 

pay for the call if one of the relay modalities used is interstate, such as interstate 

captioned telephone service. 

Recommendation: The FCC should clarify that all relay calls must be handled and are 

eligible for compensation from the Interstate TRS Fund, even when more than one relay 

modality is needed to complete the call. 

Implementation Issue: Although captioned telephone relay services are the only 

means of providing functionally equivalent relay services for many individuals with 

hearing loss, these services are not available to the vast majority of potential users. 

As a group, individuals who are hard of hearing or late-deafened have not benefited from 

the relay mandates of Title IV to the same extent as their peers who are culturally Deaf. 

There are a few reasons for this. First, these individuals typically are not familiar with 

TTYs; they are typically accustomed to using voice telephones. Second, until recently, 

most relay marketing and service features have focused on the needs of the culturally 

Deaf community. Although the FCC’s Title IV rules require voice carryover (VCO)— 

which allows a hard-of-hearing person to use his or her own voice to speak and to use the 

CA to type back responses from the other person—many hard-of-hearing or latedeafened individuals do not understand how to use this relay feature. Captioned 

telephone service finally offers individuals with hearing loss the opportunity to use relay 

services with equipment that is just like the conventional voice telephones that many of 

these people are familiar with. Sixty percent of current captioned telephone users have 

indicated that they did not use relay services before this technology came along. Thirtyeight to 40 percent of these people are over the age of 65. However, captioned telephone 

relay services are not mandated by the FCC. As a consequence, many states do not offer 

these services and, if they do, they limit the number of residents who can participate in 

their captioned telephone program. At this time, there is no Internet-based version of 

captioned telephone relay service available to the public. 

107
Recommendation: Petitions requesting the FCC to mandate captioned telephone relay 

service and approve an Internet version of this service (filed on October 31, 2005) should 

be granted14 because a far greater number of individuals will be able to receive 

functionally equivalent telephone services. Internet-based captioned telephone relay 

services also would eliminate the need for separate captioned telephone equipment, 

because users simply would be able to install software on their computers to access these 

services. 

Implementation Issue: Stakeholders raised concerns about the extent to which 

testing and assessments are being conducted by Internet-based relay providers to 

ensure the high quality of their CAs. Among other things, stakeholders raised 

concerns about the voicing quality of video interpreters. 

Recommendation: The FCC should issue standards to ensure standard interpreter 

qualifications across providers. One way of evaluating is to use qualified interpreters and 

deaf relay consumers to assess the ability of video relay interpreters to effectively 

facilitate communication. While some, if not most, VRS providers already require 

compliance with minimum certification standards, or test interpreters to assess the 

effectiveness of their signing, voice presentation, finger spelling, and so on, FCC 

standards are needed to ensure consistency. VRS stakeholders say it would be helpful as 

well for them to be able to receive some type of feedback during calls (for example, 

through captions) that would let them know what the interpreters are voicing, to build 

trust in the interpreter’s ability. 

Implementation Issue: Although the ADA has various requirements for public 

TTYs, public VRS stations are rare. In mainstream locations, such as public 

libraries, the few attempts at installing public video stations have been unsuccessful 

either because there is minimum “deaf traffic” in these locations or because people 

are not aware that these public stations exist. 

Recommendation: Vendors should install videophone equipment in public areas 

frequently visited by people who are deaf, such as in dormitories and activity rooms in 

residential schools for the deaf, vocational rehabilitation offices, and community service 

108
centers for people who are deaf (such as the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the 

Deaf). At the latter sites, people who are deaf or hard of hearing also can make 

arrangements to acquire telecommunications equipment through state distribution 

programs. At all the locations, people who cannot afford the high-speed connectivity 

needed for direct access to videophones can follow up on business related to the services 

provided at these locations, seek advocacy services related to ADA-related complaints, or 

use the phones for other purposes. 

Implementation Issue: It is difficult for hearing individuals to make calls using 

Internet relay and VRS, because the dynamic IP addresses used for Internet 

communications constantly change. Although some VRS providers use proxy 

numbers that are mapped to dynamic IP addresses, these numbers cannot be used 

from one provider to the next. 

Recommendation: The FCC should approve a global database for proxy numbers. Each 

Internet-based relay customer should be given a single number that can be used to receive 

Internet-based calls through all relay providers. Such a universal approach to 

numbering—by which the assigned number would be neutral with respect to both the 

provider and the equipment the customer uses—is commonplace for conventional 

telephone users. Although telephone subscribers have different local exchange companies 

that provide their service and telephone wiring, the telephone number that each person is 

assigned is used to receive calls through any telephone company. Universal numbering is 

especially important in emergencies such as hurricanes, where consumers cannot rely on 

a single provider to receive incoming calls. The FCC currently has an open rulemaking 

proceeding to address the need for a global database of proxy numbers that can be used to 

connect hearing individuals to their dynamic IP or VRS calling destinations. 

109
Implementation Issue: Businesses and governmental agencies frequently use 

firewalls for security, which can inadvertently block VRS calls. Sometimes hotels or 

corporations are not willing to open up the ports needed for employees or visitors to 

have video communication. 

Recommendation: DOJ, the Access Board, and agencies concerned with digital and 

communication security should amend the ADA Title II and Title III/ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines (ADAAG) to address the problem of the use of firewalls for security, which 

can inadvertently block VRS calls. Businesses and government agencies need to have an 

accessibility guideline that requires them to make video communications possible when 

they use firewalls. If there is an ADAAG guideline on this matter, technology will be 

designed to fix this dilemma. In the meantime, employers should obtain a separate 

broadband line that can be opened for VRS users. 

Implementation Issue: People who are deaf-blind are unable to type quickly and 

tend to have greater lags in response time during their TRS calls. Hearing parties to 

the call can grow impatient when this occurs. 

Recommendation: State relay administrators and relay service providers should instruct 

CAs to be more patient with deaf-blind callers, who, because they use refreshable Braille, 

often read more slowly than other relay users. In addition, CAs should be permitted to 

instruct call recipients about the caller’s needs and the fact that the call may take a bit 

longer to complete. Technologies that may enable tactile communication over the Internet 

through robots are being explored and could facilitate access in the future for people who 

are deaf-blind. 

3. Topics for Further Research 

Market Research on Relay Use Patterns 

Relay consumers must help lead technological advances by establishing core guiding 

principles and working with technology companies to plan out the future of relay 

business. To achieve this end, additional market research on relay usage patterns is 

necessary. This research should focus on the types of relays people use, why they use 

110
them, why they shift from one relay modality to another, and so on. The goal is to ensure 

that consumers with disabilities stay ahead of, not behind, the technology curve. 

E. Disability Community15 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion 

People with Hidden Disabilities 

A key topic of discussion was the ADA implementation issues facing people with hidden 

disabilities, such as psychiatric disabilities, learning disabilities, epilepsy, and multiple 

chemical sensitivities. One participant said that the issue of whether to disclose a 

disability in an employment situation presents a real dilemma for people with hidden 

disabilities, especially if stigma is commonly associated with the disability. Even when a 

person with a disability needs a minor reasonable accommodation, he or she sometimes 

fears that disclosure may result in discrimination. Other participants discussed attitudinal 

barriers that people with hidden disabilities face, including the many inappropriate 

comments they may endure if their disabilities become known. 

Advocates for people with psychiatric disabilities stated that the ADA has not worked 

well for this group. Many individuals with psychiatric disabilities are not aware of the 

ADA, according to various stakeholders, or are not aware that it applies to them. 

Similarly, from various stakeholder perspectives, covered entities are unaware and 

uneducated about how to ensure that the rights of people with psychiatric disabilities are 

protected. 

While the courts are hostile to the ADA generally, according to some stakeholders, they 

are especially so with respect to people with psychiatric disabilities. This problem is 

rooted in stereotypes and incorrect assumptions about risks, dangers, and capacities. 

Several people called for an education campaign for people with psychiatric disabilities 

because they need to be aware that the ADA does apply to them, and need to know how 

they can use it. 

111
Covered entities have a similar need for education, according to various people, including 

police who need education on appropriate use of restraints with people with many types 

of disabilities, and especially people with psychiatric disabilities. Another participant 

pointed out that people with psychiatric disabilities have “really gotten clobbered” in the 

media, which frequently portrays members of the group in a stereotypical manner that 

encourages negative attitudes and perceptions. Another person added that the group has 

seen “horrible pushback” by society against their community and against the recovery 

model for people with psychiatric disabilities. Many people noted that serious and 

damaging perception problems lead people to assume that everyone with a psychiatric 

disability is a danger unless he or she is on medication. Even then, the fact that a person 

uses medication can become a central issue and the basis for discrimination. 

Another participant said that the ADA has not worked well in the area of employment for 

people with learning disabilities, who are still largely unemployed or underemployed. 

The perception of the difficulty involved in tailoring accommodations for people with 

learning disabilities could explain this, according to several people. The Supreme Court’s 

ruling in the Sutton case has had a very significant impact on people whose disability is 

mitigated by equipment or medication, including those with psychiatric and other hidden 

disabilities. Another person discussed how ADA implementation has always been very 

weak in dealing with the issue of multiple chemical sensitivities, because covered entities 

do not recognize the impairment and are generally unwilling to provide appropriate 

accommodations when they become aware. Additional discussion took place about how 

retailers often fail to consider accessibility for people with nonmobility disabilities. 

People with Visual and Hearing Impairments 

People with visual and hearing impairments still face particular ADA implementation 

challenges. Representatives of organizations of people with visual impairments pointed 

out that one of the most underimplemented provisions of the ADA is the requirement that 

covered entities provide alternative communication formats. They noted that businesses 

and others assume that providing information and material in alternative formats will 

impose an undue burden and, therefore, is not required. Equally frequently, covered 

112
entities simply are unaware that the ADA requires materials and information be provided 

in alternative formats. 

Similarly, municipal officials in charge of the public rights of way, such as streets and 

sidewalks, assume that they have met their ADA obligations if they have installed curb 

ramps. Public entities are not aware of problems faced by people who do not use a 

wheelchair, or the liability concerns raised by their failure to be aware of other 

disabilities. 

Various stakeholders mentioned that entities that operate Web sites, for example, want to 

know what the ADA requires rather than creating accessible sites simply because it is a 

good business practice. 

Several stakeholders mentioned that some employers still fail to allow service animals to 

accompany people with disabilities, which indicates that basic ADA information is not 

reaching the employer community. 

Representatives from the Deaf community expressed continued frustration over lack of 

communication access. One person pointed out that it can still be difficult to telephone a 

doctor or discuss critical health issues and stressed the need for continued, robust 

education about the access needs and rights of individuals who are Deaf. 

Core ADA Issues: ADA Definition of Disability, the Olmstead Decision, and the 

Persistence of Stereotyping Attitudes About Disability 

A significant and central theme identified by many stakeholders is the problems that have 

arisen from the U.S. Supreme Court’s narrowing of the ADA definition of disability, 

which has caused a serious “rift” in the statute. One person expressed a grave concern 

about how the current definition disadvantages people with “episodic disabilities.” 

Many saw poor implementation of Olmstead as a significant ADA challenge. A number 

of participants discussed how states are not meeting the deinstitutionalization mandate of 

the Olmstead case and how difficult it has been in many locales to sustain momentum for 

113
efforts that could lead to meaningful community placement outcomes. Lack of funding 

and lack of political will contribute to this stagnation, according to some. 

Others discussed the persistence of negative attitudes about people with disabilities. One 

participant described a discussion in which the idea of using the contracting power of the 

government to spur the hiring of people with disabilities was met with uninformed and 

stereotypical ideas about the productivity of people with disabilities. Other participants 

noted that popular language continues to include expressions that are disrespectful of 

people with disabilities. 

Employment 

Employment issues were a key topic of discussion at the disability community 

stakeholder dialogues. Lack of accommodations in the workplace was a significant issue 

for many participants. One person suggested promoting a new approach to understanding 

reasonable accommodation—emphasizing universal design and ergonomics instead of the 

exclusive use of the diagnostic and medical model in employment. 

Another major issue raised by some stakeholders is the lack of bona fide employment 

data for people with disabilities. One person felt that the emphasis on protecting 

employee privacy prevented entities from collecting concrete information about workers 

with disabilities and employers’ track record and performance in hiring and retaining 

people with disabilities. Others felt strongly that people with disabilities have not been 

encouraged to answer employment questionnaires and voluntarily provide information 

about employment and accommodation. One stakeholder said that employment data are 

critically important to show that people with disabilities already are working and that 

their presence in the workplace is not a burden for employers. This stakeholder felt that it 

is necessary to find ways to obtain this information without forcing people with 

disabilities into a medical model, or requiring a diagnosis or voluntary self-identification. 

114
Access to Public Accommodations and Transportation 

Several stakeholders discussed retailers who fail to provide access, such as accessible 

dressing rooms, and Title III entities that think a back door entry constitutes “appropriate 

access.” One participant mentioned the paradox of paratransit: If it works well, demand 

grows, thus creating funding and management challenges for the transit district. Others 

mentioned various large and small transportation barriers that people with disabilities 

face. For example, numerous cultural or attitudinal barriers exist in certain areas of 

private transportation, especially taxi service. Stakeholders mentioned that cab drivers 

sometimes refuse to accept service animals. One participant said that he has been made to 

feel as though he is troublesome when the fixed-route bus driver must spend time 

securing his wheelchair or when a bus passes him by with the excuse that the lift is not 

working. Another stakeholder mentioned that there is a need to reduce costs for 

attendants who accompany people with disabilities during paratransit rides as well as in 

other situations such as at entertainment facilities. In some cases, these added costs 

prevent the person from attending the function or using the transit service. 

There was significant discussion about the ongoing problem some people with disabilities 

face when they seek appropriate accommodations from colleges and universities. These 

entities do not always appear to understand their ADA obligations and responsibilities, 

which can result in limited educational choices and opportunities for students with 

disabilities. 

Training 

Stakeholders agreed that there is a need for more training of people with disabilities. One 

person said, “Only the protected class can be relied on to truly enforce the law and ensure 

its continued implementation.” They noted that many people with disabilities do not 

know about the ADA or, if they have heard of the law, they do not understand how it 

affects them. Others said that some people with disabilities think they understand the law 

but actually are not well-versed in its provisions, so they have inappropriate expectations 

or provide poor advice. Several stakeholders noted that training should be targeted to 

specific groups (e.g., youth, people with hidden disabilities) so it will be perceived as 

115
relevant and they will be encouraged to use it on their own behalf and to advocate for 

others. 

Enforcement 

Enforcement was a significant topic of discussion. Participants were unanimous in their 

observation that federal enforcement, particularly of Title III, has been weak and 

ineffective. The lack of damages under Title III, in their view, has created a disincentive 

for some public accommodations to remove architectural barriers or take other steps to 

become accessible. They noted that the courts have further limited the way the ADA can 

be used in various contexts, including employment and when public accommodations 

have failed to become accessible or provide auxiliary aids or services. Various 

stakeholders noted that weak or incomplete enforcement of accessibility requirements on 

the state and local levels is, in part, a result of poorly trained building inspection officials, 

architects, and other building professionals. 

Rural Issues 

Disability community stakeholders across all the dialogues discussed at great length the 

unique ADA implementation challenges people in rural areas face. An overarching 

problem stakeholders described is the lack of understanding and awareness of the ADA 

and access on the part of local governments and businesses in rural areas. They noted that 

a backlash is likely when people in small towns and rural areas raise the issue of poor 

access or file a complaint to combat the general lack of access. A common theme among 

rural stakeholders was that people are reluctant to rock the boat in a place where 

everyone knows one another. Some participants discussed how the lack of access is 

perpetuated, because the community can label a person a troublemaker if he or she raises 

an ADA complaint. Also, if a covered entity provides access or an accommodation for a 

person with one type of disability, often nothing will be provided for people with other 

requirements. Where accommodations do exist, there is little or no signage or advertising 

signifying its availability. Some people noted that, as a practical matter, many small 

towns have older buildings that present very difficult accessibility problems. When 

116
attempts are made in these situations to provide accessibility, they often are inadequate, 

ineffective, and poorly maintained. 

Many stakeholders from rural areas discussed the impact of the lack of government 

infrastructure available in urban areas. For example, one person said, “Small cities equal 

small funding,” especially when locales depend on a local tax base to fund capital 

projects. Several people mentioned that rural towns and small cities tend to have very 

small building code inspection departments, often consisting of only one person, and few 

resources for addressing disability access. Another serious problem is that low-density 

areas have little or no public transportation, which makes it very difficult for some people 

with disabilities to travel to school, jobs, and community activities, and to conduct 

business in their communities. 

Others mentioned specific ADA enforcement problems. Several discussed how difficult it 

is to use litigation effectively in rural areas. Some stated that there are too few attorneys 

and almost no one who is qualified or willing to take a case on a contingency basis. In 

rural areas, lack of ADA training for attorneys is part of the problem. As several people 

noted, if DOJ won’t investigate a complaint, and if a person cannot find legal 

representation, then people with disabilities effectively have no ADA rights. 

Furthermore, several people noted that attorneys in rural areas are reluctant to file a 

lawsuit against a party they perceive as a neighbor or a friend. 

Various strategies were suggested to address these issues. Several people said they have 

found it effective when individuals who do not live in the community either bring or 

follow up on compliance complaints. One example from California involved a rural 

independent living center that contacted CalTrans, the state transportation agency, about 

the very slow pace of improved bus stops and roadside access for which the county in 

question had received funding. CalTrans contacted the county, conducted a review of 

what had been done, audited the spending records, and brought in outside monitoring to 

implement the funded program more vigorously. Advocates stressed the importance of 

devising strategies that follow the money and that encourage locals and outsiders to work 

together on advocacy. 

117
Several stakeholders noted that people with disabilities in rural areas also have seen some 

ADA successes. The availability of TTYs in hospitals was an advance hailed by one 

person. Another described an accessible homeless shelter that was built with community 

development block grant funds in a small city in rural California. 

2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations 

Implementation Issue: Few people with psychiatric disabilities are aware that they 

are covered by the ADA. 

Recommendation: Federal agencies that have ADA implementation and enforcement 

roles should join in a collaborative effort to fund a substantial nationwide ADA training 

initiative for people with disabilities. (See similar recommendation in Section C – Public 

Accommodations.) 

Implementation Issue: Some public safety agencies are not aware that the ADA 

confers civil rights on people with disabilities or how to relate appropriately with 

individuals with disabilities, especially psychiatric disabilities. 

Recommendation: Key organizations concerned with disability advocacy and policy (for 

example, DOJ, NDRN, and mental health consumer organizations) should create training 

and informational materials that provide practical, realistic information and guidance for 

specific public safety entities (e.g., police, sheriffs, firefighters) and that dispel 

stereotypes. The key organizations should recommend policies that the entities should 

adopt to guide their conduct in situations involving individuals with disabilities, 

especially psychiatric disabilities. Policy guidelines must acknowledge that standards for 

behavior and conduct will differ according to the context and the situation, but a process 

must be set forth for determining whether a risk exists and whether an accommodation 

can be provided that will mitigate the risk. (See similar recommendation in Section C – 

Public Accommodations.) 

118
Implementation Issue: People with disabilities from small towns and rural areas 

sometimes experience a backlash if they challenge the general lack of access, making 

it difficult or impossible to implement and enforce the ADA. 

Recommendation: DOJ should step up its enforcement efforts in rural communities. 

Using Project Civic Access as a model, DOJ should initiate compliance activities tailored 

to the needs and stated goals of the disability communities in small towns and rural areas. 

Recommendation: Federal agencies charged with ADA implementation and 

enforcement should create a rural monitoring and enforcement project in collaboration 

with regional ADA & IT Technical Assistance Centers, state Protection and Advocacy 

organizations, local disability organizations, individual leaders with disabilities, and civic 

and community leaders. The goal would be to identify and test effective methods for 

achieving ADA implementation in small towns and rural areas that could be publicized 

and replicated. 

Recommendation: Regional ADA & IT Technical Assistance Centers and state 

Protection and Advocacy organizations should develop a model project by collaborating 

with disability organizations and individuals with disabilities from selected small towns 

and rural areas to develop an education and information campaign that promotes public 

awareness and accessibility. One key strategy would be to distribute targeted ADA 

materials to the public—for example, libraries, job training centers, hiring programs, and 

unions—and include ADA information with local business tax invoices, and with all 

business transactions involving licensing, building and occupancy permits, business 

permits, and inspections. (See related recommendations for urban areas in the section on 

Title III.) 

(NOTE: See sections on Title I and III for additional recommendations that address 

implementation issues raised during the disability community dialogues.) 

119
F. Observations by Stakeholders from Diverse Cultures 

1. Key Implementation Issues and Discussion 

Over one-third of the participants in the stakeholder dialogues were from culturally 

diverse communities in rural areas or large cities. These individuals shared their 

perspectives on ADA implementation in employment, transportation, 

telecommunications, by public entities and public accommodations. People with 

disabilities from diverse backgrounds who lived in predominantly homogeneous areas 

spoke of accessibility issues in their communities, particularly the lack of access provided 

by small businesses and community service agencies in Chicago’s Latino neighborhoods 

and San Francisco’s predominantly Asian and Latino neighborhoods. 

Comments about the lack of compliance by small businesses in diverse neighborhoods 

mirrored the comments about small businesses in general. Stakeholders noted that some 

small businesses in diverse communities fail to implement the ADA for the same reasons 

many small businesses fail to do so: ignorance of the law, concerns about the cost of 

barrier removal, and the perception that people with disabilities do not frequent their 

establishments. 

An important distinction emphasized by stakeholders from diverse cultures was that 

people with disabilities sometimes confront an additional barrier to access in culturally 

diverse communities: different cultural attitudes about disability. 

Different Cultural Attitudes About Disability 

Stakeholders from diverse cultures noted that underlying the lack of compliance with the 

ADA in all communities are differing cultural attitudes toward disability. In culturally 

diverse communities, lack of compliance also may be due in part to the small number of 

people from those communities who understand different cultural attitudes and can 

respond with appropriate information and technical assistance. Stakeholders pointed out 

that individuals from ethnically diverse cultures are underrepresented in organizations 

such as independent living centers (ILCs), ADA & IT Technical Assistance Centers, and 

120
special education departments—groups that are primary providers of information about 

disability and the ADA. 

Experience among the stakeholders correlates somewhat with research showing that 

when a person has previous experiences with people with disabilities—for example, 

having a family member, employee, or friend with a disability—progress toward 

compliance is more likely. 

Lack of Culturally Competent ADA Information 

Stakeholders noted that although DOJ publishes much of its information and technical 

assistance materials in multiple languages, the materials do not demonstrate cultural 

competence, nor are they delivered in a culturally competent manner. 

Lack of Leadership 

Stakeholders from culturally diverse populations reported that their leaders have not 

embraced disability rights, nor have significant numbers of people with disabilities in 

their communities developed into leaders. Increased ADA implementation requires 

leaders who are disability advocates and who promote and model accessibility. 

Noncompliance by Community Organizations 

Stakeholders gave a number of examples of community-based organizations serving 

culturally diverse communities that are not architecturally accessible or do not make 

programmatic accommodations for their constituents with disabilities. For example, an 

immigration resource center turned away a deaf client rather than provide an interpreter, 

and a mental health clinic in a Latino neighborhood in Chicago remains inaccessible to 

people using wheelchairs. Unfortunately, according to the stakeholders, these 

organizations do not understand that their failure to accommodate people with disabilities 

who seek their services erects rather than alleviates social barriers. 

121
2. Key Stakeholder Recommendations 

Implementation Issue: Many small businesses in culturally diverse communities 

have not complied with the ADA. 

Recommendation: DOJ should dedicate additional resources to develop culturally 

competent information materials on the ADA and should support development of 

culturally competent outreach activities. 

Recommendation: Disability advocates associated with local Independent Living 

Centers and other disability organizations should initiate contact with leaders in the 

community and discuss local needs from all perspectives. 

Recommendation: Disability advocates, with the assistance of local leaders, should 

contact local chambers of commerce, merchant associations, and social service clubs in 

their communities and build partnerships for outreach and education. 

Recommendation: The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

should establish a program modeled on the regional ADA & IT Centers but focused on 

culturally competent outreach and technical assistance to culturally diverse communities. 

The goal of these new centers would be to enhance culturally diverse covered entities’ 

capacity to implement the ADA. With support from and collaboration with local 

community leaders and organizations, the centers would conduct outreach and provide 

technical assistance, information, and training to small businesses and organizations in 

their project area. 

Recommendation: In conducting outreach to culturally diverse communities, disability 

advocates and organizations should use popular local media outlets that target those 

communities. 

122
Implementation Issue: It may be financially prohibitive for some small businesses to 

remove physical barriers. 

Recommendation: Key federal agencies and private community development 

organizations should convene an experts meeting to explore methods for using various 

sources of community development funding—such as the community investment tax, 

SBA loans, FEMA disaster relief funding, and community development block grants—to 

help bring about ADA compliance changes. This could be accomplished by requiring 

ADA compliance as a term and condition of funding, which would be supported with 

some financial help from the funding agency toward achieving the required accessibility 

features and by dedicating specific amounts of money from development funds to 

accomplish high-priority barrier-removal projects in the target communities. 

Implementation Issue: Implementation in a culturally diverse manner that is 

sensitive to, and respectful of, cultural traditions is hampered by the lack of 

inclusion of people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds among the local 

leadership. 

Recommendation: The leaders of local Independent Living Centers and other disability 

organizations should seek out leaders in culturally diverse neighborhoods to hold 

discussions on ADA implementation and to understand the needs of citizens and 

businesses. The objective is to raise awareness about important cultural traditions that 

may affect perceptions of disability; to inform leaders about the benefits of the ADA; and 

to build partnerships that provide mutual benefit for the disability and culturally diverse 

communities. The goals are for local leaders to demonstrate that the ADA can be 

implemented in a meaningful way in all communities, to promote implementation, and to 

serve as a model for others. 

Recommendation: Local Independent Living Centers and other disability organizations 

should seek out individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds to mentor people with 

disabilities. 

123
Recommendation: For ADA implementation to remain a priority in the community, 

disability advocates must make regular informational visits to state and regional public 

office holders, especially caucuses dedicated to specific diverse communities. 

Recommendation: Local partnerships made up of community disability groups, local 

business associations, and elected officials should regularly recognize entities that have 

been especially successful at achieving architectural and programmatic access by 

publishing information about them on community Web sites and in publications, and by 

honoring them at public events attended by their peers. 

G. Judicial Stakeholders 

Judicial focus groups were held November 15, 2005, and March 28, 2006, with 

participants recruited from among state judges who were taking courses at the National 

Judicial College (NJC) in Reno, Nevada. Since the goal was to obtain input from a 

variety of states and from course participants who presided over a general civil 

jurisdiction court that would give them the opportunity to see disability rights cases, 

focus group participants were recruited from among judges undertaking training on “First 

Amendment Media Issues” and other general interest courses.16 (See Appendix D for a 

discussion of focus group methodology.) 

1. Participants 

Eleven participants from nine states signed up and took part in the two focus groups. 

They included state judges from North Dakota, Indiana, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, 

Kentucky, and Oklahoma. One participant was an administrative judge in the Department 

of Defense operating out of Virginia, one was an administrative judge for the Department 

of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in Nevada, and another was an agency judge who heard 

occupational work cases in Ohio. The participants came from courts in such busy urban 

centers as Philadelphia and from large rural areas in which the judge is required to travel 

from courthouse to courthouse. The participants represented a wide variety of benches, 

from high-volume municipal courts to courts of general civil jurisdiction and courts of 

common pleas (general jurisdiction including criminal and civil). Some participants had 

practiced law for more than 25 years before their appointment to the bench, and a number 

124
of participants had many years of experience on the bench “in anything from murder to 

medical malpractice.” One participant had graduated only five years earlier, and another 

continued to maintain a private practice in addition to sitting as a municipal judge 

(permitted in his state). There was no representative from either California or New York. 

There was only one female participant, although various races were represented. 

An evaluation form administered to the judges at the focus group’s conclusion reflected 

interest in and openness to disability rights law from every participant. When asked why 

he or she chose to attend the focus group, one participant wrote, “I think disability rights 

is a very important area. Anything involving the law and its implementation should be of 

concern to judges.” Another participant specifically mentioned his interest in the ADA’s 

application in the area of access to courts. One came “to share information and 

experiences and receive information concerning disability rights,” while another admitted 

that “I know very little about the rights of disabled citizens.” 

2. Discussion 

Participant self-introduction consisting of name, type of bench, and areas and years 

of experience in practice and on the bench 

The participants took it upon themselves to establish from the beginning their base 

experience with the ADA. Most participants indicated that they had no direct experience 

with the law and had never had to handle an ADA case, in practice or on the bench. As 

one participant said, “I have never had to implement, supervise, or manage [the ADA] or 

deal with applying it judicially.” Everyone had heard of the ADA and associated it with 

physical accessibility and disability rights. One judge said that even though he had not 

heard any ADA cases, he had tried as a private attorney to get up to speed on the law 

when it came into force, because he had anticipated a huge impact in the small rural 

communities that he served. All the participants who mentioned the accessibility features 

of their court seemed to feel a certain pride in the fact, and throughout the focus group the 

participants reiterated their interest in learning more about the ADA. 

125
A couple of participants said they had gleaned some ADA knowledge from work 

experience before they became judges. For example, one participant had worked with 

DOED and DOL, and had been involved with a reauthorization of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Another participant said that at one time he was on a 

list of judges who could serve as impartial IDEA hearing officers. 

Case management and general bench procedures 

All the participants heard cases through from beginning to end (none functioned as a pure 

motions judge), so everyone had to deal with case management techniques and tracking 

cases. As the chief judge of an urban court, one participant estimated that he had 1,000 

cases of all kinds in his courts at any one time, with 300–400 tort cases alone. One 

participant said he heard 30–40 cases a day in municipal court, and jury trials were to be 

transferred to district courts within 28 days. 

Most of the judges said they worked in a unified state system in which all state court 

dockets are expected to adhere to strict timelines for being heard and given a disposition. 

Some of the centralized systems had specific deadlines for specific types of cases, and 

others required individual courts to manage their case timelines in accordance with a 

master calendar. One judge did not come from a state with a unified system; he is 

supposed to adhere to general standards (e.g., hearings are to be heard “expeditiously”), 

but he is not given explicit timelines for hearing and running categories of cases. 

How participants typically familiarized themselves when confronted with new legal 

issues on the bench 

All the participants said they were responsible for a docket that was broad enough to 

include areas of law that were unfamiliar to them. There was general concurrence that in 

such an event, they rely first on the lawyers who are responsible for briefing the issues 

but then also use their law clerks and may check the law on their own, if necessary. 

Depending on the nature of their bench practice (e.g., very rural or administrative), some 

participants did not have law clerks. One participant was careful to clarify that while he 

could check the law as a judge, he has to rely on plaintiff and defense lawyers to inform 

126
him of the issues and the relevant law, especially in an unfamiliar area, and his main 

focus is on applying relevant law to the facts. In other words, attorneys are the front line 

for judges to obtain legal knowledge in new areas of law. 

Substantive knowledge of and experience with disability rights cases 

The ADA was the predominantly recognized disability rights law. The participants also 

recognized IDEA when it was mentioned, but many seemed wholly unfamiliar with 

Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) when it was brought up by the 

participant who had worked in DOED and DOL. When asked specifically about the 

context in which they were aware of disability rights laws, participants gave broad 

answers rather than particular areas of application such as employment, public 

accommodations, or access to public services. One participant said he saw disability or 

injury raised as a defense when an occupational licensee was accused of not doing his job 

or failing to perform his contract. Another participant similarly stated that he sees 

disability raised as a defense or mitigating circumstance when the Federal Government 

attempts to remove an employee’s security clearance. 

One judge with five years of experience on the superior court in a large city had recalled 

earlier only a single experience with the ADA—a case in which a deaf couple were 

divorcing and needed an ASL interpreter for court and mediation. Later in the discussion, 

he recalled a civil tort case in which a woman driving a motorized cart supplied by a 

department store had hit an older woman. The older woman’s hip was broken and she 

could no longer live independently after the incident, prompting her to sue the department 

store for its failure to provide training in the use of its carts. The store’s defense was that 

the ADA required it to supply mobility devices but did not require it to give training in 

their use. 

The only other context in which the participants had experience with disability rights 

laws was in the context of civil dependency cases. It was unclear whether the brief 

reference to such civil dependency cases resulted from a confusion of laws designed for 

the protection of people with limited mental capacity and disability civil rights laws. 

Aside from these references, and the participants’ awareness of disability accommodation 

127
policies in their courts, the group was generally unfamiliar with the broader contexts in 

which disability rights laws operate proactively. When questioned directly on what they 

felt were critical elements arising in disability rights cases, the group opined that 

disability rights cases usually turned on matters of law rather than matters of fact. This 

may reflect the extent to which the participants were unfamiliar with the law and their 

underlying assumption that “disability rights” is a highly technical and specialized area of 

law. 

This underlying assumption about the difficult and technical nature of the ADA was 

repeated a number of times during the session by different participants. When the group 

was asked whether they received good information about disability rights laws from 

lawyers and litigants, most participants said they did not see good briefing or issue 

spotting, or any real knowledge of the law, from the lawyers who appeared before them 

and raised disability issues as a defense. The judge who had graduated in 2000 did not 

recall being offered any coursework in the area and had not heard any disability rights 

cases. Another participant who had practiced extensively before joining the bench in rural 

Oklahoma said it was very difficult for attorneys to take on ADA cases, especially in 

rural areas, because they would be taking on local businesses owned by friends and 

acquaintances and they would become competent in a highly technical area. 

In response to the question about the information received from lawyers, some 

participants simply reiterated their initial assertion that they themselves knew very little 

about the scope of the ADA and its requirements, and added their impression that there is 

a very low level of general knowledge of disability rights law on the bench and in the bar. 

A judge with more than 10 years of experience in an urban state court of general 

jurisdiction thought that the substantive and proactive ADA cases were probably heard in 

federal court. Another participant recalled a case in which a plaintiff employee had asked 

for a special chair as an accommodation. The judge recalled the lawyering as excellent in 

that case but could not say that this was generally true. 

128
Knowledge of and involvement in disability rights case resolutions and settlements 

The participants were first questioned generally about their involvement in case 

settlements in all areas of law. A participant from a very rural area indicated that 95 

percent of the cases before him settle, while a participant from an urban court said that 

about 92 percent of his cases settle. The rest of the group expressed general agreement 

with these numbers. There was consensus on the idea that the judges do not involve 

themselves in settlement except to the extent that judicial conferences are scheduled; 

often they do not know the terms of settlement, except in those few areas such as class 

actions and family law where judicial approval is legally mandated. As one judge with 10 

years of bench experience put it: “The ‘why’ or ‘how’ of parties settling only matters to 

me insofar as it is relevant to the next case. Settling means compromise.” 

The group indicated that, as judges, they may never know the terms of settlement unless a 

minor is involved or they are working in some other category of case that requires them 

to ensure that the settlement is not unconscionable, unreasonable, or against public 

policy. Most of the judges had little to add when asked about their experience with 

settlements that involved more than money. The administrative DMV judge recalled 

settlements that involved, for instance, the retention of a license conditioned on such 

remedial action as taking a driving course. Neither the judge nor the DMV required proof 

that the remedial action had been taken—it would only come up if the party appeared 

again before the DMV and could not produce evidence that past requirements had been 

fulfilled. The participant who had worked as an impartial IDEA officer said he had seen 

many IDEA cases that involved factors besides money. He said he frequently interacted 

with upset parents who felt they had been “railroaded” into settlement by a school district 

that threatened to continue with extensive litigation. On the point of special education, 

the participant with DOED experience remarked that a number of judges have very little 

experience in special education law. These judges have no vested interest in special 

education cases, and “their behavior reflects it” when they are unwilling to involve 

themselves in settlement issues. 

In response to a specific question about their knowledge of how ADA or disability rights 

cases are resolved, the group stated that they have only the same general knowledge as 

129
the average citizen on the subject. They said they might read about a case in the 

newspaper but do not hear very much from or among their colleagues on the topic. 

Views on private enforcement of disability rights cases 

When asked directly whether private enforcement was fostering the implementation of 

disability rights laws, one participant simply stated, “I don’t know.” No one disagreed 

with him, though there was much more participant response when they were asked about 

any barriers that could be impeding private enforcement as an implementation tool. The 

judges uniformly pointed to the lack of a bar familiar with disability rights law. While 

many lawyers are involved in social benefits litigation, the group felt that ADA and 

Section 504 were a “boutique” practice, raising once again the assumption about the 

technical nature of the ADA. A couple judges discussed how the practice of law has 

become increasingly specialized overall, so it is important to have an attorney who really 

knows disability law before bringing a case in this area. The participant from Ohio stated 

flatly, “There is no glut of lawyers in Columbus, Ohio, working in this area,” and he did 

not see any attorneys “going around saying they could help parents of children with 

disabilities or people with disabilities.” 

The group’s uniform view that there were very few lawyers proactively representing 

people with disabilities led to a specific question about whether anyone in the group had 

seen disability rights laws “clogging up” the courts. One participant responded by 

bringing up the term “attorney mill” to describe a lawyer who simultaneously takes on 

many of the same kinds of cases. The other participants recognized the term, but no one 

had seen this occur in the context of the ADA or disability rights laws. When the judges 

were asked about the existence of state disability rights laws, each believed that his or her 

state had laws covering disability discrimination in a variety of areas (e.g., employment, 

housing),17 but they agreed that they were seldom used. One participant asserted that he 

had not seen case law in this area developed, and it was hard to research. 

130
Participants’ own needs and interests concerning disability rights laws and 

suggestions for disability rights policy and lawmakers 

On the specific issue of disability accommodations for their courtroom, the judges said 

they had an administrative office or place they could call to obtain help. All the judges 

said they would be interested in getting further information about disability rights laws. 

First of all, the judges were interested in making their courts accessible to people with 

disabilities. Second, the judges were interested in finding out more about substantive 

disability rights laws—a couple mentioned that Westlaw had an ADA research tab that 

could be useful for this purpose. On the other hand, the group agreed that formal training 

and information would be of little use unless cases were filed. There is little incentive for 

busy judges to develop expertise in an area unless they are hearing cases that demand that 

expertise, and they believed that it was common for state law claims to be tagged onto 

federal claims filed in federal court rather than the other way around. 

The group did not have much feedback for lawmakers, which might be expected 

considering their overall lack of direct experience of disability rights laws. The 

participant who had worked with the DOED voiced a need to study and implement 

safeguards to ensure that resolutions and settlements reached under the IDEA actually 

benefited plaintiffs. He was of the opinion that mediation and other tools in the law could 

be used to delay the actual implementation of education rights for a very long time, and 

that parents were disadvantaged. Another participant stated a concern for vulnerable 

adults and said there should be greater dissemination of information concerning the 

availability of legal disability expertise offered by such groups as Protection and 

Advocacy organizations. One participant who had received training on Section 504 in the 

late 1970s or early 1980s, when he was serving as a hearings officer in the Nevada state 

welfare office, made the interesting comment that it was “extremely illuminating” to 

receive training from presenters with disabilities who could impart an awareness of 

disability issues that extended beyond the black letter of the law. 

131
3. Conclusions 

A number of interesting observations made by the judicial focus group are worth 

highlighting. While every judge had heard of the ADA and clearly associated the act with 

disability rights and access, most of the judges knew very little about the law’s actual 

provisions. With few exceptions, the judges could not recall dealing with an ADA case, 

and they tended to associate disability rights laws exclusively with accessibility issues in 

their own courtroom or as a defense raised by individuals who were losing their 

occupational licenses or security clearance. 

The judges also lacked specific knowledge of their own state’s disability rights laws and 

said they were unfamiliar with jurisprudence in the area, or even with how to research 

disability rights cases. The judges had encountered very few attorneys with expertise in 

disability rights, an area of law that they perceived as technically complex and one that 

had inherent disincentives to the proactive bringing of cases (e.g., attorneys in rural areas 

would have to file actions against friends who owned local businesses). The comments 

made in the judicial focus groups therefore support the contention that there is inadequate 

private enforcement of disability rights laws and refute the claim that there is widespread 

abuse of disability rights laws by litigants and attorneys who are bringing multiple 

accessibility claims against small businesses. 

The judges’ uniform expression of interest in learning more about disability rights laws is 

positive. Such training is needed in the face of continuing concerns about the adequacy, 

reasonableness, and monitoring of some disability rights class actions. However, the 

focus groups make the irrefutable point that such training would be of little use unless the 

private enforcement of disability rights is encouraged and cases are brought before them. 

Until this goal is achieved, compliance with the ADA will remain elusive insofar as 

private enforcement is a crucial factor in ADA implementation. 

II. Effective ADA Implementation Practices 

Research was undertaken to identify ADA implementation practices that could serve as 

models and to demonstrate how the ADA is working effectively in different 

132
environments. Best practices were sought that relate to the requirements of the law; 

educate people about those requirements; or enhance systems, infrastructure, and 

technologies that bear directly on practical aspects of implementation (for example, 

Internet and computer accessibility) and advance the spirit of the ADA (practices that 

encompass, for example, universal design principles). 

To be considered a best practice, the following criteria had to be met: 

• The practice is structural in nature; that is, a covered entity or government 

enforcement or information agency or Department must have in place a wellestablished policy setting forth its commitment to fulfilling specific requirements of 

the ADA (for example, providing job accommodations) and materials and information 

related to the policy. 

• A well-functioning procedure or process for activating the policy must be in place. 

• The practice must be institutionalized within the entity or organization; it must not 

depend on the leadership of a few individuals but rather can be easily adopted and 

carried forward by new personnel when there are staff changes. 

• Data must be available to demonstrate that the structure and process produce 

significant positive outcomes for people with disabilities. 

ADA implementation best practices were identified through a literature survey and 

review, key informant interviews, Internet research, and review of Web-based public 

information. Further evaluation was done by conducting telephone interviews using an 

interview questionnaire with individuals within the entity whose practice was under 

consideration, collecting program evaluation data and reports, and seeking the opinion of 

others who were familiar with the practice, including stakeholders who attended the 

dialogues. 

Because the ADA is broad in scope and coverage, the environments in which best or 

promising practices might be found cut across many aspects of American life. Thus, in 

attempting to identify these practices, an effort was made to include those that reflect 

133
issue and organizational diversity, and that intersect in critical ways with ADA 

implementation, such as technology and leadership development. 

Two categories of implementation practices are presented. The first includes practices 

that appear to meet all the criteria for a best practice; the second includes examples of 

implementation efforts that do not achieve best practice status but nevertheless illustrate 

the range of creative and innovative implementation activities in which covered entities 

and others are engaged. In some cases, the activity likely will not generate meaningful 

outcome data for some time, but the fact that an important process is in place that lays the 

foundation for a potentially significant outcome is sufficient reason to include it. 

A. ADA Implementation Best Practices 

Minnesota Department of Human Services—AXIS Healthcare 

AXIS Healthcare operates in cooperation with Minnesota Disability Health Options 

(MnDHO), a managed care plan serving people with physical disabilities ages 18–64 

years who are eligible for Medicaid and who reside in four target counties. The 

Minnesota Department of Human Services (MnDHS), in collaboration with two 

rehabilitation organizations in the state, designed this program to combine physician, 

hospital, home care, nursing home care, home- and community-based services, and other 

care into one coordinated care system.18 

The plan was designed because people with disabilities who participated in the Medicaid 

program in the target counties were experiencing poor access to health care services, 

were unable to obtain accommodations in health care settings, and found that few health 

care providers understood their particular needs. The program offers some unique 

solutions to typical problems. For example, to avoid accessibility and transportation 

problems, home or workplace visits replace office visits for patients when possible. If an 

office visit is needed, the plan arranges for lifting or other personal assistance if 

necessary, so the patient can get onto an exam table or undergo a diagnostic procedure. 

While the plan is aimed only at people with physical/mobility disabilities, they are the 

ones who are most frequently unable to obtain appropriate services in conventional health 

134
care settings. This is due in significant part to poor ADA implementation overall in health 

care settings and particularly by state Medicaid officials and managed care organizations 

with whom they contract for services. 

AXIS reports that 500 people are enrolled in the plan, up from 200 in 2004, and that 

evaluations show a high degree of satisfaction with services. 

Overall, study participants were more satisfied with the services they received in 

the year following MnDHO enrollment. Participants felt that they received more 

coordinated and self-directed care after they enrolled in the MnDHO program. 

Their interactions with their health providers and office staff were more 

satisfactory after they enrolled in the MnDHO program. In addition, those who 

reported a need for specific services, such as primary care doctor and medical 

equipment, were more likely to access these services after they enrolled in the 

MnDHO program.

19 

Ohio Youth Leadership Forum—Leadership Training for High School Students 

In 1999, the Ohio Governor’s Council on People with Disabilities launched a program, 

modeled on a similar one in California, that brings 35–40 high school juniors and seniors 

to Ohio’s capital to learn how to become effective leaders.20 The program, ongoing since 

its inception, was evaluated in 2002 by a doctoral candidate to determine outcomes and 

effectiveness. 

The program covered topics such as disability history and culture, transition from high 

school to employment and/or postsecondary opportunities, advocacy skills, rights and 

responsibilities, the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its 

amendments, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 

Ohio has operated four forums, beginning in 1999. Data were collected retrospectively 

from the delegates for years 1999–2001 using surveys and questionnaires to learn 

whether the forum had any long-term impact. The study revealed that leadership 

development programs for students with disabilities can produce a significant long-term 

outcome. The results of this study indicated that youth delegates who attended the 

leadership program improved their leadership skills, increased their potential to be 

leaders and change agents, and increased their knowledge of disability rights laws and 

135
regulations and their capacity for self-advocacy. Youth delegates also established peer 

and mentor relationships, demonstrated improved self-esteem and motivation, and made 

commitments to long-term leadership development and planning.21 

This project demonstrates the potential impact of enhancing the capacity of young people 

with disabilities to assume advocacy and other leadership roles in the community. These 

roles are recognized as critical to the complex process of ADA implementation in a 

variety of spheres. It also indicates an appreciation by Ohio’s primary educational and 

advocacy entity, the Governor’s Committee, that leadership development is consistent 

with the spirit of the ADA and helps set the stage for future reforms. 

Microtel Inns & Suites 

Microtel Inns & Suites, the chain of newly constructed budget/economy hotels, offers 

ADAAG-compliant sleeping rooms, strong advertising, and significant staff training for 

franchise operators on serving customers with disabilities. The company reported gains in 

its 2004 bookings for ADA room nights across all distribution channels by nearly 275 

percent over 2003. In addition, net revenues for ADA room nights increased by more 

than 260 percent. 

Verifying that use of use of accessible rooms has increased since the company has 

undertaken staff training and advertising, Microtel’s vice president for corporate 

communications, Barbara Wiener-Fischhof, provided the following information: The 

Microtel Inn & Suites in Leesburg, FL, reported that from 2003 to 2004, ADA room 

nights increased from 209 to 523, and revenues increased from $11,606 to $29,031. The 

Microtel Inn & Suites in Bowling Green, KY, reported that from 2003 to 2005, ADA 

room nights increased from 9 to 228 to 392, and revenues increased from $514 to 

$10,425 to $19,673.22 

Microtel appears to have made a strong commitment to appeal to the market segment of 

people with disabilities. The corporation has taken very seriously the need to ensure that 

its facilities are fully ADAAG-compliant and that all service personnel are trained to 

provide courteous service to customers with disabilities. Disability-friendly Web content 

136
appears as a primary link on the company’s home page, rather than being buried under an 

obscure title. The Web site also provides extensive details about accessibility features. 

Company personnel are familiar with the features and accommodations that are available 

and seem knowledgeable about Microtel’s disability philosophy.23 

Pay Equity for Fixed-Route and Paratransit Drivers 

Almost all transit agencies pay fixed-route bus drivers considerably more in wages and 

benefits than paratransit drivers. It is often assumed that this pay discrepancy reflects 

greater difficulty in the fixed-route driver’s job; however, the salary differential is not 

necessarily based on any objective comparison of the two jobs but rather has historic 

roots. Paratransit developed from a social services model, in which salaries are lower 

than those for public transit operators. Arguably, paratransit driving is the more difficult 

job, requiring skills such as familiarity with the street network and more physical 

stamina. 

Resolving this discrepancy in pay would resolve some of the chronic difficulties that 

persist in paratransit service. The low driver salaries lead to high turnover and difficulties 

in maintaining a stable, skilled force of drivers. A stable driver workforce is particularly 

important in paratransit systems, since veteran drivers are more familiar with the street 

network and with the needs of their riders. These factors enhance on-time performance 

and service productivity, as well as improving the ride experience of the passenger. 

A few transit agencies have eliminated the pay discrepancy and have seen significant 

service benefits as a result. Tri-Delta Transit in Antioch, CA, made this change in the late 

1990s and lowered paratransit driver turnover by 50 percent. In Wenatchee, WA, Link 

Transit has extensive experience with equalizing driver pay. Richard DeRock, who 

became general manager in 2002, described Link’s positive experience, which dates back 

to 1995: 

Here at Link, the agency decided in 1995 to bring its paratransit operation inhouse. The Link board decided that the operators [drivers] would be fully 

integrated into the Link operation and that full wage parity would be provided. 

137
The paratransit operators that were assumed from the contractor were made 

employees of Link and had to complete the Link training program for fixed-route 

operators. The operators can choose to drive exclusively paratransit, exclusively 

fixed-route, or a combination based on their seniority. All operators are paid on 

the same scale. Most of the operators regularly choose to alternate between 

paratransit and fixed-route. Nearly all operators drive paratransit at least two 

months each year. 

The results: Our turnover rate is very low and uniform between paratransit and 

fixed-route. Our average operator has driven for ten years, as opposed to most 

paratransit systems that have turnover around 50 percent per year. This longevity 

has resulted in very skilled drivers who rarely get lost, know nearly all of their 

passengers, and operate at very high productivity—3.9 ADA passengers per hour. 

This compares to an industry average that is around 1.8 passengers per hour. In 

addition, by having the drivers operate both paratransit and fixed-route, efforts to 

move paratransit riders to fixed-route have been much more successful. The 

passengers seem to be more willing when they know that the big bus operator is 

someone who has transported them on paratransit. I am convinced that driver 

attitude has a huge impact on the possibility of moving paratransit riders to fixedroute. We believe our parity actually reduces paratransit demand. 

Utah Transit Authority—Stop Announcements 

Utah Transit Authority in Salt Lake City has attained a high rate of stop announcements 

without resorting to automated stop-calling technology. Negotiation with the drivers 

union resulted in an agreement on a secret rider program. When the program was first 

implemented, it simply collected information and reported results, thus providing a grace 

period so everyone had an opportunity to become comfortable with the system. Only after 

the grace period were the results used in connection with employee discipline. A 

progressive disciplinary program was established that started with citations and warnings, 

then progressed to suspensions for longer periods, and resulted eventually in termination. 

The success rate in stop calling is often well over 90 percent; performance below 75 

percent is subject to discipline. 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit—Equipping Paratransit Vehicles with Automatic 

Vehicle Locators and Mobile Data Terminals 

A number of large urban transit agencies have equipped paratransit vehicles with two 

technologies: automatic vehicle locators (AVLs) and mobile data terminals (MDTs). The 

138
AVL uses a global positioning system to allow the agency to monitor the location of its 

paratransit vehicles on a real-time basis and to provide historical location information on 

trips. MDTs facilitate digital communications between drivers and the dispatcher. Drivers 

can use the terminals to record their arrivals and departures in real time. This information 

is then used to calculate new estimated arrival times for subsequent trips. 

One acknowledged leader is Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). With these 

technologies, a transit agency has constant real-time ability to monitor where vehicles 

are. If a vehicle is having problems, the agency can update schedules—if one vehicle 

becomes late, the agency is not dependent on the driver to provide notification but can 

see the problem right away and take action. Agency personnel can make other 

arrangements for the trips that the troubled vehicle was supposed to provide. The agency 

can look ahead for the next hour or two to see where on-time performance problems will 

occur and move trips around to avoid them. Drivers are not given a paper list of the day’s 

rides but electronic notice that is always timely. Thus, AVL and MDT enable an agency 

to do a much better job of managing trips.24 

According to a June 2006 DART report that presents cumulative data indicators for the 

fiscal year-to-date, trending is positive, and there is a high probability that performance 

indicator goals for the year will be reached. Specifically, the on-time goal for the year 

was set at 86 percent and the annual year-to-date on-time performance through June 2006 

was reported as 88.6 percent, 2.6 percent over the goal. This data suggests that AVL and 

MDT are enabling the system to manage trips more effectively. 

Job Accommodation Network 

The Job Accommodation Network (JAN) is a service of ODEP of DOL. JAN’s mission is 

to facilitate the employment and retention of workers with disabilities by providing 

employers, employment providers, people with disabilities, their family members, and 

other interested parties with information on job accommodations, self-employment, and 

small business opportunities and related subjects. JAN’s efforts support the 

employment—including self-employment and small business ownership—of people with 

139
disabilities. JAN is the most comprehensive resource for job accommodations available. 

Its work has greatly enhanced the job opportunities of people with disabilities by 

providing information on job accommodations since 1984. In 1991, JAN expanded to 

provide information on the ADA. JAN consultants have obtained at least one master’s 

degree in their specialized fields, ranging from rehabilitation counseling to education and 

engineering. The development of the JAN system has been achieved through the 

collaborative efforts of ODEP, the International Center for Disability Information at West 

Virginia University, and private industry throughout North America.25 

Preliminary data from a recent customer satisfaction survey of 778 employers and 882 

individuals with disabilities reveals that a broad spectrum of business types use JAN’s 

services. JAN customers reported that implementation of worksite accommodations 

would significantly reduce the individual’s level of limitation due to the disability. 

Further, JAN customers reported having made highly effective accommodations at very 

little or no cost. Employers who were interviewed said slightly over half (50.5%) of the 

accommodations they implemented following discussion with JAN had been at no cost. 

For those employers who did experience some cost, the median dollar value was $600.26 

While JAN’s primary mission is to advise businesses and people with disabilities about 

effective workplace accommodations, the experience of the organization also has shown 

that employer fears about the cost of accommodations is unfounded. This information is 

crucially important to the process of identifying and fostering new strategies to increase 

employment opportunities for people with disabilities, and for employer education. 

JAN’s track record, level of effectiveness, and significant role relative to the 

accommodation requirements of the ADA place it in the best practices category. 

B. ADA Implementation Notable Practices 

1. Employment—Title I 

State of Maryland—Cabinet-Level Department of Disability 

As a result of numerous senior-level brainstorming sessions on ways to increase 

employment of people with disabilities in state government, the State of Maryland 

140
created the Disability Employment Workgroup in 1999. Co-sponsored by the Maryland 

Department of Budget and Management and the Department of Disability, the workgroup 

is responsible not only for developing innovative ways to increase the number of people 

with disabilities employed in state government but also for ensuring that state employees 

have access to current and accurate information regarding the ADA. Since the creation of 

this group, the state has implemented numerous practices intended to support the 

employment of people with disabilities, including the following:

27 

• Elevating the Governor’s Office on Individuals with Disabilities to cabinet-level status 

as the Department of Disability. 

• Establishing a special outreach and employment position in the Department of Budget 

and Management to help state agencies target diverse applicant pools for state 

positions. 

• Implementing (in 2003) a state-level Disability Mentoring Day that provides a 

mentoring/job shadowing experience for participants, with informational workshops 

on applying for state employment. 

• Providing ADA training resources to state agencies; creating flyers and other materials 

that explain the ADA reasonable accommodation obligations of various state agencies; 

issuing a reference booklet entitled “The Americans with Disabilities Act and 

Employment Guidelines” to all ADA coordinators statewide; and putting on ADA 

train-the-trainer conferences. 

• Establishing (in 2000) the Governor’s QUEST (Quality, Understanding, Excellence, 

Success, and Training) Internship Program for People with Disabilities, which offers 

three-month paid internships in state government. 

The QUEST program has successfully weathered hiring freezes and budget cutbacks and 

is reported to have been successful in promoting the employment of people with 

disabilities in state government. The state reports that approximately 50 percent of all 

former QUEST interns are presently employed in their target job areas in either private or 

public sector positions.28 

141
As early as 2001, several state agencies in Maryland began tracking their provision of 

reasonable accommodations to their employees and documenting the number of 

accommodation requests received, who made the request (the employee or the employer), 

and how many requests were approved. This statistical information began to be included 

in the “Statewide Equal Employment Opportunity Report” in 2003. 

The 2005 EEO report indicates that there were 259 requests for reasonable 

accommodation from state employees, of which 231 (89%) were granted. All agencies 

reported to the EEO, but not all agencies provided information about accommodations. 

Among those that did report, Agriculture, Education, Health and Mental Hygiene, Human 

Resources, Juvenile Services, Transportation, and the Maryland Automobile Insurance 

Fund accounted for 173 (67%) of the total reasonable accommodations requests. 

Some departments granted a higher percentage of requests than others. For example, 

DOED granted 100 percent of the requests (32 of 33 requests were granted and one was 

pending at the time the report was released); Juvenile Services granted 43 percent (7 of 

16 requests); and the State Police granted zero percent (two requests were received, and 

both were denied).29 Of the reported 259 accommodation requests, 35 appear to be from 

job applicants. Maryland has approximately 93,000 employees. The number of 

accommodations sought and provided in 2005 represents a small percentage of that 

overall workforce; in the future, it will be important to learn if accommodations are 

underreported and to understand whether accommodation requests increase over time.

30 

University of California at San Francisco—Providing Job Accommodations 

Over three decades ago, the University of California (UC) system developed an 

Employee Rehabilitation Program in response to the requirements of the Rehabilitation 

Act for reasonable accommodation of disability. At the UC San Francisco (UCSF) 

campus, the program evolved into a comprehensive program to foster employee health, 

safety, and productivity, and to retain employees who have or develop disabilities. 

McMahon, et al. (2004) quote UCSF’s assistant director of human resources: “Our 

approach is based on our desire to retain the highly skilled employees who work here. . . . 

142
We want to make dealing with [reasonable accommodations] just a regular part of what 

supervisors do day-to-day, just as they deal with vacation and sick leave.”31 

The UCSF approach to retaining employees focuses on (1) providing reasonable 

accommodations as needed, and (2) providing temporary transitional work for conditions 

that are expected to be temporary. For transitional work, the employee, the supervisor, 

and, often, a disability management professional develop a written plan for the employee 

to follow for a set period of time. When necessary, employees may use the Special 

Selection system, which allows preferential placement into new or vacant positions. 

Under Special Selection, hiring managers are required to consider the covered employee 

first for positions for which he or she is qualified, and to document hiring or rejection 

decisions thoroughly. 

UCSF has established a comprehensive program that is expressly tied to the ADA with 

regard to providing accommodations to employees with disabilities. Disability 

Management Services, the organizational unit that “administers the UCSF workers’ 

compensation program and facilitates return-to-work initiatives and reasonable 

accommodation for employees who have, or who may develop, health problems affecting 

employment,” has a Web site that contains clear written polices as well as information on 

how to locate resources and staff experts on disability-related needs.32 An “ADA and 

Accommodation” link (www.ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/dismgmt/ada/index.html) is featured 

prominently on the site’s home page; it connects to resources that include where to find 

ADA help at UCSF; an ADA reference sheet; a supervisor’s guide to complying with the 

ADA; job aids on essential job functions, reasonable accommodation, interview 

guidelines, and mental disabilities; and other accommodation resources on the Web, such 

as the California Department of Rehabilitation, JAN, and the Pacific Disability and 

Business Technical Assistance Center. The Web site for the UCSF Chancellor’s Advisory 

Committee on Diversity (www.ucsf.edu/diverse/) also provides resources on reasonable 

accommodation, including a Manager’s Tool Kit for the UCSF Transitional Work 

Program. 

According to UCSF Disability Services staff, the strength of the program is that 

management of day-to-day accommodation request is taking place in an efficient manner. 

143
The major weakness of the program is accommodating people who have to be transferred 

to other departments because their disability cannot be accommodated in their current 

job. Because of departmental decentralization, accommodation processes can be 

inconsistent.

33 

Alaska Airlines—Disability Accommodations Program 

Alaska Airlines has developed a comprehensive process for providing accommodations 

for its employees with disabilities; the process has been institutionalized and promoted 

extensively throughout the company. The airline first developed a return-towork/disability management program in the mid-1980s; in time, it was expanded into a 

formal Disability Accommodations Program. The program is staffed by accommodations 

specialists who not only are able to provide expert assistance tailored to the individual 

worker but who are also positioned organizationally to easily coordinate accommodation 

services with workers’ compensation service agents and other disability professionals.34 

Any employee who desires an accommodation for a disability completes a Disability 

Accommodation Request Form and meets with the disability accommodation supervisor 

to discuss what accommodations may be needed. The individual’s frontline supervisor 

and, often, the union representative are also involved in the discussions. According to 

McMahon, et al. (2004), every accommodation request is reviewed with the Job 

Accommodation Network to identify available options and standards for 

accommodation.35 All accommodation requests are documented thoroughly and tracked 

through completion of the request and subsequent follow-up. 

Alaska Airlines has established a program that seems to be effective in promoting 

employment and retention of people with disabilities by implementing the reasonable 

accommodations provisions of the ADA. The airline has developed clearly written 

policies that are readily available to employees, and it provides training to supervisory 

personnel on reasonable accommodations; procedures for assignment to the Modified 

Duty Program (allowing employees with a temporary injury or medical condition to 

return to work on a temporary duty basis); workers’ compensation procedures; and 

144
related topics. Managers are expected to participate actively in the process of ensuring 

employment opportunities for all qualified individuals, including people with disabilities. 

Evidence of Alaska Airlines’ commitment to equal employment opportunities and the 

accommodation of people with disabilities can be found on the “Careers at Alaska 

Airlines” page of the airline’s Web site: “We take a proactive approach to the 

recruitment, hiring, and reasonable accommodation of qualified applicants who are 

differently abled. Our employees participate in organizations and outreach activities 

dedicated to providing education and information regarding employment of people with 

disabilities, and we are committed to providing appropriate reasonable accommodation 

for members of the Alaska Airlines team who become disabled while employed with 

us.”36 

2. Public Accommodations—Title III 

California Hotel & Lodging Association—We Welcome Service AnimalsTM Program 

The California Hotel & Lodging Association (CH&LA) is the largest state lodging 

industry trade association in the country. Its 1,600 members represent approximately 

175,000 guest rooms in hotels, motels, bed and breakfast inns, guest ranches, resorts, 

spas, condominiums, timeshares, and vacation homes throughout California. 

The CH&LA Educational Foundation received $100,000 from the J. Willard and Alice S. 

Marriott Foundation to fund the We Welcome Service AnimalsTM program. The funding 

will be used to reproduce and distribute the “We Welcome Service Animals” training 

videos and collateral materials, with the specific goal of ensuring enhanced accessibility 

throughout the hospitality industry for guests and patrons who use service animals. 

The foundation created the program as a national education and outreach campaign to 

teach people in the hospitality industry and law enforcement community how to improve 

service to guests and patrons with disabilities who use service animals for assistance. In 

accordance with the ADA, hotels, motels, and restaurants are required to treat customers 

with disabilities accompanied by service animals like all other guests, providing them 

145
with the same service and access to all areas where other guests are allowed. The 

development of the program’s training videos and collateral materials was made possible 

with initial funding from the American Hotel & Lodging Educational Foundation and the 

American Express Foundation. 

The We Welcome Service AnimalsTM program won the Associations Advance America 

award from the American Society of Association Executives, as well as a gold Telly 

award (honoring local and regional television commercials and productions). 

The program will be offered by Marriott International, Inc., as an education and training 

component to its approximately 2,200 lodging properties in the United States. Best 

Western International will also distribute the program to more than 2,400 properties in 

the United States and Canada, and the Asian American Hotel Owners Association is 

furnishing the videos and collateral materials to its 8,500 members.37 

Kaiser Permanente Health Plan—Plans for New Construction in California are SiteChecked by Trained Outside Experts 

In 2000, three wheelchair users sued Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s largest nonprofit 

health maintenance organization. Based in Northern California, Kaiser operates 30 

hospitals in nine states and the District of Columbia, and has 8.2 million members. The 

lawsuit alleged that the health care giant failed to provide equal and adequate care for 

patients with physical disabilities, citing pervasive barriers as well as a lack of specially 

equipped examination tables and weight scales at scores of Kaiser facilities throughout 

California. Of Kaiser’s nearly 6 million patients statewide, more than 100,000 are people 

with disabilities, and 40,000 use wheelchairs, according to attorneys for the plaintiffs. 

While much has happened since 2000, one important change appears to be embedded in 

the company’s culture and practices: Five years after the lawsuit was filed, Kaiser 

Permanente has transformed the way it ensures that accessibility requirements are met in 

new construction projects, according to architecture and design experts who have worked 

with the company. 

146
All plans for new construction are reviewed by outside access experts who were trained 

by the original access expert consultant team. Kaiser established this process because it 

became evident in the course of the litigation that most architects, even those with 

prestigious firms, know very little about accessible design or the requirements of the 

ADA. Under the new procedure in California, five teams—about 35 people—work full 

time reviewing plans against a lengthy checklist of about 1,000 items related to ADAAG 

and state access law compliance. The original architectural team that developed the plans 

welcomes the design feedback and incorporates it into revisions. This feedback process 

has enhanced the skill set of professionals in these primary firms and has enabled them to 

assess access issues in more practical and effective ways. Although the process might 

appear rudimentary, it has resulted in several important changes in the way both Kaiser 

and the architecture firms with which it does business operate. 

Kaiser has embedded a practice into its operational philosophy and process that will 

ensure the highest quality and most current thinking about access in new construction. In 

light of the company’s significant capital budget, much new construction will be created 

in the next few years that has the potential to represent state-of-the art models for other 

health care providers. 

Not only will new health care facilities owned and operated by Kaiser have the potential 

to feature both creative and ADA-compliant design, the companies that received training 

are now staffed with access experts who fundamentally understand the value and 

importance of access and are in a position to inculcate that viewpoint into design 

decisions for other clients. The collateral effect, therefore, is quite significant.38 

Blue Ridge Community College—Assessing Educational Technology Accessibility 

Blue Ridge Community College (BRCC) in the Appalachian region of North Carolina 

developed a practice to assess current educational technology accessibility, implement 

faculty training, and upgrade adaptive technology on its two campuses. The project 

included the input of a student advisory board, the development of faculty training 

materials, the creation of a disability services handbook, an assessment by the North 

Carolina Assistive Tech Project, and proposed procurement policies. 

147
BRCC took steps to improve services to students with disabilities in partnership with the 

Southeast DBTAC, a project of the Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental 

Access (CATEA) at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. The Southeast 

DBTAC provided funding for professional development opportunities for faculty, the 

improvement of training materials for distribution, the establishment of a panel to solicit 

advice from students with disabilities, the assessment of campus accessibility in the area 

of educational information technology, and the expansion of procurement policies. 

While outcome indicators for this initiative are primarily anecdotal, they suggest the 

following: 

• Increased input from students with disabilities regarding barriers. 

• Increased interest from faculty in accommodating students who have learning 

disabilities. 

• Increased awareness of technology department staff regarding students with 

disabilities and their information technology needs. 

• Policies for purchase of accessible copiers, computers, workstations, and removal of 

physical barriers in the computer labs and distance learning rooms. 

• The addition of a disability service director to the information technology planning 

committee.39 

It appears that the project contributed to more students with disabilities completing 

programs of study and an increase in their graduation rate of 20 percent in three years, 

according to program staff estimates. This project removed barriers to students with 

disabilities at BRCC and, in many cases, improved educational services for all students. 

Furthermore, the changes that the initiative wrought appear to have been institutionalized 

within the culture of the campus and are memorialized in policies, practices, and 

procedures that will continue to serve the long-term technology needs of students with 

disabilities.40 

148
University of Wisconsin–Madison—Development, Articulation, and Support of a 

Web Accessibility Policy 

The University of Wisconsin–Madison was one of the first universities to develop a 

policy to make the Web more accessible for people with vision, hearing, and other 

disabilities. The university based its original policy, adopted in December 2000, on the 

guidelines developed by the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) of the World Wide Web 

Consortium. The standards were supported at a high administrative level—they were 

disseminated and promoted by the vice chancellor for legal and executive affairs and 

ADA coordinator. 

The policy was updated in November 2001 and again in May 2003 to reflect what had 

been learned from implementing the first policies, to recognize rapidly changing 

technology, and to bring the campus policy in line with new standards that had been 

adopted by the Federal Government. Consistency with Section 508 standards allows 

campus Web developers to benefit from the clear guidelines and extensive supporting 

materials developed in response to federal standards. The new policy was promulgated by 

the vice chancellor for legal and executive affairs and ADA coordinator, the chief 

information officer, and the director of the Division of Information Technology. 

Local responsibility for adhering to the standards is mandated by the administration. A 

leadership team brings together a variety of perspectives and concerns from computing 

staff, faculty, administrators, and student services. This team works with the university 

community to establish feasible guidelines for updating legacy Web pages, develop 

policy updates, and ensure that ongoing training and support are provided to Web 

developers campuswide. 

The University of Wisconsin’s current published policy was recognized by the National 

Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education, an NIDRR-funded project. 

On its face, the policy appears to provide meaningful direction to campus units and 

departments about methods and procedures they can use to evaluate their Web sites and 

actions they can take to achieve accessibility.41 

149
Oregon State University—Software Access Guidelines 

Postsecondary institutions nationwide routinely purchase computer software that is 

inaccessible to individuals with some types of disabilities. This software is not designed 

so it can be used by students and employees who rely on assistive technology, such as 

speech output systems for people who are blind. Inaccessible products restrict educational 

and employment opportunities for people with disabilities. Few campuses have 

developed policies that promote the procurement of software that is accessible for 

individuals with a variety of disabilities and compatible with commonly used assistive 

technology. Oregon State University (OSU) is one campus that has taken proactive steps 

to ensure that software purchases are accessible to potential students and employees with 

disabilities. 

The Software Access Guidelines provide minimum standards for software accessibility. 

The guidelines are designed to be used by vendors to the university and by those 

responsible for overseeing the purchase of information technology at OSU. Specifications 

cover keyboard access, icons, sounds, display, field labeling, and documentation. The 

specifications present the minimal level of product accessibility, but software developers 

are encouraged to maximize the accessibility of their products. OSU’s Technology 

Access Program provides assistance in maximizing accessibility. 

Universal access to information is presented as a part of OSU’s ongoing commitment to 

providing a barrier-free learning community. The university developed the Software 

Access Guidelines with the goal that all students and employees, including those with 

disabilities, would have access to software used in the programs and other activities of 

the university. According to the National Center on Accessible Information Technology 

in Education, the guidelines were established as a part of this commitment and to meet 

OSU’s ethical and legal obligations under the ADA and Sections 504 and 508 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.42 

150
3. Public and Private Transportation—Title II and III 

King County Metro—Assessment Procedures for Paratransit Riders 

King County Metro in Seattle, WA, has a thorough system for assessing what level of 

service to provide for paratransit riders. The evaluation takes place as part of the 

eligibility assessment process, when the county conducts a careful examination to 

determine which of the following services the person needs: 

• Curb-to-curb service (the driver waits at the vehicle or the curb rather than providing 

more assistance to the individual). 

• Door-to-door service (the driver goes to the door of the rider’s pick-up and drop-off 

locations and provides assistance to and from the vehicle). 

• Hand-to-hand service (the driver will only leave the rider at a destination where there 

is an individual with whom the rider can be left; this is a service that might be needed, 

for example, by an individual with dementia).43 

Eugene, Oregon—Modifying Public Transit Fixed Routes 

In Eugene, OR, the transit operator has made small adjustments to some of its fixed 

routes to make it easier for people with disabilities to reach particular facilities. In one 

case, a number of riders were going to work at a Goodwill facility. Many had the ability 

to ride transit unsupervised, but some had problems with being dropped off on the 

opposite side of a busy street a block away from the destination. The transit agency made 

small changes to the route on the bus run that arrived around the time the daily 

employment program began, which enabled the fixed-route bus to stop at the facility’s 

front door. It is a relatively common practice for bus routes to community facilities such 

as schools and factories to be adjusted to meet the needs of large groups of frequent 

riders; in the case of Eugene, the transit agency modified the route to accommodate 

workers with disabilities, which has reduced the need for paratransit service for these 

riders.44 

151
Whatcom Transportation Authority—Flexible Will-Call Policies 

For many people with disabilities, will-calls—return rides for which a rider does not have 

a specific time (e.g., after a doctor’s appointment)—can require long waits and 

uncertainty. Some transit agencies require a rider to provide a return time. If the rider is 

finished early, he or she must wait; if the appointment runs late, the rider may miss the 

vehicle, which poses problems for both rider and transit agency. The ability of the 

paratransit operator to respond when the return ride is actually needed is an important 

service for the rider. The agency is more likely to have the capacity to handle such 

requests efficiently if it is equipped with AVL and MDT technology. When the rider 

calls, the agency has a real-time picture of where all the vehicles are and which drivers 

might be available for the pick-up. Without the technology, many agencies take quite a 

long time to pick up a will-call rider, because they only know which drivers had an 

opening in their schedules as of 5:00 p.m. the evening before, when rides for the 

following day are scheduled. 

In Washington State, many transit agencies have progressive policies about will-calls. 

Whatcom Transportation Authority in Bellingham is an example.45 

Tour and Charter Service—Royal Celebrity Tours 

Companies that use over-the-road buses (OTRBs) in demand-responsive systems, such as 

many tour and charter bus services, are covered by the requirements in DOT’s 1998 

regulation covering private companies that offer transportation service using OTRBs. 

Many of these companies have taken advantage of funding for accessibility equipment 

provided through DOT specifically for privately operated OTRB service providers. As in 

most modes of transportation, much has been accomplished, yet many problems remain. 

Advocates in Alaska point to a real success story. Royal Celebrity Tours was started in 

2001 and, according to Maggie Kelly, manager of Alaska operations, obtained accessible 

OTRBs “because we thought it was the right thing to do. We tie the coach line into [our 

other services], and Royal Caribbean Cruises has always been concerned about 

accessibility.” The company’s fleet is about 40 percent accessible, and many customers 

152
use the lift feature. The company is conscientious about ensuring that staff members 

complete mechanical training for lift equipment use and mandatory sensitivity training 

“beginning each season for all staff with direct contact with customers.” 

Mona McAleese, an Alaska ADA advisor and a person with a disability, noted, “Royal 

Celebrity Tours is an awesome company to deal with. They have had [disability 

community advocates] address the whole tour company for three years now. They do 

have accessible buses, and the drivers get trained on etiquette, performance, and the 

ADA.” 

Airport Shuttles—SuperShuttle International 

In April, 2002, the DOJ signed a settlement agreement with SuperShuttle International to 

ensure that the nation’s largest door-to-door airport shuttle company provides the same 

level of service to wheelchair users that it provides to the general public. The company 

agreed to have two accessible vehicles at each of its 11 corporate locations nationwide 

within a year, as well as standing subcontracts with accessible transportation providers to 

meet overflow demand. The 11 locations are Phoenix, AZ; Los Angeles, Sacramento, San 

Francisco, and Orange County, CA; Denver, CO; Washington, DC; Tampa Bay, FL; 

Baltimore, MD; New York City; and Dallas/Fort Worth, TX.46 The agreement also 

required SuperShuttle to display its disability nondiscrimination policy statement, 

mention its accessible service on its prerecorded telephone message, and include it in all 

its advertisements. 

Merrimack Valley RTA—Integrated Non-Fixed-Route Service 

In Haverhill, MA, the Merrimack Valley RTA (a small system with a fixed-route fleet of 

40–50 vehicles) has a totally integrated non-fixed-route service. It has achieved very 

good transit coordination. The demand-response service includes ADA paratransit, some 

contracted senior service, and a fixed-route deviation service: 

• All systems use the same vehicles. 

• Riders call the same place to arrange rides. 

153
• All systems have the same dispatcher at the same phone number. 

• All systems use the same drivers. 

Service is seamless and costs less because separate operating structures are not 

necessary. 

A Creative Practice by the Miami Dade Transit Authority 

David Chia of Planners Collaborative witnessed an elegant practice on the part of the 

Miami Dade Transit Authority. In Miami, most of the rail stops have a center platform, so 

northbound trains run on one side of the platform and southbound trains run on the other. 

This arrangement presents a barrier to visually impaired individuals who have no way to 

know which side or which train to board. The transit agency arranged for male voices to 

announce northbound trains and female voices to announce southbound trains. This 

solution worked because the structure of the rail system was relatively simple. 

Utah Transit Authority 

The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) in Salt Lake City has done a good job of tying ADA 

paratransit performance into fixed-route performance, reframing them as overall transit 

agency performance. For example, staff job evaluations are tied to how well the agency is 

performing in both modes, in contrast to most large urban transit agencies, where greater 

value is attached to the effectiveness of the fixed-route system than the paratransit 

system. UTA is able to accomplish this because it provides the paratransit service itself 

rather than contracting it out. Many job categories at UTA serve both service modes; for 

example, the same garage superintendents have oversight of both types of service. 

Furthermore, agency managers’ performance is judged, in part, on how well they are 

attracting and serving people with disabilities on the fixed-route system. This is seen as a 

cost-management strategy for ADA paratransit. 

154
4. Telecommunications—Title IV 

Department of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing to Oversee State TRS Program 

Virginia allows its Department of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing to oversee the state 

telecommunications relay services (TRS) program, because this agency has easy access 

to consumer feedback. It is helpful for the entity administering the relay program to be in 

touch with the consumers who use the service. 

VRS Used with a Larger Screen and a Black Background 

When VRS is used with a larger screen and a black background, it can make 

communication possible for low-vision deaf-blind people by making it easier to see the 

interpreter. This best practice enables people who were unable to communicate in the past 

to do so. 

NexTalk Provides a Web-to-TTY Service 

NexTalk provides a Web-to-TTY service (not an operator-assisted relay service) that 

allows deaf-blind people to change the font size and color on computer screens, so they 

can fit the service to meet their vision needs when they converse with others. This is 

superior to TTYs, even those with large print, because the lighting on these TTYs is too 

bright and these devices do not allow for a change in font or color. In addition, NexTalk 

technology allows users to save and cut-and-paste conversations into Microsoft Word. 

Although TTY tapes can also be printed and saved, these are hard to read for people with 

low vision. 

A PAC Mate Provides an Accessible Pocket PC 

A PAC Mate (by Freedom Scientific) provides an accessible pocket PC that has a 

refreshable Braille display, instant messaging (IM) capability, and TTY software. With 

one of these devices, someone who is deaf-blind can shop at a store by communicating 

with others using the Braille display. The person can then call a cab via Internet relay to 

return home. This fosters independence and integration into the community. 

155
Wisconsin Free Second Line Service Facilitates Direct Calling 

In Wisconsin, telephone companies are required to offer consumers a second line at no 

cost for use with two-line captioned telephone, two-line voice carryover (VCO) or twoline hearing carryover (HCO). Two-line services facilitate direct calling from hearing 

people to the captioned telephone user, rather than going through a two-step process. It 

also facilitates using the captioned telephone service for calls to 911. 

Caller Profiles Speed Up Relay Calls 

Caller profiles, which allow users to preselect their relay mode, long distance carrier, and 

various other relay features, can speed up the processing of relay calls. Privacy concerns, 

however, have kept many relay users from taking advantage of this best practice. 

ID Numbers Allow Access to Relay Profiles from Any Phone 

Virginia, Maryland, and a few other states allow speech-to-speech (STS) users to be 

assigned an ID number. Callers can use this number to access their relay profile from any 

phone. These states also encourage STS users to provide communication assistants (CAs) 

with information about the subject matter of their calls while they are being set up, so the 

CA can do a better job of facilitating the conversation. 

TSP Allows Relay Centers Priority Line Restoration 

The Telecommunications Service Priority (TSP) system gives relay centers that have 

applied for and received TSP status priority to have their telephone lines restored in the 

event of an emergency. The FCC will sponsor any relay facility that applies for TSP 

priority status. The Emergency Communications Subcommittee of the Department of 

Homeland Security has announced a goal of achieving 100 percent relay provider 

participation in the TSP program by the end of 2006. 

156
Fee Waivers for Hotel Ethernet Service 

Hotels sometimes charge guests an Ethernet service fee for wireless access to the 

Internet. A best practice exercised by some hotels is to waive this fee when relay users 

need a wi-fi connection to make a relay call. For these individuals, the wireless 

connection is functionally equivalent to accessing the hotel’s in-room wireline telephone. 

5. Federal Government Agencies 

DisabilityInfo.gov—Information Resource Web Site 

The Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) created 

www.DisabilityInfo.gov to provide people with disabilities easy access to the information 

and resources they need to live full, independent lives. Through an Executive 

Memorandum, the President directed the development of DisabilityInfo.gov as the 

citizen-centric entry point to federal, state, and local programs. The Web site is a 

collaborative effort among 16 federal Departments and agencies. This interagency 

collaboration has resulted in the development of a single source that provides access to 

information in one place. 

A review of the Web site shows comprehensive resources that are easily navigated, and 

there is additional evidence of success. First, the Web site is reaching a large number of 

users. Since it was launched in 2002, DisabilityInfo.gov has received more than 4.4 

million visitors from 180 countries, averaging more than 3,000 users a day. Second, in 

2005, the Web site received a best practice award from the Web Content Managers 

Forum.

47 The award was given after professional Web site content managers evaluated 

the site for quality and content. The Web Content Managers Forum is a group of more 

than 900 federal, state, and local government Web managers. Its Advisory Council 

established the best practice awards to showcase innovative and successful Web practices 

that can be replicated across government agencies. The council received more than 70 

nominations from more than a dozen government agencies. 

157
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Report on Best Practices 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a report in October 

2005 entitled “Report on Best Practices for the Employment of People with Disabilities 

in State Government,” which highlights the practices of nine states that promote the 

hiring, retention, and advancement of individuals with disabilities in state government 

jobs. 

The EEOC elected to conduct research with state governments because they employ more 

than 5 million workers nationwide and, therefore, are situated to serve as model 

employers for people with disabilities, who experience unemployment at rates that 

remain around 70 percent. The governors of the nine participating states allowed EEOC 

to review a wide range of practices affecting individuals with disabilities who are state 

government employees or applicants for state employment. 

This effort represents a vital first step toward developing an understanding of the 

potential impact of the ADA on employment opportunities for individuals with 

disabilities in state government. Some innovative and important practices were identified 

in the report that the EEOC should promote. However, the agency should urge the states 

to collect data and monitor outcomes of selected practices over time. This data is 

critically important for EEOC to determine whether the practices are having the desired 

positive impact and to showcase with confidence those that are most effective. The 

EEOC has laid the foundation to continue working with the states whose policies were 

initially studied and to initiate similar, but more in-depth, studies with them and with 

other states. 48 

The Access Board—Facilitating Collaboration 

The Access Board is an independent federal agency committed to design that is 

accessible to people with disabilities. It is structured to function as a coordinating body 

among federal agencies and to directly represent the public, particularly people with 

disabilities. The Board has 13 members (appointed by the President) representing the 

public and representatives from 12 federal Departments. 

158
The Access Board has been effective in bringing together a broad range of 

stakeholders—including businesses, technical experts, researchers, trade associations, 

and people with disabilities—to tackle difficult and sometimes controversial problems 

related to the built environment and the Board’s ADA Accessibility Guidelines 

rulemaking authority. These collaborations educate all parties involved and build 

goodwill for future endeavors. The following are examples of collaborations that have 

generated important policy or informational outcomes and ramifications for ADA 

implementation. 

a. Indoor Environmental Quality Project 

A growing number of people suffer a range of debilitating physical reactions from 

exposure to everyday materials and chemicals found in building products, floor 

coverings, cleaning products, and fragrances, among others. Some people have developed 

an acute sensitivity to various types of chemicals, a condition known as multiple 

chemical sensitivity (MCS). The range and severity of reactions are as varied as the 

potential triggering agents. In addition, some people report reactions from exposure to 

electrical devices and frequencies, a condition referred to as electro-magnetic sensitivity 

(EMS). 

In response to these concerns, the Board sponsored a study on ways to improve indoor 

environmental quality for people with MCS and EMS, as well as for the population 

generally. Conducted for the Board by the National Institute of Building Sciences 

(NIBS), this project brought together various stakeholders to explore issues and develop 

an action plan. A copy of the report is available on the NIBS Web site at 

http://ieq.nibs.org. While the project focused on commercial and public buildings, many 

of the issues addressed and recommendations offered are applicable to residential 

settings. The report includes recommendations on improving indoor environmental 

quality that address building products, materials, ventilation, and maintenance. 

A panel organized to serve as a steering committee for the project included representation 

from MCS and EMS organizations, experts on indoor environmental quality, and 

representatives from the building industry. Panel members explored various strategies for 

159
collecting and disseminating information, selecting focus areas, increasing awareness of 

the issues involved, broadening participation in the project, developing recommendations 

for best practices, and identifying potential partners for further study and outreach.49 

b. Education Initiative 

Recognizing the critical role education plays in ensuring access for people with 

disabilities to the built environment, the Access Board is undertaking an initiative to 

promote accessible design in the education of architects, interior designers, engineers, 

and others. As a first step in this endeavor, the Board held a forum to get advice from 

various experts on how it should proceed. Specifically, the Board sought input on how 

this effort can be advanced through education curricula, design competitions and awards, 

and outreach to colleges, universities, and accrediting organizations. 

c. Winning Design Selected for Amusement Ride Transfer Device August 18, 2005 

The International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions (IAAPA), in 

partnership with the Board, organized a competition for the design of a transfer device 

that can be used to facilitate access to amusement rides. The Board issued guidelines 

under the ADA for amusement rides that permit use of a transfer device but do not 

include design specifications. The goal of the design competition was to inspire creative 

solutions for such a device, specifically one that could serve rides that have seats lower 

than load platforms, which pose particular transfer challenges. The Board received entries 

from engineering and accessibility design professionals and college students. A panel 

organized by IAAPA and the Board reviewed the designs and selected the top three. The 

three winning design teams, all from the University of Kansas School of Mechanical 

Engineering, will receive monetary awards. 

While this competition is a useful undertaking to work on a specific access problem, the 

real value of the effort is to build cooperation, interest, and support among a broad range 

of stakeholders in this particular industry for ensuring that people with disabilities can 

have access to the activities and rides at amusement parks. 

160
U.S. Department of Justice 

1. “Ten Small Business Mistakes” 

DOJ has primary enforcement authority for the ADA. The effectiveness of DOJ’s 

compliance monitoring, complaint processing and investigation, litigation, and technical 

assistance activities have been thoroughly evaluated by NCD and others. However, two 

relatively new technical assistance products are included here as promising practices 

because they appear to be effective ways to use Internet and electronic technology to 

educate covered entities. Furthermore, they were conceived and executed in response to 

concerns raised by small businesses that lawsuits are being filed against them for 

accessibility violations even though they are unaware that their facilities are not in 

compliance with the ADA. 

“Ten Small Business Mistakes” is a 13-minute streaming video that identifies common 

mistakes that small businesses make when trying to comply with the ADA and addresses 

the importance and value of doing business with 50 million people with disabilities. The 

video features statements by store owners expressing their doubts or misunderstandings 

about the ADA, followed by responses from Assistant Attorney General R. Alexander 

Acosta and other DOJ employees, explaining the law in plain language. 

The video is potentially an effective tool for educating businesses about their obligations 

under the ADA while dispelling myths and fears about what is required. By late 2005, 

according to DOJ, about 8,000 copies had been distributed. The Department has received 

positive informal feedback from its ADA Business Connection Group (which DOJ has 

brought together to foster discussions and dialogue about ADA implementation) but has 

not undertaken a formal customer evaluation of the video. 

“Reaching Out to Customers with Disabilities,” an online ADA course for businesses, 

also holds the promise to be an effective tool for educating businesses using Web tools 

and resources. The course includes 10 chapters that can be accessed individually or as a 

whole. The material is straightforward and easy to read and understand, and contains 

simple, illustrated instructions to businesses for handling typical interactions with 

161
customers with disabilities. According to DOJ, the course is being advertised 

incrementally and also will be available on CD-ROM.50 

2. Project Civic Access 

On August 23, 1999, DOJ reached a settlement with the City of Toledo, Ohio, in which 

the city agreed to remove barriers and relocate activities throughout its city government. 

To build on that settlement, the Disability Rights Section (DRS) of DOJ’s Civil Rights 

Division began similar reviews of other local and state governments, and began to 

develop technical assistance materials to help communities quickly come into full 

compliance with the requirements of Title II of the ADA. 

The project now includes 134 settlement agreements with 128 localities in all 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In most cases, the compliance reviews were 

undertaken on the Department’s initiative under the authority of Title II and, in many 

cases, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, because the governments receive 

financial assistance from DOJ and are prohibited by the Act from discriminating on the 

basis of disability. Some reviews were undertaken in response to complaints filed against 

the localities. The majority of the compliance reviews occurred in small cities and towns. 

According to DOJ, local government officials have responded favorably and cooperated 

fully in the reviews. They were timely in submitting records as requested, made 

themselves available to answer questions during the onsite visits, and escorted 

investigators throughout their communities so that facilities surveys could be 

accomplished quickly and efficiently. Most important, local officials have indicated a 

willingness to effect changes to make their programs and services accessible to people 

with disabilities. The project appears to have a strong educational component while also 

sending the message that failure to move toward compliance voluntarily will spur legal 

action. 

162
3. Conclusion 

The examples presented here of ADA implementation best practices and those that have 

the potential to rise to that level in the future illustrate that meaningful ADA 

implementation is both possible and practicable. These examples send the message to 

those who have failed to take action or insist that the law is too complex or vague that 

taking steps to make the goals of the ADA a reality makes practical sense, attracts 

customers, and ensures full participation by people with disabilities. These examples can 

serve as models and inspire diverse covered entities to engage in implementation on their 

own. 

163
164
PART 2. Legal and Enforcement Tools 

Introduction 

The right of private citizens to bring an action in court when their rights have been 

violated has long played a vital role in U.S. civil rights laws.51 A private right of action, 

with its attendant ability to seek compensatory/punitive damages and injunctive relief, 

enables those most impacted by the deprivation of civil rights to play a part in the law’s 

enforcement and enhances limited government resources to achieve desired social 

change. The right of individuals with disabilities to bring their own action in federal court 

against employers, government entities, and public accommodations regulated by the 

ADA is a critical component of the law.52 While federal agencies such as the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC),53 the Department of Justice (DOJ),54 and 

the Department of Transportation (DOT)55 were given specific mandates for enforcing 

different parts of the ADA, the law from its inception also enabled individuals to sue in 

federal court without exhausting administrative remedies.56 The importance of the 

“private attorneys general” concept also encouraged Congress to adopt the fee-shifting 

rule, common in civil rights litigation, for private litigants under the ADA. 57 Any 

consideration of the implementation of the ADA must perforce consider the function and 

state of private litigation under the ADA. 

The following sections focus on the use of the private right of action in two specific 

contexts that increasingly over the past several years have generated controversy among 

covered entities, people with disabilities, disability advocates and attorneys, and the 

general public. Broadly speaking, private lawsuits brought under Title III against 

business entities and regional or national class action lawsuits brought under Title III on 

behalf of people with various disabilities have each raised concerns about the potential 

for abuse. 

In the case of individual private lawsuits, covered entities and defense attorneys allege 

that some ADA plaintiffs and attorneys, motivated purely by a desire for profit and 

unconcerned with achieving true accessibility, have brought dozens of similar lawsuits 

165
against small local businesses in particular for minor ADA violations. In large Title III 

class action claims, plaintiff and disability advocates allege that inexperience and the 

potential for collusion on the part of plaintiff and defense attorneys put people with 

disabilities at risk of being encompassed within national or regional class settlements that 

trade plaintiffs’ diverse rights under state laws for inadequate, inappropriate, or no 

accessibility relief from the defendant. While the private right of action lies at the root of 

both these allegations of abuse, the fact that covered entities and defense attorneys raise 

the first set of concerns while people with disabilities and plaintiff attorneys raise the 

second set likely accounts for how the two groups differ widely in their suggested 

solutions and calls for legal change. 

This portion of the report examines various factors that have contributed to the 

allegations of abuse, analyzes supporting evidence for the allegations, discusses the 

general state of compliance by covered entities under Title III of the ADA, and comes to 

some conclusions about what is needed to support the optimal use of private lawsuits 

against public accommodations. Our research leads to the conclusion that the private 

right of action is generally underutilized under Title III throughout the country. 

Moreover, the effectiveness of the lawsuit tool is further undercut by general 

misinformation; a lack of reliable and readily available Title III expertise; insufficient 

government enforcement of compliance obligations among small businesses in particular; 

and insufficient Title III education for all building professionals, attorneys, judges, and 

other individual professions and licensing bodies that interact with covered entities on 

their access and accommodation obligations. 

I. Private Right of Action 

A. Introduction 

The right of private citizens to bring an action in court when their rights have been 

violated has long played a vital role in U.S. civil rights laws.58 A private right of action, 

with its attendant ability to seek compensatory/punitive damages and injunctive relief, 

enables those most impacted by the deprivation of civil rights to play a part in the law’s 

enforcement and enhances limited government resources to achieve desired social 

166
change. The right of individuals with disabilities to bring their own action in federal court 

against employers, government entities, and public accommodations regulated by the 

ADA is a critical component of the law.59 While federal agencies such as the EEOC,60 

DOJ,61 and DOT62 were given specific mandates for enforcing different parts of the 

ADA, the law from its inception also enabled individuals to sue in federal court without 

exhausting administrative remedies.63 The importance of the “private attorneys general” 

concept also encouraged Congress to adopt the fee-shifting rule, common in civil rights 

litigation, for private litigants under the ADA. 64 Any consideration of the implementation 

of the ADA must perforce consider the function and state of private litigation under the 

ADA. 

While private enforcement of Titles I and II has received controversial media attention,

65 

and considerable academic attention has been paid to Title I employment outcomes and 

analysis,66 Title III litigation is likely the most publicly well-known area of private ADA 

lawsuits at this time. In the years since the ADA’s 10th anniversary, the right of private 

litigation under Title III of the ADA, which concerns discrimination in public 

accommodations and services operated by private entities,67 has received increasing 

media coverage and been the subject of intense public scrutiny and debate.68 Before 

delving into the context and dimensions of this debate, it is worth noting how private 

litigation and administrative enforcement are structured under Title III. Unlike the private 

right of action under Titles I and II, private actions under Title III do not include the right 

to recover monetary damages.69 Private litigants under Title III may only ask for 

prospective injunctive relief, though a prevailing party has the right to recover attorney 

fees.70 

This limited private right of action under Title III unfortunately is matched, rather than 

made up for, by a weaker and narrower administrative mandate for DOJ. While DOJ can 

seek compensatory damages under Title III, as well as civil penalties where doing so will 

“vindicate the public interest,”

71 the Department is not required to commence civil 

actions to enforce the Title III complaints submitted to it.72 DOJ’s authority to commence 

a civil action under Title III hinges on the Department’s finding of “a pattern or practice” 

of discrimination or “an issue of general public importance.”73 When the Department’s 

167
limited human and financial resources are added into the mix, it is not surprising that the 

DOJ’s enforcement record focuses on large, high-profile commercial defendants, and 

emphasizes settlements and consent decrees over litigation. One commentator’s recent 

review of appellate level Title III cases found only 82 Title III cases heard between the 

ADA’s passage into law in 1990 and the end of 2004. DOJ was either a party or 

submitted an amicus brief in 22 of these cases.74 In addition: 

Title III cases had a dramatically higher percentage of pro-plaintiff results on 

appeal when the DOJ was involved (9 of 22 cases, 49.9%) than in cases where the 

DOJ was not involved (27.8%). But the DOJ only gets involved in a limited 

number of cases and, if anything, it appears it is reducing the number of 

complaints it investigates. . . . The emphasis on settlement creates less public law 

that businesses will pay attention to when creating accessibility policies.75 

DOJ has been criticized for its overall enforcement of the ADA,76 but the lack of broad, 

effective enforcement under Title III is especially problematic in light of the interaction 

between the unavailability of damages under Title III and a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court 

decision. In Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of 

Health and Human Resources, the high court found that plaintiff’s counsel can only 

recover statutory fees when litigation has resulted in a “judicially sanctioned change in 

the legal relationship of the parties.”77 For Title III plaintiffs and their attorneys, this 

effectively means that they are unable to recover fees under the ADA if a public 

accommodation is able to achieve compliance with the law before a court issues a 

judgment, even if the plaintiff’s notice or lawsuit clearly prompted the defendant entity’s 

actions. In fact, defendants most often demand a waiver of attorney fees after lengthy 

settlement negotiation. A right to compensatory damages would survive a defendant’s 

mooting of a lawsuit under Buckhannon, but there is no right to damages under Title III. 

The fact is, “most civil rights litigation is not brought by institutional litigators or by large 

firms engaged in pro bono activity,”78 but by individual members of the bar who must 

choose cases that will enable them to maintain their practices and make a living. Title III 

cases carry an inordinate amount of risk for an attorney: Even if there is a clear violation 

and plaintiff achieves the desired result after expending time and resources in settlement, 

Buckhannon allows the expense to be borne by plaintiffs and their attorneys rather than 

the Title III violator. 

168
Few civil rights plaintiffs, no matter how self-motivated and justified by circumstances, 

have sufficient resources of time, money, and specialized training to successfully bring 

and maintain a federal lawsuit by themselves. The private right of action under Title III is 

a vital component of enforcement when DOJ enforcement actions are neither mandatory 

nor common.79 Local and state building code officials, even though they likely received 

training in federal access requirements, are only responsible for enforcing state law 

provisions and do not provide any kind of forum or authority for enforcing the relevant 

accessibility provisions of federal law. In any event, even local codes only come into play 

when a public accommodation is engaged in new construction or substantial renovation 

that requires plan approval and construction inspection. Title III enforcement requires the 

availability of a private bar that has the incentive to acquire ADA expertise and is willing 

to take on Title III compliance cases. Unfortunately, Title III’s remedial limitations and 

the Buckhannon case have created the exact opposite status quo. Individuals with 

disabilities who encounter barriers under Title III are forced to rely purely on a public 

accommodation’s good will in responding to informal complaints or are left to seek out 

those few attorneys who have found ways to manage their risk when bringing Title III 

actions. 

B. Title III and Voluntary Compliance 

The controversy over private litigation under Title III takes place in a context in which 

there is very little disagreement over the worthiness of Title III’s goal; that is, making 

public accommodations across the nation accessible to people with disabilities. In 

addition, there is general acknowledgement that many public accommodations are not in 

compliance with Title III and are not, in fact, accessible.80 One small business owner in 

San Francisco went so far as to state that even though he is not an access expert, by 

simply walking down the street, he as a lay person can tell that stores are not in 

compliance by looking at doorways that are not wide enough or have steps or narrow 

aisles inside. While he had heard that approximately 50 percent of small businesses were 

noncompliant, he feels that figure is “conservative” and is actually much higher.81 If Title 

III’s goals are both worthwhile and far from achieved, then it is illogical to argue over a 

critical enforcement tool for achieving Title III’s goals unless there are other effective 

means for achieving compliance. While vigorous administrative enforcement cannot be 

169
counted on to achieve compliance, another—and, some would say, obvious—solution is 

to encourage voluntary compliance. Litigation draws down resources from plaintiffs, 

defendants, a specialist bar, and the courts, and can lead to lingering ill will. 

A number of innovative attempts have been made across the country to provide 

mediation services, tailored technical assistance, and even monetary incentives to nurture 

voluntary compliance with Title III, especially among small businesses. Unfortunately, 

the results of these programs have not been encouraging, though the attempts do reveal 

much about the shortcomings of relying on voluntary compliance as a means of achieving 

the goal of Title III. Christine Griffin, then executive director of the Disability Law 

Center, the designated Protection and Advocacy center82 for the state of Massachusetts, 

described one such attempt as follows: 

When our capacity prevents us from taking a public accommodations case, we 

have a difficult time referring this type of case to a private attorney. In response to 

that problem, we initiated a mediation program that is free to the complainant (the 

individual with a disability) and free to the business owner. We first ask the 

individual calling with the complaint if he or she is willing to mediate the 

complaint. In most cases, the individual says yes. They just want access. We then 

contact the respondent (the owner or manager of the public accommodation), and 

in most cases the business owner declines to participate. They prefer to hedge 

their bet and wait to see if someone files the lawsuit.83 

In 2001–2003, Access Living, the independent living center in Chicago, focused on 

providing technical assistance and free accessibility compliance reviews to 41 

progressive nonprofit organizations (e.g., YMCA, Goodwill) participating as federal 

Workforce Incentives Act (WIA)–funded youth contractors in the Chicago area. This 

attempt differed from the mediation program offered in Massachusetts in that public 

accommodations were offered technical assistance and the opportunity to proactively 

assess their ADA violations before receiving any particular complaint or being embroiled 

in a dispute. The project was funded by the Department of Labor, which was working to 

improve the participation of youth with disabilities in the WIA-funded program. Access 

Living compiled and offered technical assistance manuals, gave live training to over 175 

frontline staff on disability-related issues of recruitment and accessibility, and organized 

field trips for youth with disabilities to the WIA youth contractors. Access Living also 

contracted with the Great Lakes ADA and Accessible IT Center and the University of 

170
Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Department of Occupational Therapy to perform basic physical 

and programmatic accessibility site surveys of the 41 organizations. The survey results 

showed that “[Y]outh participants with physical disabilities are unable to literally get in 

the door and go to the bathroom in 75 percent of the WIA-funded youth programs in 

Chicago,” 84 and none of the sites were fully compliant with federal and Illinois 

accessibility laws. This was the case even though a few of the organizations specifically 

served youth with disabilities, though clearly the targeted group must have been primarily 

youth with cognitive disabilities who did not have many physical access issues. 

Comments made by the WIA youth contractors organizational staff during the surveys 

ranged from “We do not serve many people with disabilities” to “Where do we get the 

money to make all these changes?” to “We’re glad to have someone telling us where we 

lack and what we can do about it.” Despite the positive tone of some comments, none of 

the sites voluntarily chose to achieve greater compliance with applicable accessibility 

laws after receiving their survey results. However, Access Living was successful in 

persuading the Chicago Mayor’s Office of Workforce Development (MOWD), which 

administered the WIA funds locally, to incorporate an access survey requirement and 

prefunding policy and procedure for enforcing physical and programmatic accessibility 

into its WIA funding request for proposals (RFP). MOWD also agreed to provide funds 

for grants to the WIA youth contractors to improve accessibility. With the first funding 

round under the new RFP, Access Living began receiving calls from among the 41 

organizations that had been surveyed. Since accessibility surveys were now required for 

continued WIA funding, many of the youth organizations sought copies of the free 

surveys that Access Living had earlier provided with the stated incentive that such a 

service would normally cost hundreds of dollars. The logical conclusion is that the 

organizations had not only failed to improve their accessibility, they had misplaced the 

accessibility survey itself. 

It should be noted that the lack of success in the programs described above could be 

attributed in part to the fact that the offers of assessment and technical assistance came 

from entities that also had the capacity and mission to bring a private lawsuit against 

entities that failed to comply with the ADA. The public accommodations involved could 

171
have felt inhibited by a natural distrust of such assistance, even with assurances of 

confidentiality. Access Living, for example, does bring litigation, and some WIA-funded 

organizations were reluctant to even schedule the free survey, perhaps because they 

believed Access Living was gathering evidence for a lawsuit. As one participant observed 

at a stakeholder meeting in Chicago, one would not readily go to the Internal Revenue 

Service first to ask for advice about whether one’s tax practices violated the revenue 

code. However, two other attempts to encourage voluntary compliance—made by a small 

business–disability collaborative and an academic third-party source—also failed to 

achieve uniform or even rudimentary voluntary compliance. 

The San Francisco Collaborative was formed in 2003 to give small businesses the 

opportunity to proactively come into compliance with their Title III obligations before 

litigation was brought.85 The Collaborative’s partners were the San Francisco Small 

Business Network, the Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco (ILRCSF), 

and the San Francisco Small Business Commission, with funding from the latter two 

partners and the Public Entity Risk Institute. There was relatively high awareness in the 

small business community at the time of the potential for being sued under the ADA, as 

hundreds of lawsuits had been filed against San Francisco small businesses in 2002 and 

2003 for violations of the ADA and Title 24, California’s state building code.86 Many of 

the violations involved the inaccessibility of something as basic as entrances. The 

Collaborative’s partners worked together for approximately one and a half years under 

certain cooperative assumptions, accepting the following: 

• The average small business person did not understand the requirements under the 

ADA’s “readily achievable”87 standard. 

• San Francisco’s Department of Building Inspection had made errors and omissions in 

the permit and inspection process for Title 24, leaving small businesses unaware of 

their state accessibility obligations. 

• Most businesses would make needed changes if they were informed about what was 

required. 

• Financial assistance to small businesses to obtain independent confidential 

accessibility surveys to assess the need for modifications would make it easy for 

172
businesses to proactively ameliorate the risks of litigation while also gaining new 

customers.88 

The Collaborative’s services to the business community included the following: 

• Outreach through media (local newspaper articles, paid advertisements, radio shows, 

press releases); presentations to small business groups at award dinners and 

neighborhood merchant association lunches/dinners; personal contacts by Small 

Business Network and neighborhood association representatives; a display at the 

Department of Building Inspection offering technical assistance (TA) funds; walking 

tours of small businesses to provide tips and information about available services; 

classes on accessibility and practical solutions conducted by an architect and an 

accessibility consultant; and direct mailings of an introductory information packet 

complete with $500–$1,000 TA coupons to neighborhood merchant associations and 

individual businesses randomly selected from lists provided by the Council of District 

Merchants and the Small Business Network. 

• Information and referral services via telephone and e-mail. 

• Creation of easy-to-understand print materials about what accessibility means in such 

formats as “tips for serving customers with disabilities” and “hot topic question and 

answer” lists. 

• Establishment of a $25,000 technical assistance fund that offers assistance of $500– 

$1,000 for an accessibility needs survey or architectural plans to make accessibility 

changes (average cost, $1,000–$1,500),89 and a list of qualified, experienced 

accessibility surveyors. 

• A voluntary dispute resolution process that would use a panel of people with 

disabilities and small business owners. 

After 18 months of operation, the Collaborative had successfully distributed more than 

2,200 print packets of information and reached more than 500 merchants at presentations. 

Forty merchants had been reached through the walking tours that had been conducted in a 

few San Francisco districts with public support from city supervisors. However, only one 

neighborhood association took up the offer of a free class, which was conducted for 10 

173
merchants. On the crucial measure of whether a significant numbers of businesses chose 

to engage in an accessibility survey and/or increase their accessibility, a mere $1,775 had 

been distributed from the fund for surveys and increased accessibility by the three 

applicants existing as of July 31, 2005 (one request was pending at the time). Despite 

extensive and varied outreach during the period of the Collaborative’s operation, it was 

forced to conclude that— 

Eighteen months after a collaborative effort began in San Francisco, less than 3% 

of those offered information responded. Less than .2% requested funds for 

accessibility surveys or modification planning. Litigation has achieved greater 

compliance with state and federal law, greater accessibility than a non-litigious, 

collaborative approach.90 

Another attempt to encourage Title III compliance that is examined here is notable for its 

focus on an urban Latino community in Chicago.91 Small business owners and managers 

of diverse racial and cultural backgrounds are a growing economic force, and ethnic 

urban neighborhoods frequently take root in older built environments that have both 

numerous physical accessibility challenges and relatively poor residents.92 Researchers, 

in a study based out of the University of Illinois at Chicago,93 used an educational 

intervention to assess the physical accessibility of 38 small business establishments in 

two adjacent Chicago neighborhoods. Teams visited the businesses to give them a 

baseline assessment of their physical accessibility, focusing on whether the business’s 

entrance and goods and services were fully accessible, moderately accessible, or 

inaccessible.94 Within six weeks, each establishment received by mail or in person 

specific written feedback regarding the business’s physical accessibility and suggestions 

for inexpensive improvements.95 The improvements included such simple suggestions as 

offer a service bell and curbside service if an entrance is not accessible or to oil hinges 

and adjust doors if an entrance door is too heavy or has inaccessible handles. At least four 

months after the feedback, teams conducted follow-up accessibility surveys and 

interviews with the 38 participants to determine the extent to which accessibility 

improvements had been made and to obtain the participants’ views on barrier removal. 

Of the 38 participating businesses, 15 were moderately accessible and 23 were 

inaccessible at the time of their baseline assessment, with an average of 6.7 accessibility 

174
problems for every establishment. At the time of the follow-up interview, only three sites 

had improved from being inaccessible to moderately accessible, with an average of one 

improvement made per site (specifically, 20 of 38 establishments had made at least one 

accessibility improvement). In addition, one of the larger businesses was actually 

undergoing major renovations and had incorporated the study’s feedback into a move 

toward achieving full accessibility. From the participant interviews, the researchers found 

that “participants appeared to lack adequate and accurate knowledge” about the ADA, 

and 45 percent of the sample said they had not heard of the ADA before participating in 

the study.96 The provision of customized ADA-related compliance information to 

businesses that had not sought out the information on their own and were facing 

economic hardship did lead to an average improvement of 1/6.7 accessibility problems.

97 

On the other hand, this leaves an average of 5.7 accessibility problems at each 

establishment, none of which achieved full accessibility. The research team also found 

that “many establishments believed that the lack of customers with disabilities justified 

not making accessibility improvements,” demonstrating a lack of awareness that their 

inaccessible entrances prevented customers with disabilities from entering.

98 

The study effectively illustrates the limits of relying on the goodwill and voluntary 

compliance of public accommodations.99 Businesses may not be actively antagonistic 

toward people with disabilities and may be willing to do something. But the accessibility 

changes that a business might make on its own—especially with inadequate information 

about the law and erroneous perceptions concerning both the costs of modification and 

the existence of customers with disabilities—will rarely enable actual accessibility or 

comply with Title III. At the time of the interview, 74 percent of the businesses (28) had 

not even posted the bilingual “If you need assistance, please ask” sign with the 

accessibility symbol that had been given to them as part of their feedback package, 

perhaps indicating a reluctance to commit to an unknown degree of assistance. As the 

research team in Chicago concluded— 

The results also indicate that an educational approach, although helpful, may not 

be sufficient. Additional strategies—informational, motivational, and legal—may 

also be needed. In all likelihood, multiple change strategies will be needed to 

make substantial and sustained progress in securing the accessibility rights of 

people with disabilities.100 

175
The limitations of voluntary compliance by public accommodations, as well as the 

critical role of the private right of action, is illustrated in a series of lawsuits initiated in 

1995 by one private plaintiff and the Disability Law Center (DLC), the Protection and 

Advocacy agency for Alaska.101 The “Ramps Project” was initiated when Jesse Owens, a 

professor at the University of Alaska and a wheelchair user, came to DLC for 

assistance.102 Professor Owens was an avid outdoorsman and was extremely frustrated by 

the inaccessible public accommodations that served Alaska’s highway system. In his 

travels and activities in Alaska, he would pass through entire small towns where “he 

would not be able to get in anywhere to go to the restroom or get a bite to eat.”103 Two 

attorneys at DLC first identified architecturally inaccessible public accommodations, 

especially those with entrance steps, then sent a letter to each public accommodation 

informing it of its ADA obligations and asking the business to inform them of how it 

would meet this obligation. If a business failed to take action even after a second letter, 

DLC would file an administrative complaint or lawsuit. 

In the first phase of the project, 62 letters were sent out, with the result that 38 new ramps 

were built.104 Some of the ramps were built voluntarily, but 12 were built only after DLC 

filed an administrative complaint against the businesses. Later in the same year, 271 

letters were sent out in a second phase that received a lot of media attention, and 85 of the 

businesses responded with voluntary compliance.105 DLC still had to pursue lawsuits 

against 19 businesses, many of which were resolved through entry into a consent decree 

in which the businesses agreed to provide a ramp and pay attorney fees. Under phase two, 

102 ramps were eventually built. Janel Wright, a DLC attorney who worked on the 

project, recalls that while some businesses quickly responded with compliance, others 

“fought everything every step of the way.” The lawsuits were filed steadily—one new 

lawsuit every two weeks—and were closely tracked by the media. Two businesses that 

had initially ignored the letters eventually called DLC, but only after 15 lawsuits had 

been filed. For at least some businesses, notice of a Title III violation and the threat of a 

lawsuit are insufficient to motivate voluntary compliance; such businesses seem to 

require actual proof that lawsuits are being pursued before they are sufficiently motivated 

to comply with the law themselves. 

176
The Alaska example shows another difficult aspect of voluntary compliance as a means 

of achieving Title III implementation. A public accommodation may profess willingness 

to comply with the law, but in fact that willingness may be conditioned on being told 

exactly what is needed for compliance and the specific consequences of not following the 

law, and/or receiving some kind of assurance that providing accessibility as directed will 

be a guarantee against future litigation. In other words, voluntary compliance is not a 

simple matter of being told what is wrong; it is also about being informed of one’s 

specific liability and risk of a lawsuit under Title III. The relatively high “voluntary 

compliance” rates achieved in Alaska through the Ramps Project were obtained with the 

assistance of DLC, a legal organization with sufficient personnel that had the capacity 

and mission to enforce the federal civil rights law. The two letters that were sent provided 

businesses with a clear idea of what the ADA required of them and indicated that they 

risked legal enforcement if they did not take action. In this scenario, voluntary 

compliance is not an “alternative” to the private right of action; it is, in fact, entirely 

dependent on the imminent threat of a private right of action. Thus, voluntary compliance 

requires the availability of a private bar with technical ADA expertise—attorneys who 

can make a living by including Title III compliance cases in their work. 

The average person who has not retained an attorney is more likely to send a request for 

voluntary compliance like the notice sent in a recent California case: an unsigned, 

undated letter sent to a defendant business before any lawsuit was initiated, telling the 

business that the sender “could not find handicapped parking” and “had serious problems 

trying to use your restroom,” and asking the business to “please take care of these 

problems at once.”106 Such a letter is sufficient to let a public accommodation know that 

it has specific barriers that prevent people with disabilities from gaining access. 

Eventually, the plaintiff did file a lawsuit and the parties reached a settlement in which 

the business agreed to remove the architectural barriers and pay monetary damages of 

$4,000, leaving the determination of the plaintiff’s attorney fees to a court motion. At that 

motion, the court found that “it is a proper exercise of discretion and common sense in an 

ADA case or a parallel state case to require, as a prerequisite to recovering attorney fees, 

a pre-litigation unambiguous warning notice to the defendant and a reasonable 

177
opportunity to cure the violation.”107 The court then stated that the letter sent prior to the 

lawsuit was insufficient because: 

[a]n unambiguous warning notice would specify and detail the nature of the 

claimed ADA violation, and warn of the need for a lawsuit if the defect is not 

fixed within a reasonable time. Plaintiff’s letter does not unambiguously 

accomplish those objectives. Without an appropriate advance notice, the Court is 

unable to find the lawsuit was necessary.108 

This leaves the average person with a disability facing a catch-22 when encountering 

barriers in a public accommodation. Before bringing a lawsuit, she will need to find an 

attorney with the kind of ADA technical expertise that can “specify and detail the nature” 

of the public accommodation’s inaccessibility and its liability risks under applicable 

federal and state law. But what reasonable private attorney will take on a case in which 

his fees may depend, according to the court in Doran, 

109 upon sending the kind of 

prelitigation notice that will allow a business to fix the problem and make attorney fees 

unobtainable according to Buckhannon?110 What kind of private attorney could afford to 

investigate public accommodations and write warning letters free of charge? It should be 

noted that the staff of the DLC, as a part of the federally funded Protection and Advocacy 

System, are not private attorneys who need to make a living from their fees. Also, most 

of the time, Protection and Advocacy (P&A) agencies must use their limited resources to 

pursue areas other than Title III physical access.

111 

The experience of many people with disabilities is that their initial requests for barrier 

removal are met with misunderstanding, condescension, or hostility, or perhaps are 

simply ignored. The notion that voluntary compliance is a fairer and better way to 

implement the goals of Title III because it enables both people with disabilities and 

business owners to effectively bypass attorneys is revealed to be fiction every time a 

public accommodation disregards notice of its inaccessibility. 

If voluntary compliance means giving public accommodations tailored information about 

their accessibility obligations and the freedom to make a few changes over time as 

convenient, then voluntary compliance has not been an effective means of achieving Title 

III implementation over the ADA’s 16-year history. The above examples illustrate this 

178
repeatedly. If voluntary compliance requires the receipt of a direct threat of litigation in a 

detailed letter outlining one’s risk of liability under Title III, then people with disabilities 

are placed in the untenable position of seeking out and independently paying for expert 

technical and legal advice to be provided to public accommodations. The ideal of 

voluntary compliance—when it means that a person with a disability can simply 

communicate how he or she was denied access to a public accommodation that will then 

make reasonable efforts to determine its obligations under the law and address the 

problems—is a worthwhile goal. The dissemination of information about Title III 

obligations and technical assistance, outreach to businesses, and collaboration among 

disability organizations and small businesses in particular should all be encouraged as 

means to achieve this goal. However, it is clear that voluntary compliance is not working 

very effectively at the present time and cannot be relied on to achieve widespread Title 

III compliance without a healthy private right of action. 

C. Reasons for Widespread Noncompliance with Title III 

There are numerous reasons for the present state of noncompliance with Title III, 16 

years after the passage of Title III. There is very little voluntary compliance, partly 

because of the dearth of readily available, reliable, tailored technical information for 

small businesses in particular and insufficient motivation for businesses proactively to 

seek out information. There is insufficient legal enforcement, both administrative and 

private, that would provide motivation for private compliance and publicize the law and 

how the “readily achievable” standard works in practice. However, various stakeholders 

and academic commentators allude to deeper systemic reasons that make it difficult to 

achieve broad Title III compliance and the effective use of existing enforcement tools. 

Complexity 

Title III is intended to cover public accommodations of all sizes all across America. This 

scope of coverage is needed to ensure that people with disabilities can gain access to all 

the goods and services provided by public businesses.112 Title III also protects the rights 

of people with all kinds of impairments, encompassing a wide variety of circumstances in 

which discrimination can occur, ranging from outright denials of service to people with 

179
developmental disabilities, to refusals to modify communication practices and policies 

for people who are Deaf, to physical inaccessibility for people with mobility 

impairments. In addition, the physical accessibility requirements of Title III depend in 

part on the date of construction or alteration of the building that houses the public 

accommodation. Existing buildings are under a “readily achievable” barrier-removal 

standard for compliance, which says a business must make the physical accessibility 

changes that are “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much 

difficulty or expense.”113 Finally, the obligation to maintain readily achievable barrier 

removal is ongoing—as the years pass, public accommodations must assess remaining 

barriers and evaluate whether barrier removal is readily achievable in light of their 

114 resources.

Title III is not a simple law and, ironically, some of its complexity arises from an attempt 

to ensure that small businesses in particular are not subject to an inflexible burden of 

compliance.115 Whether barrier removal is readily achievable in any particular business is 

a case-by-case judgment that depends on factors that include the nature and cost of 

barrier removal and the size and financial resources of the public accommodation.116 

While this flexibility allows the small mom-and-pop grocery store to avoid being held to 

the level of barrier removal that could be expected of a supermarket chain store, it also 

means that businesses in existing facilities cannot follow a simple, industry-wide formula 

for achieving compliance. DOJ has published accessibility standards and guidelines for 

existing facilities, complete with numerous examples of “modifications that may be 

readily achievable,” but businesses remain responsible for applying the standard to their 

own circumstances and maintaining readily achievable barrier removal under federal 

law.117 Larger public accommodations can afford to obtain in-house expertise or hire 

consultants to help them determine their Title III obligations, but smaller businesses often 

lack the resources to acquire such expertise. 

The challenge of navigating Title III’s physical accessibility requirements is further 

exacerbated by the dearth of readily available local expertise regarding federal 

accessibility standards. Access Living’s work with Chicago’s WIA youth workforce 

resulted in the conclusion that the surveyed organizations showed little motivation for 

180
achieving Title III compliance and did not seem to think they served people with physical 

accessibility needs. At the same time, Access Living acknowledged that it was 

“extremely difficult to identify people and firms who were qualified” to conduct 

accessibility site surveys or help workforce development agencies create an ADA/504 

plan, and cited a “tremendous need nationwide for resources” such as lists of such people 

and firms.118 The San Francisco Collaborative concluded in its report that while the small 

businesses it reached out to uniformly chose a “wait until I’m sued” approach to 

compliance over proactive risk management, there is also “genuine confusion about 

obligations under Title 24 [California’s State Building Code] and ADA” as well as “real 

difficulty in accessing funds to make significant changes under the ongoing obligations of 

ADA or to redress past errors under Title 24.”119 

Ignorance of the law does not excuse a failure to follow the law, and the complexity of 

the ADA does not excuse the failure of businesses to comply with their Title III 

obligations. However, Title III’s complexity for the existing facilities in which many 

small businesses are located is one more factor that may influence business owners to 

focus on other legal requirements first. One participant in the work of the San Francisco 

Collaborative observed that many small businesses with slight profit margins see Title III 

as just another regulation: 

There are many regulations that small businesses must comply with, and laws 

such as health regulations and minimum wage requirements keep changing. 

Disability access isn’t a regulation that small business owners feel is “up there” 

with the others. They know that if they don’t comply with health codes they can 

lose the business, and the same if they don’t abide by minimum wage 

requirements and many others.120 

If the ADA is “just another regulation”—but one that the government fails to check or 

enforce and that boasts few qualified plaintiff attorneys—the average small 

businessperson will not choose to expend resources on trying to understand Title III’s 

complexities or finding and hiring an expert. 

181
Inertia and Motivation 

One of the most striking aspects of Title III is its “hybrid” nature. Congress intended to, 

and did, enact a sweeping civil rights law for people with disabilities, as evidenced in the 

ADA’s stated purpose: “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the 

elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”121 For the disability 

community and disability advocates, the law is about stopping the discrimination that has 

prevented people with disabilities from fully entering the mainstream of American life. 

At the same time, the ADA’s primary and immediate impact for many public 

accommodations, especially the very small businesses to which Title I does not apply,122 

is purely regulatory. Title III’s often detailed directions for the achievement of physical 

accessibility feels just like the state building code regulations that establish standards for 

the built environment, but with the distinct disadvantage of a lack of broad government 

presence and enforcement in the form of local plan and building inspection. There is even 

less official regulatory supervision of the requirement that all businesses proactively 

make changes in existing structures where readily achievable.123 If the regulatory 

authorities that small businesses deal with daily pay far more attention to the minutia of 

building standards than enforcing meaningful access to goods and services for people 

with disabilities, then those businesses will come to view Title III violations as just a 

failure to measure correctly and not a denial of civil rights. 

This perceived split between the ADA’s broader goals and the importance of executing 

ADA Accessibility Guideline (ADAAG) details—which for some people with certain 

disabilities may mark the critical difference between independence and exclusion—to 

some extent underlies all noncompliance with Title III. One architect who is himself a 

small business owner and was a participant in the San Francisco Collaborative said that 

“the majority of the small business community doesn’t equate access with 

discrimination.”124 Many small business owners do not see how the couple steps that 

have always been there or the small restroom that no one else has a problem using could 

be the kind of discrimination that they would associate with a refusal to serve someone 

on racial grounds, for example. Under the law, though, a business in an existing building 

that does not undertake readily achievable barrier removal is discriminating against those 

who are unable to enter or use a service because of those barriers. 

182
This is not just a theoretical discussion. There is clearly a profound communication gap 

between the disability community and disability advocates and attorneys, and the 

business community that is responsible for implementing Title III. Many very small 

businesses in particular profess to be unaware of the ADA or unaware that they are doing 

anything wrong by offering alternative services to customers with disabilities; they do not 

think about whether barrier removal would enable customers to independently gain 

access to goods and services. The section on voluntary compliance illustrates a basic 

inertia and reluctance to expend resources; businesses must overcome this reluctance 

when “compliance requires a more proactive step than merely removing a “whites only” 

sign and may entail what is perceived to be a significant expense.”125 But when 

businesses believe they have not done anything wrong, they are not motivated to expend 

time and money on barrier removal. Small businesses are difficult to reach collectively 

with accurate information; and in both rural and urban areas, small business owners tend 

to pay more attention to word-of-mouth and what their peers are doing. One commentator 

cites the prevalence of Internet and phone shopping, and the fact that it may not be 

worthwhile for someone with a disability to make the effort to go out if only one or a few 

stores are accessible: 

There may thus be a substantial network effect to retail accessibility. If so, one 

business can reap the benefits of accessible facilities only if many other 

businesses make their facilities accessible as well. Without some assurance that 

other businesses will remove barriers, an individual business may lack the 

incentive to do so itself.126 

Since businesses may experience very little internal or economic motivation to comply 

with Title III, the importance of external motivation in the form of public or private 

enforcement is critical. The weaknesses of administrative and private enforcement under 

Title III have been discussed above, but additional issues arise, depending on the context 

of enforcement. The small and specialized bar familiar with the complexity of Title III 

litigation may be ideologically or personally committed to developing a further expertise 

in a specific type of discrimination (e.g., failure to provide alternative formats for people 

with visual disabilities); is unlikely to be available equally across the country; and is not 

necessarily prepared to focus on small business entities. In other words, any person with 

any disability who wants to enforce his or her rights may have tremendous difficulty 

183
finding an attorney nearby who is willing and able to give advice on and handle the 

specifics of the case. These chances are even slighter as the area of expertise narrows, as 

it would if a person with a mobility disability were looking for an attorney competent in 

the ADA Accessibility Guidelines. In discussing the aftereffects of Buckhannon, one 

commentator warned that ADA Title III litigation and compliance could become 

concentrated “in urban areas where there are established and adequately funded disability 

rights public interest groups, leaving rural areas behind.”127 Moreover, there will never be 

enough public interest resources to address even a fraction of access problems in urban 

areas. 

Another difficulty in enforcing Title III compliance effectively in rural areas and small 

towns was noted in one of the judicial focus groups. A participant who worked as a judge 

in a rural area said that attorneys in his jurisdiction have two disincentives to bringing 

disability rights cases: “One, it’s a highly technical area; and two, it would mean having 

to take on their friends who own the local businesses.” Even if an attorney is familiar or 

willing to become familiar with Title III, a plaintiff still has to be found who is willing to 

pursue access to the point of litigation if voluntary compliance does not occur. In parts of 

the country where everyone knows everyone else and daily lives are deeply entwined, 

plaintiffs run a huge personal risk of being branded as troublemakers for insisting that 

businesses make physical or procedural changes that would allow independent access. 

These factors can make it particularly difficult for people with disabilities who live in 

rural areas or small towns to bring a lawsuit or act as the external motivators to 

compliance for the small businesses in their community. 

Disincentives 

Assuming that a business knows about the law and is sufficiently motivated to work 

through the law’s complexity to determine its ADA obligations, there are still rational 

disincentives to compliance. Whether the costs of compliance and barrier removal are 

minor or significant, there is an economic rationale for choosing to pay those costs later 

rather than sooner, especially if a business is not already committed on principle to 

“doing the right thing.” 

184
Businesses might calculate that it is cheaper to not comply, since statutory 

enforcement is unlikely to be as expensive as compliance from the date of 

enactment of the ADA. In other words, a business that is sued in the year 2000 for 

failing to comply with ADA Title III may have benefited for ten years by saving 

money on an auxiliary service or device. Prospectively offering that device and 

paying a modest compensatory award to an individual victim of discrimination as 

a result of enforcement activity may be cost-effective.128 

This is especially true in states whose laws do not offer the possibility of recovering 

compensatory damages for violations of state and federal disability laws. If a business 

cannot be held monetarily liable for the inconveniences, increased costs, injuries, or 

humiliation that people with disabilities endure when the business has failed to engage in 

readily achievable barrier removal, why should the business pay for anything until it is 

forced to do so? This is especially the case if a business owner believes that customers 

with disabilities do not or will not patronize his or her business even if it is accessible. 

Why invest money now for the chance of gaining hypothetical customers or avoiding a 

lawsuit that may never happen?129 

Over the past five years, another distinct disincentive to compliance has sprung from the 

fear and anger that has been generated in the business community by “serial litigation,” 

which is discussed in the following section. Regardless of one’s opinion of serial 

litigation tactics and the actual dimensions of the problem, stories of family-owned 

businesses forced to close because they were targeted by greedy lawyers and plaintiffs 

with disabilities have generated negative public opinion, as well as anxiety among the 

business community. 

If businesses could easily, quickly, cheaply, and permanently “inoculate” themselves 

against such lawsuits, the alleged prevalence of Title III litigation should lead directly to 

increased compliance. The complexity and flexible nature of the readily achievable 

barrier-removal standard and the rarity of competent physical accessibility expertise 

means that businesses can not achieve compliance so readily and painlessly. Instead, 

some public accommodations refuse to participate in or publicly sponsor educational 

seminars on Title III obligations, and spurn offers of free technical assistance and 

accessibility surveys in a bid to totally remove themselves from notice. This irrational 

response is fanned by media and anecdotal evidence that a business will be sued 

185
anywhere, anytime for the slightest Title III violation, and causes some businesses to try 

to ignore obvious or easily fixable access barriers. Another irrational business response to 

serial litigation that can act as a disincentive to compliance is the urge to fight 

enforcement on principle; in this case, the time, money, and effort that could have gone 

into barrier removal is spent instead on litigation.130 Such stands on principle may play 

well on the news and mobilize industry associations to lobby for legislative and policy 

changes, but they do little to foster broader overall awareness of how to comply with 

Title III obligations and achieve accessibility. 

This analysis of the underlying and interconnected reasons for widespread 

noncompliance with Title III also highlights the complex reality of what is needed to 

support broad social change. There is need for the consistent reiteration of a clear, 

attainable goal that is adequately supported by ubiquitous notice of one’s obligations 

under the law, as well as technical support for achieving compliance. There is need for 

strong administrative compliance, and a widely and wisely exercised right of private 

litigation that will help publicize and ensure motivation for compliance among all public 

accommodations. Public accommodations, as well as the broader public, must come to 

recognize that inaccessibility under the ADA is discrimination and is socially 

unacceptable as well as legally actionable. Currently, noncompliance with structural and 

other policy and communication modifications required by Title III is so deeply 

embedded that it requires an attack on all fronts to overcome the longstanding inertia and 

the more recent fearful responses to the threat of litigation that stand in the way of people 

with disabilities achieving their civil rights. We have entered a long struggle, and we 

have not yet reached the “tipping point,” when enough businesses will have become 

compliant that accessibility will be the physical, social, and economic norm of American 

life. 

D. Title III and Serial Litigation 

While the above discussion has established that there is an ongoing need for a strong 

private right of action and an available expert disability bar, members of the business 

community, the defense bar, Congress, and the federal judiciary have raised serious 

concerns about Title III lawsuits variously and colorfully described in the press as “drive186
by,” a “shakedown,” or a “cottage industry” driven by the “economics of attorney fees.” 

These concerns raise allegations that a few individual and organizational plaintiffs and 

attorneys have taken advantage of the widespread lack of compliance to bring vexatious 

lawsuits that are motivated more by personal profit motives than by a desire to bring 

about genuine compliance with the law. Unfortunately, these concerns have prompted 

some business associations and legislators to propose solutions131 that risk further 

undercutting Title III implementation in an attempt to curb the alleged excesses of a 

limited number of known individuals working in a few states.132 

While it is very difficult to assess the full extent of the allegations, it is possible to at least 

begin to assess their factual outlines by looking at some figures gathered from federal 

courts for the year 2005. The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) Web 

site133 enables subscribers to gain access to court records of all cases filed in all U.S. 

federal court districts. When attorneys initiate a civil case by filing a compliant, they 

must indicate the nature of suit (NOS) on a cover sheet.134 There are two ADA-specific 

topic codes: Title I complaints are filed under the 445 NOS code, while all other ADA 

and disability rights cases are filed under the 446 NOS code. In a search for all 446 cases 

filed in federal district courts between January 1 and December 31, 2005, the raw number 

obtained was 1,383 non-Title I ADA and other disability rights cases. For our purposes, 

this total is both over- and under-inclusive. It includes cases brought under Titles II 

(government entities), III, and IV (telecommunications) of the ADA, as well as cases 

brought under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) against school 

districts and state education departments. On the other hand, the figure does not include 

cases that were incorrectly designated by the filing attorney as 445 (Title I) or 440 (other 

civil rights) cases when they were actually Title III cases.135 The following is a closer 

examination of the numbers that attempts to correct for at least some of these possible 

errors of over- or under-inclusion.136 

California, Florida, Hawaii, New York, and Texas federal courts, in declining order, had 

the highest number of 446 filings,137 collectively accounting for 969 (70%) of the 2005 

total of 1,383 446 filings. California had the greatest number of 446 filings by far in 

2005: 576 (41.6%). The vast majority of California’s 446 cases (533) were filed in either 

187
the Central or Eastern District by many of the same attorneys, who tended to represent 

only a few plaintiffs. One attorney, who is also a person with a disability, filed more than 

100 Title III lawsuits in the Eastern District on his own behalf in the first half of 2005. 

Two attorneys in the Central District worked together to file 47 Title III lawsuits in the 

same period. Most of the complaints specified physical accessibility problems involving 

entrances, restrooms, and store counters, and an estimated 90 percent of the cases were 

dismissed within a year by voluntary agreement of the parties or through settlement. The 

defendants included small privately owned businesses as well as larger chain stores and 

restaurants. When complaints likely filed under Title II and IDEA are excluded, there are 

506 cases, at most, that could be Title III cases. Since 23,910 civil cases were filed in 

federal district trial court in California in 2005, Title III cases made up 2.4 percent of 

California’s civil cases.138 

In Florida, 169 cases were filed in 2005 under the 446 NOS code; at most, 110 of these 

were Title III cases. Of the 110, 104 were filed on behalf of one of five individual 

plaintiffs or four disability advocacy groups working with a small group of attorneys. In 

Hawaii, only 46 of a total of 103 NOS 446 cases were filed under Title III. While many 

of Hawaii’s complaints cannot be accessed through PACER, of the 19 Title III cases that 

could be examined, four were filed on the same day by a single attorney and two other 

plaintiffs filed eight of the cases within a six-month period. In New York, 67 cases were 

filed; 28 of these were Title III cases. In Texas, 41 Title III cases were filed out of a total 

of 54 NOS 446 cases. (In New York and Texas, there is less evidence of multiple filings 

by the same attorneys or plaintiffs.) 

It is possible to look at these numbers and see a story of litigation abuse. The same 

handful of plaintiffs and attorneys is repeatedly bringing lawsuits against dozens of 

businesses for remarkably similar allegations of physical access violations under federal 

and state law. Furthermore, as business associations and media often report, these 

lawsuits are brought in federal court for Title III violations but are joined with state 

access law claims that provide for the compensatory damage recovery that is missing 

under Title III. All five of the states mentioned above have some form of compensatory 

damage relief in their state laws banning disability discrimination in public 

188
accommodations.139 The common accusation is that state damage provisions, together 

with federal and state provisions enabling the recovery of attorney fees, are used by 

“serial” plaintiffs and attorneys to file similar lawsuits against small businesses that are 

ignorant of their Title III access obligations and will quickly pay the excessive sums 

demanded by plaintiffs and their attorneys rather than risk going to court. Moreover, the 

charge continues, the Title III violations that supposedly were the bases of the complaints 

often continue to go unremedied after settlement, and access for people with disabilities 

is not achieved. 

On the other hand, consider the state of private enforcement under Title III without 

“serial litigants.” In Florida, for example, if all the Title III actions brought by a small 

group of nine individuals and advocate organizations were somehow prevented, there 

would have been six Title III cases filed for the entire state in 2005. Even if every one of 

these six cases dealt with physical access violations in small businesses, it strains 

credulity to suggest that only six establishments in Florida were inaccessible to people 

with disabilities in 2005. Similarly, there are approximately 109,000 private businesses in 

San Francisco, according to that city’s Economic Development Office, and about 85 

percent are small businesses that employ anywhere from 1 to 100 people. San Francisco 

is in California’s Northern federal court, where a mere six Title III access claims were 

filed in the first six months of 2005. This is the situation in a city where one small 

business participant in the San Francisco Collaborative recently asserted that over 50 

percent of his fellow business owners were obviously inaccessible.140 Without 

minimizing the concerns of small business owners who feel defenseless against the few 

unscrupulous practitioners and plaintiffs who bring vexatious lawsuits and far more ADA 

technical expertise to the table, it is still clear that Title III is overwhelmingly 

underenforced in most of the country. Only 414 NOS 446 cases were brought in federal 

court in 46 states (including the District of Columbia) in 2005, and these cases 

encompass not only complaints brought under Title I and IDEA but also the broad gamut 

of Title III’s access and modification requirements.141 This is far from a national “flood” 

of litigation, especially in the face of acknowledged widespread noncompliance with the 

ADA’s readily achievable barrier-removal provisions, the aspect of public 

accommodations accessibility that has garnered the greatest controversy.142 

189
Concerns raised about state law and the risks of remedial damages as encouraging 

overlitigation of Title III also seem to be overblown. A number of states have remedial 

provisions that extend beyond those of Title III by allowing for compensatory damages. 

These states include Vermont,143 Oregon,144 Kentucky,145 and the District of Columbia,146 

yet the federal courts in these states have not seen a surfeit of Title III actions. In 

Kentucky, the state disability discrimination provisions recognize a private right of 

action, provide for minimum statutory damages of $1,000 or $5,000 (if the violation was 

committed intentionally or recklessly) for each violation, enable courts to award attorney 

fees, and do not limit the right of aggrieved people to damages under any other applicable 

law.147 Yet only two Title III cases were filed in that state’s federal courts in 2005. Even 

though Kentucky does not set as high a statutory minimum for damages as California, 

which allows for the greater of three times actual damages or $4,000, Kentucky state law 

supplements Title III in the same way as the state laws of those districts in which serial 

litigation is a concern. Yet not only is serial litigation absent, state compensatory 

damages have been insufficient to overcome the systemic disincentives to private 

litigation discussed in the introduction. 

The picture of insufficient private enforcement of Title III is supported by the appellate 

case review findings of ADA scholars.148 Professor Ruth Colker searched for reported 

appellate-level decisions filed under Title III between June 1992 and July 1998 and found 

just 25, concluding that “only 5 percent of the reported appellate cases are therefore ADA 

Title III cases.”149 Professor Colker also examined available verdict data services 

available in different regions of the country and concluded that out of 109 verdicts in 

ADA cases heard in state or federal court by September 28, 1998, only 16 (about 16%) 

were brought under Title III.150 She attributed the small number of cases to Title III’s 

limited remedial scope.151 Professor Michael Waterstone extended Professor Colker’s 

research, searching for and analyzing reported appellate-level cases brought under Title 

III between the ADA’s passage in 1990 and the end of 2004; he found 82.152 In his 

analysis, Professor Waterstone writes: 

Considering the convergence of no damage remedy and the increasingly doubtful 

prospects for attorneys’ fees, the low number of Title III cases at the appellate 

level (79 [excluding three Title III cases brought against two distinct entities]) 

190
makes sense. Individual plaintiffs have very few incentives to bring these cases. 

The numbers bear this out: only 17 of 79 cases in my Title III database were 

brought solely by private plaintiffs—i.e., where a public interest organization was 

not involved as a plaintiff or as a counsel for plaintiff, or the DOJ was not a 

participant as an amicus or intervener.153 

If there is one state where Title III litigation could be said to approach problematic levels, 

it would be in California, where a few plaintiffs and attorneys have been behind virtually 

all the physical access cases brought in two of the state’s four judicial court districts. 

While only 2.4 percent of California’s federal civil court filings are Title III cases, there 

could easily be twice as many Title III cases if the state court filings for California could 

be counted.154 In districts where courts have imposed sanctions on serial plaintiffs and/or 

attorneys, the latter may choose to file their federal and state law claims in state court to 

avoid the impact of the sanctions. Even in federal districts where sanctions have not been 

imposed, California plaintiffs may choose to file in state court to avoid the risk that 

defendant businesses will fix their access problems before the court hearing and, 

according to Buckhannon, moot the plaintiff’s federal accessibility and attorney fees 

claims because the fix was not “judicially sanctioned.”155 California is unusual in that 

even after Buckhannon was decided, the state Supreme Court explicitly continued to 

recognize the “catalyst theory” of attorney fees, by which a plaintiff may recover attorney 

fees as long as the plaintiff’s actions brought about the primary relief sought by the 

plaintiff.156 The ability to avoid Buckhannon by not filing in federal court is only possible 

in state courts that continue to recognize the catalyst theory for recovering attorney fees 

or, at the very least, do not follow Buckhannon in its requirement for a “judicially 

sanctioned” change in the parties’ relationship. 

In California’s Central District, one court has characterized a plaintiff’s filing of 

hundreds of Title III lawsuits as “vexatious,” meriting an order that requires the plaintiff 

“to file a copy of this order with every new complaint that he seeks to file.”157 Even in 

this case, however, the court also noted that “[i]t is possible, even likely, that many of the 

businesses sued were not in full compliance with the ADA.”158 And even in California 

there is no uniform judicial opinion on the vexatious nature of serial litigation. In the 

Eastern judicial district of California, which has also seen hundreds of Title III physical 

access filings, a court denied a defendant’s motion to have the plaintiff, who had more 

191
than 40 Title III cases under his belt, declared a vexatious litigant. In doing so, the court 

found that the defendants lacked standing to bring the motion because they could not 

show that “they are the subject to [sic] a frivolous lawsuit because they, in fact, have not 

violated the ADA. They have failed to demonstrate compliance with the statute.”159 

Moreover, the court recognized that “the number of lawsuits plaintiff has filed does not 

reflect that he is a vexatious litigant; rather, it appears to reflect the failure of the 

defendants to comply with the law.”160 The court answered accusations leveled at the 

plaintiff’s attorney by wondering “why uniform instances of misconduct do not justify 

uniform pleadings.”161 

Title III’s private right of action needs to be effectively and broadly wielded if it is to 

make an impact in a sea of noncompliance. Currently, however, serial litigants are 

virtually the only ones bringing Title III actions. At the same time, the force of the anger 

and public backlash that have been generated among the business community by some 

serial litigants’ arguably indiscriminate choice of defendants and controversial use of 

multiple filing tactics may inhibit the private right of action’s effectiveness over the long 

term. The central problem is that any attempt to curtail the actions of serial litigants by 

limiting Title III’s private right of action will inevitably lead to limiting implementation 

of the ADA by further restricting a private right of enforcement that is already severely 

limited. Even if every one of the total number of non-Title I ADA cases brought in 2005 

(1,383) was an actual physical access case, there really is no dispute that there are more 

than 1,383 public accommodations in the United States that are inaccessible and out of 

compliance with the ADA. Any one of those cases could have been brought by a different 

plaintiff among the thousands of Americans with disabilities who lack equal access to 

publicly sold goods and services.162 The fact that this did not occur is more indicative of 

how difficult it is for the average person with a disability to find and hire a competent 

attorney and bring and maintain a Title III lawsuit than it is a sign that there are too many 

vexatious litigants. 

Ultimately, it is not possible to draw a clean line between “good” litigants and serial 

litigants. The serial litigant is simply the attorney and/or plaintiff who has figured out a 

way to bring Title III actions despite all the roadblocks. Having figured that out, he or she 

192
has no reason not to continue, given the existence of such widespread noncompliance. 

Professor Samuel Bagenstos pinpoints this fact when he observes— 

Those lawyers who bring ADA public accommodations cases in the face of the 

disincentives created by the fee-shifting rules are likely to fall into one or more of 

three categories: lawyers with atypically low litigation costs; lawyers with 

atypically good ability to determine which cases are likely to succeed (and thus 

generate a fee award); and lawyers with ideological motives. Serial litigants are 

likely to populate each of these three categories. The ADA’s rules governing 

physical accessibility are highly complex, detailed, and contextual. Lawyers are 

thus likely to experience a high fixed cost in familiarizing themselves with and 

internalizing those rules. But once an attorney has handled a number of 

accessibility cases, the additional cost of learning the rules governing a new case 

drops. . . . specialization will also enable the attorney to recover higher fees—both 

by justifying a higher “lodestar” rate, and by making possible more effective 

screening of cases. . . . Finally, lawyers and plaintiffs who are ideologically 

motivated are not likely to stop with making only one business accessible when so 

many others are violating the law.163 

There may be plaintiffs with disabilities and attorneys who go over the line and bring 

lawsuits that are factually unjustified, wrongly motivated, or marred by some collusive 

element or other unethical conduct. Such parties and attorneys can and should be 

sanctioned, and this, in fact, has occurred.164 However, if the Title III private right of 

action is weakened or restricted in a misguided attempt to control serial plaintiffs and 

attorneys, but no measures are taken to strengthen the ability of the average person with a 

disability to bring a private lawsuit, not only will physical accessibility among public 

accommodations come to a halt, but all the other nondiscrimination requirements of Title 

III compliance will suffer as well. 

Existing Ways of Dealing with Vexatious Litigation 

The federal judiciary is not powerless against plaintiffs and attorneys who bring 

vexatious litigation, defined as a “lawsuit instituted maliciously and without good 

cause.”165 All district courts “have the inherent power to file restrictive prefiling orders 

against vexatious litigants with abusive and lengthy histories of litigation.”

166 A number 

of federal courts in those districts of California and Florida in which the great majority of 

Title III serial litigation has been filed have devised numerous ways to impose limits on a 

193
litigant’s repeated filing of access lawsuits in the district and an attorney’s right to fees 

under the ADA’s fee-shifting provisions. 

One of the earliest cases to sanction a Title III plaintiff in some way was the Florida 

decision of Rodriguez v. Investco, L.L.C.167 The court did not make an explicit reference 

to frivolous litigation but did find that the “Plaintiff was evasive and willfully ignorant, 

totally lacking credibility” and questioned “whether attorney fees should be awarded 

where no effort is made pre-suit to obtain voluntary compliance.”168 Since the plaintiff 

lost the case, he was in any event ineligible for attorney fees, but the court also awarded 

costs assessed against the plaintiff.169 Since then, numerous courts in Florida and 

California have noted and extended the question raised by Judge Presnell concerning 

attorney fees, and have exercised their discretion under Title III170 to deny attorney fees 

when no pre-suit demand letter was given to the defendant.171 One Florida court 

presented a variant on the denial of fees when it exercised its discretion to deny the 

plaintiffs’ demand for attorney fees, expenses, and costs after settlement of Title III 

litigation, except for the amount that defendants’ attorneys conceded as reasonable.172 

Another California case involved the imposition of sanctions specifically aimed at 

curtailing future filings from a specific plaintiff and attorney firm. In Molski v. Mandarin 

Touch Restaurant,

173 the court invoked its “inherent power to levy sanctions in response 

to abusive litigation practices” as well as its authority under the Central District’s Local 

Rule 83-8 to fashion “appropriate orders to control” vexatious litigation.174 The court 

analyzed the plaintiff’s access filings in the aggregate to find that “the allegations 

contained in Plaintiff’s complaints are contrived and not credible,” and “even if the 

businesses sued by [the Plaintiff] were in violation of the ADA, this fact is outweighed by 

the Court’s finding that he acted in bad faith, for the improper purpose of extorting a 

settlement.”175 After considering additional factors relating to the plaintiff’s motive, 

representation by counsel, and the adequacy of other sanctions, the court imposed a 

prefiling requirement under which the plaintiff would have to seek the court’s leave and 

file the Mandarin Touch order before filing any new complaint in the Central District. 

The court concluded that such a specific prefiling order protected not only the court and 

defendants but also the “purpose and spirit of the ADA,” because it prevented abuse and 

194
“does not limit the right of a legitimately aggrieved disabled individual to seek legal 

relief under the ADA.”176 The Mandarin Touch court subsequently exercised its inherent 

power to issue a similar prefiling order against the attorney firm that represented the 

plaintiff in Mandarin Touch. The court’s finding was based on its review of the firm’s 

litigation history “of giving unethical advice [to unrepresented defendants], making 

questionable allegations of physical injury, pursuing excessive compensatory damages, 

and securing quick settlements.”177 

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers another procedural route to control 

vexatious litigants.178 Rule 11 builds on and expands the federal court’s equitable power 

to impose sanctions against a litigant who acts in bad faith in instituting or conducting 

litigation. Rule 11 requires a ruling on the merits, and the applicant must bring a separate 

motion,179 but a court may also raise the rule on its own and enter an order requiring an 

attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why specified behavior has not violated Rule 

11.180 In general, the courts have relied more on their inherent discretion in imposing 

sanctions against Title III vexatious litigants rather than on Rule 11. Nonetheless, Rule 11 

gives courts a number of tools for controlling vexatious litigants, ranging from an order 

to pay all or some of the opposing party’s reasonable attorney fees and expenses incurred 

by the violation to nonmonetary directives such as striking an offending pleading or 

referring the matter to disciplinary authorities.181 The court is able to consider such 

factors as whether the conduct in question is part of a pattern or activity, whether the 

person has engaged in similar conduct in other litigation, and what sanctions are needed 

to deter similar behavior in other litigants.182 

Another means of imposing sanctions on attorneys who engage in vexatious litigation or 

unethical legal practices is to complain to the state bar where they practice and are 

members, as a violation of state ethical cannons and local rules could lead to various 

penalties and even disbarment. A less formal but nonetheless effective potential 

“sanction” in this period of considerable public backlash against access litigation is the 

impact of being labeled as someone who brings excessive litigation. As one commentator 

observed— 

195
The experience of the lawyers who have filed the large number of suits in South 

Florida shows that demanding high fees has been more successful in generating 

bad publicity than as a litigation tactic. They have collected only a small amount 

of attorney fees, been the subject of a bar complaint and even been discredited 

within the disability community. . . . [W]hile these attorneys may be filing a large 

number of ADA Title III claims and making high fee demands, there is no 

evidence that the judges are automatically acquiescing to the fee requests or that 

their actions will generate more lawsuits.183 

The cases described above establish that federal courts already have the discretion and 

authority to impose sanctions on litigants who bring abusive litigation intended to 

needlessly harass or extort defendants, or attorneys who engage in the unethical practice 

of law, regardless of the law under which suit is brought. None of these cases, however, 

should necessarily be endorsed as an appropriate or desirable way to deal with serial 

litigants under Title III, since many factors besides harassment can enter into a plaintiff’s 

or attorney’s decision to bring multiple lawsuits under Title III. It is possible to argue, for 

example, that filing a large number of access lawsuits in one small town or region is the 

most effective way to bring about broad compliance in the region and enables defendant 

businesses to work collectively with one defendant attorney or firm.

184 The behavior of 

the few Title III plaintiffs and attorneys who have truly engaged in unethical conduct or 

vexatious litigation should not be used as the basis for devising rules of general 

application on standing or rewarding attorney fees for all Title III ADA plaintiffs and 

attorneys. Some California courts, at least, have distinguished clearly between the 

imposition of sanctions on unethical Title III litigants and preventing plaintiffs and 

attorneys from fully exercising their rights under federal or state accessibility laws. One 

court that declined to condition its reward of plaintiff’s attorney fees on the giving of 

clear and unequivocal pretrial notice to the defendant stated that “[t]o be sure, there are 

excesses and abuses in the prosecution of ADA cases. . . . But the Court cannot find a 

basis in those abuses to create an impediment to recovery of statutory relief where the 

individual case is meritorious.”185 

E. Conclusion and Recommendations 

This examination of the private right of action under Title III will conclude with a closer 

look at one example of serial litigation, filed over approximately one month, that 

exemplifies many of the issues that have been raised. In early 2005, Gina Hackel, Ms. 

196
Wheelchair Wisconsin 2004, filed lawsuits in federal court alleging ADA violations 

against 24 businesses in Fox Valley, a region in Wisconsin with 16 towns, villages, and 

cities. Hackel lived in Fox Valley and was represented by a well-known law firm from 

Florida—Schwartz Zweben & Associates—that had brought hundreds of Title III 

lawsuits in that state on behalf of people with disabilities. The defendants ranged in size 

from individually owned small businesses to larger chain stores and the town’s Regal 

Cinema. In accordance with her right of private action under Title III, the plaintiff did not 

issue demand letters to the defendants before filing her complaints in federal court. 

Bruce Hohol, owner of HoHo’s Café, was one of the first to be sued. Initially, he did not 

take the lawsuit seriously, partly because he serves a clientele that includes many seniors 

and people with disabilities, who are always assisted over the two entrance steps as a 

matter of course. 186 While Hohol had heard of the ADA, he believed he was obeying the 

law and said he was informed by a Fox Valley’s mayor, city attorney, and building 

inspector upon his inquiry that his facility was “grandfathered in” and he did not have 

obligations under the law. Once he became aware that other businesses were being sued, 

he tracked filings daily by calling the courthouse, and took the unusual step of obtaining 

and reading a copy of the entire law so he could understand it for himself. Seeking 

assistance, he called an obscure phone number recorded in the law that led him to 

someone who, in turn, referred him to Robin Jones, director of the Great Lakes ADA and 

Accessible IT Assistance Center (Great Lakes ADA Center). It was the first time Hohol 

had heard of the person or the organization.187 

Twelve of the smaller businesses, including HoHo’s Café, banded together to retain the 

services of Robert Shumaker, a Wisconsin attorney who already represented one of the 

businesses on other matters.188 As Shumaker explains it, the group’s primary goal was to 

minimize the plaintiff’s attorney fees as much as possible. With that objective, Shumaker 

went to court and filed papers asserting that the 12 businesses admitted being out of 

compliance, had no objection to having their premises surveyed by an ADA expert, and 

agreed to come into full compliance in accordance with the survey findings. Since the 

plaintiff was suing purely for injunctive relief under Title III, the defendants’ action 

essentially mooted the plaintiff’s case against them, since there was no live issue to argue 

197
before the court. The parties reached a settlement under which the businesses would be 

inspected for ADA compliance by a licensed Wisconsin architect or a qualified ADA 

consultant of their choice, with a report given to the plaintiff within 90 days. The plaintiff 

could dispute the findings of the report but had to give the defendants 90 days’ notice and 

an opportunity to correct any alleged deficiencies before returning to the court. The court 

could award attorney fees and costs to the defendants if it did not agree with the 

plaintiff’s objections. 

The executive director of the Heart of the Valley Chamber of Commerce, Bobbie 

Beckman, describes the level of ADA awareness among the Valley’s business 

community before the litigation as very low or nonexistent, with most businesses relying 

on local building inspectors to tell them if their facility was out of compliance with the 

law.189 The litigation created tremendous anger in the community. There was a common 

feeling that outsiders (e.g., the attorneys from Florida) were coming into town to extract 

fees from local businesses and that the entire situation could have been resolved 

differently if the plaintiff had simply addressed them individually as a customer who 

wanted to eat or shop in their establishments. While these sentiments are not uncommon 

among defendants of serial litigation, what happened in Fox Valley after the settlement is 

somewhat unusual. The communities rose above their resentment of the litigation and did 

not display a “bunker mentality” by ignoring the federal law’s requirements. Rather, the 

Chamber and the Great Lakes ADA Center worked together to offer two very wellattended seminars and technical assistance to “open a line of communication, educate the 

public and business owners, and dispel some of the myths, fears, and concerns that have 

arisen from the recent complaints filed against our local businesses.” 

The Fox Valley litigation achieved a number of positive outcomes. The businesses that 

were sued achieved compliance with Title III and increased accessibility for people with 

disabilities in the Valley; there was greater ADA awareness throughout the region’s 

business community and general public; and compliance and technical assistance 

resources were widely disseminated. Nonetheless, there is considerable stakeholder 

disagreement on the real impetus behind such changes, the role litigation can or should 

198
play in bringing about compliance, and whether there are realistic alternatives to 

litigation. 

Beckman recognizes that the lawsuits ultimately achieved good results throughout Fox 

Valley but questions whether lawsuits were the only way to obtain change. She knows 

that a couple small businesses closed down because they did not think they could afford 

the required changes and recalls that some businesses were unwilling to be publicly 

identified with the post-litigation education seminars, either as sponsors or as hosts, 

because of their fear that the plaintiff and her attorneys would come, scope out the place, 

and target them for the next round of lawsuits. While Beckman agrees that business 

organizations such as her own are the best vehicle for providing ADA educational 

outreach to small businesses in rural areas and small towns, she also acknowledged that 

the seminars would likely not have happened without the lawsuits and was hard-pressed 

to think of suggestions for getting sufficient, prompt attention from business 

organizations without bringing litigation. 

For his part, Hohol remains deeply convinced that all the positive results in Fox Valley, 

and more, could have been attained if people with disabilities and the business 

community had sat down together and cooperatively figured out how to achieve 

accessibility. He admits that he is still angry about having to spend money on 

unnecessary litigation when a personal approach would have accomplished the same 

thing. He says he would have been willing to check out for himself what the law says, 

then work to come into compliance. Hohol admits, though, that he can speak only for 

himself and his community, and cannot vouch for how well voluntary compliance would 

work in larger cities. Hohol’s perceptions and conviction contrast with those of plaintiff 

Hackel, who told local Wisconsin newspapers that “the lawsuits followed years of 

frustration in trying to persuade area municipalities and businesses to comply with the 

15-year-old law.”190 Hackel’s view was echoed by another Fox Valley wheelchair user, 

who said, “You can talk to these people until you’re blue in the face, but they’re not 

going to spend any money unless they have to.”191 

The attorneys involved in the settlement also reflect opinions that go beyond resolution of 

the immediate lawsuits. Defense attorney Shumaker is “very happy” about how his 

199
litigation strategy worked to keep plaintiff attorney fees low but also holds the strong 

opinion that bringing federal court litigation without written notice to a defendant is 

deeply unfair, even though there is nothing that requires such notice in the ADA or in 

other civil rights laws.192 Shumaker’s desire to see some kind of 90-day notice provision 

in Title III seems to be based at least in part on his certainty that attorneys who bring 

serial lawsuits without warning are primarily intent on provoking a lengthy legal battle 

before settling for large fee awards, and only secondarily seeking increased accessibility. 

This characterization does not necessarily ring true. The plaintiff and her attorneys did 

not seek damages for disability discrimination, which are available under Wisconsin state 

law.193 Gene Zweben, the plaintiff’s attorney, seems sincerely pleased about the results 

attained in Fox Valley, focusing on how access barriers were removed and reduced 

throughout the region as a result of the lawsuits. Zweben recalls the defense attorney as 

someone who “understood what needed to be done to make places more accessible,” 

found that the defendants in Fox Valley were generally ignorant of the law and not eager 

to make readily accessible changes or accommodations, and feels that people with 

disabilities must self-advocate for their rights, since DOJ does not have the staff to 

investigate Title III violations all across the country.194 

For the business community in Fox Valley and their attorney, the fact that they did not 

receive prelitigation notice is seen as dishonorable, evidence of greed, and indicative of a 

lack of real interest in greater accessibility.195 This attribution of bad motive to the other 

side makes it easy to justify following a course of action that, above all, is aimed at 

bypassing or minimizing the plaintiff’s right to request attorney fees. However, even the 

most idealistic attorneys understandably wish to be paid for their time. The defense 

attorney in Fox Valley, when asked, indicated that he could understand a lawyer’s desire 

to be compensated for prelitigation time that is spent listening to a client’s story, 

checking out the facts and the business, doing research, and calling or sending a letter on 

a client’s behalf. The kinds of barriers that are removable under the “readily achievable” 

standard—for example, reversing the direction in which a door opens or adding signage 

or adjusting the height of a grab bar—are the very barriers that can be easily fixed before 

a lawsuit is brought, leaving attorneys who choose not to charge their clients up front 

without recourse to fees, because the problem has been fixed. There is no way to 

200
guarantee that an attorney is not motivated by a greedy desire for escalating fees, but the 

failure to give a defendant prelitigation notice cannot be taken as evidence of such greed 

in the post-Buckhannon world. 

The assertion that “things would have been different” if only a customer with a disability 

had made a personal request, or if a demand letter had been issued before the lawsuit, is 

as haunting as it is impossible to prove. Hohol radiates the kind of civic and social 

responsibility that is increasingly rare in transient and highly competitive urban 

environments. Most failed attempts to create a business and disability community 

collaboration around voluntary Title III compliance have taken place in urban centers; not 

in small towns and rural areas, where one or a few community business leaders could 

potentially mobilize an entire community toward compliance. In tightly knit national 

industries, such as cinemas and hotel chains, a litigation strategy that targeted some of the 

largest players in the industry helped to secure the voluntary cooperation and compliance 

of many smaller players in that industry.196 It remains an open question though, whether 

broader voluntary compliance could have been achieved without the “kickstart” of initial 

litigation. 

Whether in an urban or rural context, the broader disability community’s involvement 

and the need for some way to resolve individual resistance and disagreements over 

determining “readily achievable” changes are equally necessary. Just as a lack of 

prefiling notice from a plaintiff attorney is not necessarily a sign of bad motive, a 

business’s reluctance to simply take the word of a customer with disabilities concerning 

the law is not necessarily a sign of bad faith or noncompliance. On the other hand, the 

percentage of attorneys and plaintiffs who bring Title III lawsuits primarily for self-gain 

is minuscule compared with the number of businesses that persist in a calculated decision 

to disregard or willfully ignore the existence of obligations under federal and state 

accessibility laws. There is a private right of action under Title III because Congress 

recognized that voluntary compliance and collaboration is an unreliable vehicle for 

providing access, and that people with disabilities should not be forced to rely on the 

kindness of neighbors or strangers. 

201
Perhaps one final illustrative point to take from the Fox Valley lawsuits is that litigation 

becomes the flashpoint of anger when it is virtually the only means for a law’s 

enforcement rather than a last resort for enforcement. Hackel and her attorneys did not 

break any legal rule by filing 24 lawsuits without a demand letter. The businesses that 

settled were all noncompliant to some extent. The lawsuits achieved greater accessibility 

and encouraged compliance even among businesses that were not sued. But for the public 

at large, the question of whether the defendants all deserved to be sued without notice 

imports considerations beyond whether the rules were met. The same 16 years since the 

ADA’s enactment that are proof for the disability community of how little Title III 

entities pay attention to access rights and compliance are, for some in the business 

community, years filled with official misinformation and lack of regulatory enforcement. 

The ADA’s primary enforcement mechanism (litigation) differs sharply from the 

enforcement of health and safety and fire regulations—where an agent of the state 

regularly comes to the business and upholds standards that are universally recognized as 

necessary for society at large. Title III is about achieving accessibility and abolishing 

disability discrimination for society at large, not about lawsuits. Nonetheless, it is 

remarkably easy for the media, business organizations, and the public to focus on a few 

“villains” who bring lawsuits, instead of on the systemic notification, education, and 

enforcement that are needed to achieve Title III’s goals. Fox Valley’s ongoing attempt to 

increase compliance after litigation is all too uncommon, and it came about through the 

leadership and cooperation of the small business and disability communities as well as 

some media personalities.197 

The disability and small business communities are both “sympathetic” and have 

compelling stories to tell. Each community has a lot at stake. Each side is deeply 

emotional. And often individuals belonging to each community genuinely can not seem 

to understand why the other is so angry. The following are some broad policy 

recommendations to maximize the potential for reproducing the best outcomes from the 

Fox Valley litigation while bypassing some of the area’s lingering resentment: 

• The DOJ and all technical assistance organizations, such as the Disability and 

Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs), must be given specific funding and 

a mandate for outreach to chambers of commerce, Rotary Clubs, and other small 

202
business organizations, especially those serving rural areas and smaller towns. The 

assistance and cooperation of these business associations, as well as any local 

disability advocacy groups that work with small businesses, is needed to accurately 

inform businesses of their obligation to comply with Title III, to disseminate technical 

resource information, and to help lower the current level of tension and fear among 

business communities. 

• The accessibility requirements of civil rights law must be publicly broadcast, 

acknowledged, and respected at the same level as other applicable regulations and 

laws, and equally acknowledged as a make-or-break issue in running a business. When 

business and industry associations work together to foster the idea that the law is 

unfair and lobby for legislative change that will weaken the private right of action 

overall, they are not doing their constituents any favors and certainly are harming the 

prospect for achieving voluntary Title III compliance. 

• Title III compliance cannot depend only on voluntary compliance from the few 

business owners who are motivated by either a personal familiarity with disability or 

the determination to do the right thing legally and ethically, regardless of the cost. Nor 

can compliance depend only on litigation and the minority of people with disabilities 

who are willing and able to bring lawsuits. If private litigation remains virtually the 

only means of external enforcement motivating business compliance with Title III, it 

will likely continue to bear the brunt of public backlash and industry lobbying. 

Widespread Title III compliance cannot be achieved without business and public 

outreach, a visible and efficient administrative enforcement procedure, the wide 

availability of qualified accessibility expertise, and economic incentives such as tax 

and other credits. 

But even with these policy changes, the private right of action remains critical to Title 

III’s enforcement and must be strengthened so that a broader range of people with 

disabilities across the country can gain access to a more readily available private bar that 

is competent to advise, litigate, and settle access claims. As millions of people with 

disabilities and the ongoing inaccessibility of much of the country can attest to, we have 

not yet reached the point where serial litigation could not be brought because Title III 

203
compliance has become the norm. The following recommendations concern the private 

right of action: 

• Effect a statutory repair of Buckhannon’s condition of a “judicially sanctioned” change 

in the parties’ relationship for the recovery of attorney fees under Title III, so that 

attorney fee-shifting rules will apply if a Title III plaintiff or would-be plaintiff has 

been the catalyst for a public accommodation’s coming into compliance with its Title 

III obligations. 

• Make compensatory damages available under Title III. 

• Establish a statutory minimum damages amount for the denial of access rights under 

Title III. 

II. Class Actions and Settlements 

A. Introduction 

The enactment in 1938 of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing the 

circumstances under which class actions may be brought in federal court, helped the class 

action to become widely recognized as an invaluable litigation tool. Class actions are 

lawsuits brought by one or more individuals on behalf of a larger group, and they are 

significant because any legal victory achieved by the named plaintiffs results in legal 

relief on behalf of the entire group, including absent putative class members. At the same 

time, any legal settlement, compromise, or dismissal of the action, once approved by the 

court, will also bind the entire class. In the context of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, class actions can be used— 

• To require corporate defendants to remedy discrimination consistently and across 

geographic and individual circumstances, rather than on a mere case-by-case basis. 

• To extend the benefits of the ADA’s prohibition on discrimination to individuals who 

lack the financial and other resources to hire a lawyer and bring a personal action on 

their own. 

• To more widely publicize the requirements of the ADA and the effects of 

discrimination on the lives of people with disabilities. 

204
Like any tool, class action litigation can be abused when it is used inappropriately. The 

efficiency, problematic agency relationship, and costs of class action litigation— 

especially in such areas as mass tort and product liability—have been extensively 

discussed by academics198 and have led to the enactment of various reforms, most 

recently the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).199 CAFA addresses very specific 

problems often associated with mass tort and consumer class actions—such as the value 

of settlement coupons given by the defendant and the removability of an action to federal 

court—that generally do not arise in the ADA context.200 However, CAFA’s provisions 

apply to class actions filed in federal court after February 18, 2005, including ADA class 

actions. Even if CAFA’s other changes have little or perhaps even a negative impact on 

ADA class actions, the new notice requirements contained in CAFA’s Consumers’ Class 

Action Bill of Rights could arguably have a beneficial effect. CAFA establishes “each 

defendant to serve an appropriate government official of each state in which a class 

member resides, in addition to an appropriate federal official, with notice of the proposed 

settlement and certain specified settlement-related papers, within 10 days of the 

settlement being filed with the federal court.”201 In addition, final settlement approval 

cannot be given until at least 90 days after this service has occurred.202 Finally, if notice 

has not been properly given in accordance with these provisions, class members may 

refuse to be bound by the settlement.203 The impact of these notice provisions is uncertain 

at this time, especially since state and federal officials are not required to do anything in 

response to the notice, but the requirement in and of itself slows the process of obtaining 

final settlement approval and theoretically makes it harder for the parties’ attorneys to 

engage in unnoticed collusion. 

The specific problems that have arisen in the ADA class action context are associated 

almost exclusively with the settlement of Title III class action lawsuits. Generally, 

plaintiffs have been a group of people with primarily mobility/dexterity disabilities in one 

state; the defendants have been corporate entities that operate public accommodations 

nationally; and the lawsuits have requested injunctive relief unaccompanied by a demand 

for damages. A number of these cases originated around 2000 and drew the attention of 

the National Association for Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS; now known as 

National Disability Rights Network, NDRN204), eventually leading to a teleconference 

205
training of NAPAS attorneys on the issue on October 1, 2002. The problematic cases 

highlighted at the conference had settlement proposals that did the following: 

• Used an expansive class definition that encompassed potentially millions of people 

with various disabilities throughout the country, though the class representatives did 

not necessarily encompass people with different disabilities and the proposed 

settlement did not adequately address the specific concerns of people with nonmobility 

disabilities. 

• Superseded pending access litigation, foreclosed for a number of years any future 

litigation against any of the corporate defendant’s stores, and required the broad 

release of access claims under both federal and state laws without any analysis of the 

potentially broader state rights that could be claimed and were therefore given up by 

the parts of the class that lived in states with strong disability rights laws. 

• Bound the class members to accept architectural access standards that are below the 

undisputed minimum standards set out explicitly in the ADAAG and provided 

minimal or no accessibility standards for certain groups within the class (e.g., people 

with visual disabilities or deaf individuals). 

The cases also underscored the general difficulty of monitoring settlement provisions. For 

a class action settlement to be truly fair, adequate, and reasonable for a whole class of 

plaintiffs with various disabilities, it must, at a minimum, provide adequate relief for the 

different types of discrimination and inaccessibility that class members with different 

disabilities could face. Adequate monitoring and implementation of particularized access 

requirements when a defendant operates numerous existing, new, and to-be-constructed 

public accommodations in a wide geographic area require adequate resources, as well as 

experience and commitment from, and ongoing remuneration for, class counsel. 

The research summarized here will focus on the key cases and proposed settlements in 

which these problems were first raised. We will discuss a few ongoing cases that exhibit 

the same problems and review educational suggestions for plaintiff class action counsel, 

as well as some alternative class action proposals obtained from interviews with key 

disability rights attorneys working in the area. Finally, there is a sampling of ADA case 

206
settlements in which class action litigation has been used effectively and has not raised 

these problems to the same extent, or at all. 

B. Problematic Class Action Cases 

• Access Now, Inc. et al. v. the May Department Store Company, Case No. 00-CV-148 

Filed 10/14/00 in Florida 

National class settlement covering all May Company department stores in 49 states 

• Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. et al. v. Amoco Oil Company et al. 

Case No. 98-CV-2002 

Filed 08/24/98 in Florida 

National class settlement covering approximately 4,000 U.S. Amoco, BP, and ARCO 

service stations (excluding California) 

• Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. et al. v. 7-Eleven, Inc. 

Case No. 01-CV-0230 

Filed 02/02/01 in Texas 

National class settlement covering several thousand convenience stores and gas 

stations nationwide 

• American Disability Association, Inc. v. BFS Retail and Commercial Operations, LLC. 

Case No. 01-CV-6529 

Filed 04/04/01 in Florida 

National class settlement covering approximately 2,200 Bridgestone/Firestone tire and 

service stores nationwide 

These are the four key cases and proposed class action settlements that first sparked 

concern among attorneys who are familiar with ADA class actions and the ADA 

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) specifications. Some NAPAS attorneys and other 

Title III practitioners initially noticed the consent decrees because they were already 

involved in bringing litigation or negotiating settlement on behalf of a separate group of 

people with disabilities in other parts of the country that would have been superseded by 

the proposed national settlement.205 When these attorneys reviewed the proposed 

settlements closely, they discovered numerous shortcomings.206 Chief among the 

objectionable aspects: 

207
• A filed complaint that implicated all the defendant’s facilities across the country as 

being in violation of the ADA or Title III, but only made specific allegations 

concerning stores in one state (the May Company complaint focused on access issues 

at certain Lord & Taylor stores in Florida;207 12 of the 13 facilities listed in the Amoco 

complaint are in Florida208). 

• Little or no court-monitored activity—such as the initiation of formal discovery 

concerning defendant’s national policies and practices or the filing of additional 

motions—between the filing of a complaint and the notice that a formal settlement of a 

proposed class action had been reached. 

• An extremely expansive class definition that encompassed people with various 

disabilities. The 7-Eleven case referred to “all people with a disability . . . and all 

entities acting or purporting to act in behalf of any such people, who could assert a 

claim under ADA Title III against 7-Eleven.”209 In the BFS case, the class was even 

broader, encompassing all those who “have a claim or cause of action under state, 

federal or local law or rule because they are people with Mobility Disabilities, 

Dexterity, Vision, or Hearing Disabilities or any other disability covered by title III of 

the ADA.”210 The proposed class definition in the May Company settlement was the 

narrowest, referring to “[a]ll people with mobility disabilities who use a mobility aid 

such as a wheelchair, scooter, walker, cane and/or crutches.”211 The class proposed in 

the Amoco settlement encompassed “all people with mobility, dexterity, vision, or 

hearing disabilities.”212 

• Inadequate representation of people with various kinds of disabilities, even though the 

class purported to encompass these people. The May Company proposed settlement 

had the most narrowly defined class, encompassing “persons with mobility disabilities 

who use a mobility aid such as a wheelchair, scooter, walker, cane and/or crutches,” 

yet the settlement did not address the lack of accessible parking and a path of travel 

from the parking lot to an accessible entrance, the most common complaint of 

wheelchair users.213 Moreover, a guide dog is a mobility aid, so people with visual 

impairments who use guide dogs could fall within the class and be bound by the 

proposed settlement. However, none of the class representatives alleged a visual 

disability or the use of an assistive animal as a mobility aid.214 A similar limitation was 

208
observed by the court in the 7-Eleven case; it found that “the two individual plaintiffs 

and the Association [for Disabled Americans] have demonstrated the requisite 

standing to pursue Title III claims against 7-11 related to mobility, visual, and hearing 

impairments and satisfied the case-in-controversy requirements of Article III with 

regard to these disabilities . . . [but] the Court must reject plaintiffs’ claim that this 

limited standing confers carte blanch standing to pursue the Title III claims that every 

disabled person may have against 7-11.”215 

• An extremely broad release of each class member’s disability access claims, both state 

and federal, without noting or accounting for the wide variance among state 

accessibility laws, many of which grant substantive accessibility requirements and 

remedial rights that go beyond those enacted in Title III of the ADA. Some states grant 

plaintiffs the right to claim monetary damages as well as retrofitting or other injunctive 

relief,216 and some state laws grant presumptive damages of a specific amount for each 

instance of disability discrimination.217 In addition, in states such as Arizona, the 

attorney general may become involved in accessibility cases, thereby enabling the 

court “to vindicate the public interest” and additionally “assess a civil penalty against 

the covered person or entity.”

218 Since the 7-Eleven settlement language proposed 

barring action by “all entities acting or purporting to act in behalf ” of people with 

disabilities, it would conceivably curtail a state’s sovereign right to enforce its own 

accessibility laws. 

• Relief that fails to address entire segments of the purported class. In the May Company 

case, the proposed settlement failed to address any accessible concerns commonly held 

by people with visual disabilities, such as the provision of Braille signage or policies 

guaranteeing the admittance of assistance animals in May Company’s public 

accommodations.219 The BFS proposed consent decree essentially covered all people 

with disabilities yet failed to give relief typically of concern to people with visual 

disabilities (e.g., shopping assistance, talking ATMs, Braille signage, a service animal 

policy) or people with hearing disabilities (e.g., the settlement requires hearing-aidcompatible receivers but does not refer to amplified headsets, TTY availability, or 

training employees on how to effectively communicate with deaf and hard-of-hearing 

customers).220 

209
• Avoidance of ADAAG requirements applicable to new construction and alterations. 

The proposed settlements uniformly lowered the minimum accessibility standards 

adopted in ADA implementing regulations that have been carefully tailored to balance 

the ADA’s overall goal of achieving accessibility for people with disabilities through 

integration and a public accommodation’s need for flexibility and administrative and 

cost concerns.

221 The ADAAG requirements are not mere technical minutiae. They are 

the factors that enable customers with disabilities to independently enter, maneuver 

through, and use the services offered by public accommodations, or not. The failure to 

meet an ADAAG minimum standard can result in a person with a mobility impairment 

being unable to use a so-called “accessible” restroom or make it more dangerous for a 

blind person using a cane to negotiate protruding objects in an aisle. While there may 

be leeway in a settlement for attaining the readily achievable barrier-removal standard 

of existing construction and, arguably, some minimal level of tolerance for post-1993 

newly constructed facilities that would otherwise require complete reconstruction, 

there is no justification for accepting deviations from the ADAAG for post-settlement 

construction.222 In the proposed 7-Eleven settlement, 58 of 63 listed architectural 

elements fell below ADAAG minimum standards, and 41 elements on the list allowed 

a more lenient standard even for post-1993 newly constructed stores.223 The 

“tolerances” in the proposed Amoco settlement lowered the ADAAG standard for 4 of 

61 listed architectural elements.224 These concessions in minimum standards appear to 

have been made for no other apparent reason than the convenience of the defendant. 

• Plaintiff class releases claims for an extended time. Both the Amoco and BFS 

settlements proposed a release that would be in effect for seven years,225 arguably 

foreclosing even the future claims of future class members encountering 

inaccessibility at the defendants’ post-settlement newly constructed facilities. 

• Wholly inadequate notice provisions for a national class action. For the May Company 

settlement, the parties stipulated “that notice need not be given of the certification of 

the class [for purposes of settlement],” even though the proposed settlement included 

over 8.6 million people.226 Notice of the settlement itself was published in only two 

magazines, one a publication targeted specifically to veterans with spinal cord injuries 

and the other a magazine for wheelchair users that had an annual subscription base of 

24,000. Notice was also put on a Web site specializing in travel news for people with 

210
disabilities.227 As objectors’ counsel stated, they “learned about this potential 

nationwide class action by happenstance.”228 The huge class proposed in the BFS 

encompassed all people with disabilities “who have or will claim that they has been 

denied access at one or more of Defendants’ facilities in violation of the ADA or state 

law,” and the class members did not receive individual notice of the consent decree or 

an opportunity to opt out.229 

• No or inadequate monitoring of settlement compliance. The May Company settlement 

contained no provisions for monitoring settlement implementation by class 

representatives or by a neutral third party; May store managers were left to monitor 

compliance with the ADA.230 As a very general rule, any settlement that involves 

significant injunctive relief yet leaves the attainment of that relief entirely in the hands 

of the defendant is potentially suspect.231 In the 7-Eleven settlement, the monitoring 

provisions required the defendant to survey all of its stores within a specified time 

frame, after which fewer than 6 percent of the stores could be inspected, presumably at 

the defendant’s expense. The survey instrument was not made available until after the 

time for filing objections was past; additional inspections could not be undertaken 

even if the class paid for them; and there was no provision for what would happen if 

any inspection showed that stores had failed to make required accessibility changes.232 

The objections outlined above did not always achieve their goals in terms of preventing 

class certification or disapproval of the proposed consent decree, though this was in fact 

achieved in the May Company and 7-Eleven cases.233 In other cases, the objections led to 

negotiations in which the parties agreed to further refine the consent decree, add 

additional relief for subclasses, and narrow the scope of the release language.234 In some 

cases, the parties agreed to narrow the class definition to exclude a specified subclass 

because of an intervention that was brought on its behalf.235 

The uniform concern among the attorneys interviewed was the fear that once a large 

national class action with all or some of the above shortcomings has been approved, it 

will stand as a dangerous precedent. These flawed consent decrees profess to regulate the 

rights of millions of Americans with disabilities, and the approval of one makes it that 

much easier for the next court to approve a consent decree with an expansive class 

211
definition, overly wide release, and watered-down ADAAG requirements. This fear is 

what has prompted NDRN to organize a “cadre of lawyers to evaluate and, if necessary, 

file objections to these proposed settlements.”236 Other private attorneys, primarily solo 

or small practitioners, have given extensive labor and time to crafting objections to the 

settlement and/or working to have their client group excluded from the overly broad class 

definition. 

In many ways, NDRN attorneys are ideally placed to act as objectors to inappropriate 

Title III class action settlements. Each P&A agency has expertise in both federal 

accessibility laws and its own state’s disability discrimination laws, as well as a mandate 

to protect the rights of all people with disabilities. Unfortunately, some defendants in 

national class action settlements have recently adopted the tactic of raising objections to a 

P&A agency’s standing to intervene and raise objections to settlement.237 In response, 

NDRN attorneys have been forced to find several people with disabilities who live in the 

state where the objections are raised and whom the P&A can identify as actual objectors 

to the settlement. This need to find, interview, take depositions, and prepare individuals 

with disabilities who object to settlement, just in case the P&A’s standing to object is 

questioned in court places even more time pressure on NDRN attorneys who are trying to 

guard against proposed settlements. 

One of the above cases has, in fact, translated into an unfortunate precedent. The court 

ultimately approved the Amoco settlement,238 but even though the settlement that was 

approved was a substantial improvement over the consent decree that was originally 

proposed, P&A objectors did not prevail on the issue of ADAAG tolerances. This loss 

spilled over in the BFS settlement decision, where the court also allowed unjustified 

ADAAG tolerances.239 Currently, overly broad national settlements continue to arise, and 

objections continue to be made. In one case, the objectors managed to influence the 

defense attorneys, who cooperated with the objectors to craft a much more appropriate 

settlement.240 In other instances, defense attorneys have fought to maintain 

inappropriately wide class definitions, all the while resubmitting a moving-target consent 

decree to the court.241 

212
C. ADA Class Action Education and Alternatives 

Two attorneys who have worked a number of years in the area of Title III litigation— 

Lainey Feingold and Amy Robertson—developed a series of suggestions aimed at 

educating the plaintiff bar.242 Their best practices suggestions can help those who bring 

Title III class action litigation draft consent decrees that achieve relief for the entire class 

and appropriately release claims in return. Their article highlights the dangers that class 

counsel for a group of people with disabilities must know about and avoid to ethically 

and professionally carry out their duties.243 Their suggestions encompass the need to— 

• ensure adequate class representatives and experienced class attorneys; 

• include effective monitoring and dispute settlement mechanisms to ensure 

postsettlement compliance by the defendant; 

• carefully tailor the class definition, class claims, and releases clauses; and 

• require notice that is posted widely and appropriately in order to gather the valid 

concerns of all class members, especially if the proposed class definition encompasses 

people with a wide range of disabilities and resulting different forums for receiving 

information. 

Judicial education concerning the need to closely oversee national and regional Title III 

class actions could help prevent the passage of problematic settlements. Brian East, an 

attorney with the Texas P&A, suggested that existing statutory and regulatory tools 

governing class action settlements are sufficient for preventing entry into problematic 

settlements. However, the courts are not necessarily aware of the problems that can occur 

with Title III class action settlements; fail to pay sufficient attention to the settlements the 

attorneys involved bring forward; and, consequently, fail to use existing tools to prevent 

potential collusion or abuse.244 

Another stakeholder group that could benefit from further education on class settlement 

issues is disability advocates and the broader disability community. Some disability 

attorneys and advocates hold the opinion that any class settlement that does not address 

the needs of all people with disabilities and all potential barriers is problematic.245 

However, it is not always possible or strategically advantageous to have all disabilities 

213
represented among the named class representatives, and not all attorneys have expertise 

in the accommodation needs of people with different disabilities. The achievement of a 

timely, tailored settlement that addresses only the needs of a class of people with specific 

kinds of disabilities will not bind the rights of people with other disabilities, and will 

leave the door open for litigation and effective settlement concerning the accommodation 

needs of other groups. 

One potential alternative to class action litigation is championed by Lainey Feingold, 

who has developed a unique approach to the resolution of Title III accessibility issues and 

implementing ADA compliance when dealing with corporate defendants that operate 

multiple public accommodations. Feingold’s “structured negotiation” approach does not 

rely on the initiation of litigation. Rather it begins with a privileged settlement 

communication sent to the corporate entity and ideally concludes with a settlement 

agreement in which plaintiff attorneys and their experts work directly with the corporate 

entity.246 

Feingold has worked closely with organizations of the blind and other members of the 

blind community for some years, and her letter clearly details the accessibility problems 

that ATMs and point-of-sale (POS) terminals present to people with visual disabilities. 

The letter is similar to a typical demand letter in that it describes her own and cocounsel’s legal credentials, the federal and state laws that underlie the right to ATMs and 

POS machines that can be independently used by people with visual disabilities, and 

remedies required under the law. Feingold’s letter deviates from a demand letter by 

offering to work with the corporate counsel for “a nonlitigated resolution [that] would 

require a written, enforceable agreement with three components: injunctive relief for 

purchase and installation of accessible [equipment] and related policy and training issues; 

and related damages and attorney fees as allowed by statute.”

247 The letter sets a deadline 

for corporate counsel to respond concerning their willingness to work on the structured 

negotiation process. 

Feingold has used this approach for more than 10 years and has a strong record of success 

in achieving corporate cooperation. By using this structured negotiations approach she 

has achieved 15 legally binding settlement agreements on the incorporation of accessible 

214
technology for people with visual disabilities. General counsel for some of the financial 

institutions that have engaged in structured negotiation invariably contrast the approach 

favorably with the initiation of litigation, and all those interviewed said they developed a 

positive working relationship with Feingold, even though receipt of the initial letter was 

“shocking.”248 

There are positive and negative aspects to the use of structured negotiations. There have 

been criticisms of the amount of time it can take to implement a structured negotiations 

settlement agreement; the general counsel interviewed mentioned amounts of time 

ranging from two to five years. On the other hand, hard-fought litigation can swallow 

inordinate amounts of time even before a settlement or judgment is achieved. Aspects of 

the structured negotiation settlement agreement are often kept confidential by agreement, 

so the approach does not necessarily incentivize accessibility compliance among others in 

the industry in the same way as the initiation of a public lawsuit. Feingold includes a list 

of past participants in structured negotiations when she sends out the initial 

communication, but while corporations and counsel who have already dealt with her may 

be willing to speak to others to whom she has sent a letter, they may not freely bring up 

the issues in their interactions with others in their industry. Both litigation and the 

structured negotiations approach can effect lasting corporate change in an organization 

once judgment or settlement is reached, as long as ongoing training and education are 

included as a component of settlement. While the resources that a defendant is forced to 

expend on litigation can arguably leave a deeper impression concerning the need for 

change, litigation also frequently fosters lingering resentment that can undermine the 

transformation of corporate culture. 

Feingold and her co-counsel, Linda Dardarian, have achieved considerable success with 

the structured negotiation approach, having entered 22 binding settlement agreements to 

date with some of the biggest companies in the country, including American Express, 

Bank of America, Wal-Mart, and 7-Eleven. Feingold also has an established working 

relationship with a clientele of people with visual disabilities, the backing of her cocounsel’s firm (which is recognized for litigating discrimination class actions), and 

215
negotiation skills that are widely recognized by her peers. These factors combine to make 

the transferability of her approach difficult to predict. 

D. Other ADA Class Action Cases 

Class action litigation has been used successfully in enforcing other aspects of the ADA 

and has achieved all the goals of class actions recognized in the introduction. Class 

actions have raised the profile of the ADA and its nondiscrimination and accessibility 

requirements. People with disabilities, who frequently are in the lowest economic 

echelons, are able to participate in protecting their rights, which they would be unable to 

do if they had to bear the financial brunt of bringing a lawsuit. Also, class action victories 

have achieved systemic changes that multiple individual lawsuits could not have 

wrought. 

Title I litigation has been rare, but two high-profile cases have emerged in the past few 

years. In Glover/Albrecht v. Potter,

249 a class action was brought against the United 

States Postal Service (USPS) on behalf of “people employed by the USPS throughout the 

United States between January 1, 1992, and the present while in permanent rehabilitation 

positions who were allegedly denied promotional and/or advancement opportunities 

allegedly due to discrimination on the basis of disability.” There have been more than 

25,000 rehabilitation employees since 1992, making Glover the largest disability 

discrimination employment class action ever settled. Preliminary approval of the 

settlement was given December 3, 2003, by Denver EEOC Administrative Judge Dickie 

Montamayer. Settlement includes injunctive relief to ensure equal promotion 

opportunities and the establishment of a streamlined claims process through which class 

members may seek up to $25,000 in back pay and emotional distress damages. 

In Bates v. United Parcel Service,

250 a pattern-or-practice class action lawsuit was 

initiated against UPS, challenging its policy of applying the Department of 

Transportation hearing standard to the entire UPS fleet, including lighter vehicles that 

were not regulated by DOT. At trial, the court rejected UPS’s business necessity and 

undue burden defenses, and found in favor of the drivers. Many of the drivers’ additional 

policy accommodation issues—such as UPS’s failure to provide visual fire alarms in the 

216
workplace—had been settled before trial, and ultimately the class members received both 

injunctive relief and monetary damages. 

Title II class action litigation includes a number of important Olmstead decisions that 

have resulted in settlements that have required state and local entities to take concrete 

actions concerning the release of institutionalized people into the community. One 

example is Travis D. v. Eastmont Human Services Center, which was initially filed in 

1996 on behalf of a class of individuals with mental retardation and other developmental 

disabilities. Though the action was initiated before the Supreme Court’s 1999 Olmstead 

decision, the latter decision undoubtedly helped motivate settlement in Travis D., which 

finally took place in 2004.251 The class ultimately included 200 people who had been 

institutionalized between August 1996 and February 2004. Approximately 90 class 

members continued to be institutionalized at the time of settlement. The settlement 

provided for community services to be developed for 45 residents of one existing 

institution, closure of two of the institution’s units, a legislative proposal to eliminate a 

statutory provision that made institutional commitment easy, and various additional 

measures to facilitate the discharge of additional institutional residents.252 Other 

successful Title II settlements have occurred in areas as varied as public transportation253 

to high school and high-stakes exit exams.254 

Despite the problems noted with Title III class actions, good tailored settlements have 

been achieved by experienced class counsel, resulting in benefits to the overall class. In 

Farrar-Kuhn and Lucas, et al. v. Conoco, Inc.,

255 the class entered a settlement 

concerning the corporate defendant’s operation of public accommodations in six states. 

The settlement agreement 

• held a firm line on systemic reductions or ADAAG tolerances in new construction, 

particularly postsettlement new construction; 

• established a pilot program by which the parties would survey the first six sites 

together with an independent expert to work out disagreements onsite whenever 

possible before proceeding with surveying the remainder of defendant’s stores; 

217
• released only the class’s Title III claims and the individual plaintiffs’ Colorado claims 

in exchange for approximately $2,000 in individual damages. 

E. Recommendations for Further Research and Conclusion 

Like the private right of action, the class action is a tool that is available and used for the 

enforcement of Title III’s accessibility requirements. Also like the private right of action, 

the class action as it has been and is currently used in Title III litigation is coming under 

criticism because of the potential for abuse. With class action settlements, the potential 

for abuse comes about because the plaintiff class can be defined to include members of 

the disability community whose right to bring an individual lawsuit would be traded for 

inadequate or no accessibility action on the part of the defendant. Most of those warning 

of the abuse potential in class actions, however, are plaintiff attorneys who recognize the 

ongoing need for the tool but want the risk for collusive abuse between plaintiff and 

defense attorneys recognized and specifically addressed. In other words, there is no call 

for a general curtailment in the bringing of class actions, only a call for measures that 

would strengthen the broader disability community’s ability to receive notice of, object 

to, and otherwise have a positive impact on the shaping of class action settlements. 

Given the reality that class action litigation has achieved excellent results and 

implementation in other areas of the ADA, what can be done to preserve and further 

support the use of this powerful and efficient litigation tool in future cases concerning 

accessibility in public accommodations? The following are recommendations for 

preserving the use of the class action tool in Title III litigation while reducing the 

potential for abuse and entry into problematic class action settlements: 

• Continue monitoring for abuse, but also explore any possibility for strengthening the 

current system by creating at least the possibility of recovering attorney fees for 

raising reasonable objections to national and regional class action settlements. 

• Encourage education of and intervention by DOJ and by attorneys general in states 

where citizens with disabilities would be adversely affected by these settlements. This 

option is especially reasonable to explore given the new CAFA provisions requiring 

notice to “appropriate” state officials with the settlement of federal class actions. 

218
• Consider ways to link the CAFA notice provisions to state and federal officials to 

actual notice to cross-disability groups with a legal component and to P&A agencies in 

all affected states. 

• Educate the judiciary on the need for vigilance concerning national ADA class 

settlements that would allow public accommodations to avoid or water down ADAAG 

requirements and bind an overly broad class of people with disabilities to a settlement 

that gives many of them inadequate or no relief. 

• Disseminate information about the structured negotiation approach and its possibilities 

for avoiding the inefficiencies of initiating and sustaining a litigious approach to 

enforcing Title III against corporate defendants that operate multiple public 

accommodations. 

219
220
PART 3. Strategies for Improving Public Awareness 

Introduction 

The public awareness component of the study was developed in response to a critical 

need to promote implementation of the ADA by increasing public awareness about the 

law and how to implement it. The prevalence of negative ADA media stories—along 

with misperceptions about people with disabilities that pervade print, television, Internet, 

and other media—underscored the importance of asserting a new message that portrays 

the ADA and people with disabilities in a different, more positive light. 

The public awareness piece of this project involved a comprehensive research and 

planning process that included the following: 

• A review of the state of the art in public information campaigns. 

• An assessment of past ADA public information campaigns. 

• A “situation analysis”—a research-based assessment of the current circumstances that 

relate to public awareness and knowledge of the ADA. 

A detailed discussion of the research and planning process and of its findings is included 

in Appendix E. 

The fourth major piece of the public awareness component of this project was the 

development of a prototype information campaign to promote awareness and 

implementation of the ADA, employing the most up-to-date thinking on how to design 

public relations campaigns that really work. In this context, a “prototype” is a model or a 

template that, with some fine-tuning and external funding, is ready for implementation as 

a full-scale public information campaign. The development of the prototype used stateof-the-art strategic planning tools, along with research on stakeholders, to create a model 

campaign and assemble a toolbox of useful communication products. The prototype can 

also be adapted to other ADA implementation goals and audiences, meaning that the 

research and strategic planning process that was used to develop the prototype can be 

adapted to other target audiences and other messages. 

221
The prototype public information campaign—called “Easy Access”—targets small 

business owners throughout the United States that provide public accommodations. The 

primary messages of the Easy Access campaign are that complying voluntarily with the 

ADA is good business and is easier than people think, while reminding the small business 

owner that “it’s the law” to comply with the ADA. The Easy Access prototype campaign 

includes messages targeted to the businesses themselves as well as to other audiences. 

One such audience includes people with disabilities and their advocates, an audience that 

is critical to achieving the goal of improving access to businesses that serve the public. 

Although some of the messages contained in the prototype have been tried before, the 

prototype offers fresh ideas about how to plan their use strategically and implement a 

results-oriented campaign. 

The backbone of the Easy Access prototype campaign is the strategic plan that leads to 

the development of communication products and distribution tactics that maximize 

impact with minimum resources. Although the communication products are the tangible 

components of the Easy Access prototype campaign, the strategic plan is the invisible 

logic behind decisions about which communication products to develop and how to 

distribute them. The plan identifies the problem that the campaign addresses, summarizes 

research into target audiences through a situation analysis, sets campaign goals, and 

defines audiences. The last step is to design communication products, specify tactics for 

their distribution, and specify how the impact of each communication product will be 

evaluated. 

Numerous communication products were developed, including news releases, public 

service announcements, brochures, and Web-based digital products. For each 

communication product, a “rationale and implementation strategy” was created that 

provides the reasoning behind that particular product, including objectives, target primary 

and secondary audiences, communication strategy for the product, proposed distribution 

strategies, and a plan for evaluating its impact. 

222
I. Rationale and Implementation Strategy for the Easy Access 

Prototype 

The strategic plan for the Easy Access prototype information campaign can be 

summarized as a rationale and implementation strategy for the overall campaign. The 

strategy addresses the following aspects of a comprehensive strategic planning process: 

• Problem statement 

• Situation analysis 

• Goals 

• Audiences 

• Communication and distribution strategies 

• Impact evaluation 

Each of these aspects is described in more detail in the next section. Following the 

summary of the strategic plan for the Easy Access prototype is a description of the model 

communication products that were developed for the prototype information campaign, 

along with seven distribution strategies for getting the Easy Access message to the right 

primary and secondary audiences. 

Problem Statement 

Many small businesses—businesses selling goods/services to the public that meet the 

small business size standards of the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)—are not 

in compliance with the public accommodations mandate of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), despite the legal requirement that all businesses, large and small, 

must comply. 

Situation Analysis 

Americans with disabilities and their advocates rightfully feel that 16 years after the 

ADA went into effect, small businesses should be in compliance with its public 

223
accommodations requirements. In the stakeholder dialogues conducted for this report, 

high—and sometimes unrealistic—expectations for what can be accomplished through a 

public information campaign were in evidence. The analysis of the external situation, 

which included focus groups with small business owners, indicated basic awareness of 

the ADA but limited knowledge on the part of small businesses as to whether the law 

applies to them and exactly how to comply with it. Further research showed that a wealth 

of information is available to help small businesses with compliance. What’s missing is 

the motivation among small business owners to become more knowledgeable about how 

to comply. Gaining knowledge is the first step toward desired behavior; that is, 

compliance. 

To that end, the Easy Access prototype focuses on education as one of the “Three E’s” of 

bringing about social change (education, engineering, and enforcement). For significant 

changes in behavior to occur, education must be combined with engineering and 

enforcement strategies. Part 1 of this report includes recommendations for engineering 

(for example, expedited business licenses for businesses that demonstrate compliance 

with the ADA) and enforcement strategies that, together with education efforts such as 

this prototype information campaign, can lead to more effective ADA implementation. 

The following are key results of the situation analysis: 

• Small businesses, as defined by the SBA, were selected as the primary target of the 

public information campaign, primarily because research showed the likely benefit to 

them of an education effort centered on a public information campaign (see Appendix 

E). The primary goal of the Easy Access campaign was to encourage small business 

owners to comply with ADA access requirements. 

• Extensive research was conducted through stakeholder dialogues and focus groups 

with small business owners to identify barriers to ADA compliance and to assess what 

small business owners know about ADA compliance and what would motivate them to 

comply. 

224
• Most small business owners are aware of the ADA but are largely ignorant of specifics 

or how to access step-by-step assistance in compliance. In addition, many fear 

litigation, making the topic of ADA compliance something they like to avoid. 

• Many small business owners are not motivated to comply because they think the ADA 

does not apply to them, do not realize how much potential new business would 

become available through compliance, and do not recognize the marketing opportunity 

to project a positive image of their businesses through compliance. 

• Many small businesses have not engaged in compliance behaviors, and past behavioral 

change efforts (e.g., in San Francisco and Chicago) have not been successful. 

• Based on the research, the Easy Access prototype was designed to use short, 

motivational messages through multiple communication channels to encourage small 

business owners to access more detailed compliance information; to provide easy 

access to more detailed, existing information; and to use secondary audiences 

(landlords, business associations, architects, people with disabilities and their 

advocates) as message couriers to add credibility and persuasive power to the 

campaign. 

• Anticipating budget constraints when the prototype is actually implemented, principles 

of “guerilla marketing” and “laser targeting” of messages were used throughout the 

research and planning process. Guerilla marketing uses unconventional marketing 

tools and strategies to maximize results using a minimum of resources. This approach 

is ideal for activists who seek to bring about positive social change with limited 

budgets. Guerilla marketing means doing more with less by applying just the right 

kind of pressure in just the right way to bring about desired change. Laser targeting 

means focusing highly resonant messages to narrowly defined target audiences with 

similar characteristics, much like a laser beam. This approach reflects state-of-the-art 

thinking that rejects “flashlight campaigns” that seek to illuminate the so-called 

general public across a wide range of issues. The net effect of flashlight campaigns is 

no effect, much like shining a flashlight at the moon. 

• Research suggests a role for branding in the Easy Access prototype campaign. 

Branding is the process of linking certain perceptions, both cognitive and emotional, 

about a product, organization, or idea with easy-to-remember names and icons. For 

225
example, focus groups with small business owners suggest they do not know how to 

find information they need or how to determine which information is accurate. This 

finding suggests branding as a way to label or identify current, accurate information 

that members of the target audience can rely on to steer them toward compliance and 

greater access. 

• Digital technology has radically increased the channels of communication available 

for message distribution. However, audiences have a finite capacity to access and 

process information. So digital technology is a good news/bad news innovation. The 

good news is that information can be transmitted to geographically dispersed 

audiences at minimal cost. The bad news is that the audience has more control over the 

information it accesses and more to choose from than just the three television 

networks. With digital technology, the challenge is to motivate audiences to actively 

access information provided by the campaign. 

• The primary communication strategy is to emphasize “carrots” (showing key benefits) 

while also mentioning the “stick” (“it’s the law”). Key message points emphasize that 

ADA compliance is good business (increased customer base and positive image 

among consumers) and that compliance is easier than most small business owners 

realize. Small business owners are also reminded that compliance is a federal law that 

applies to them. 

• Following guerilla marketing principles, simple, inexpensive evaluation strategies are 

provided for each communication product. When implemented, these prototype 

evaluation tools should be supplemented by a comprehensive evaluation. 

Goals 

Based on stakeholder dialogues and focus groups with small business owners, four major 

goals were established for the Easy Access public information campaign: (1) to increase 

awareness among small business owners that all businesses must comply with the ADA; 

(2) to increase awareness among small business owners of the number and spending 

power of Americans with disabilities; (3) to increase awareness among small business 

owners of the resources available to them to make ADA compliance easy; and (4) to 

226
increase the number of small business owners who actively seek more information that 

will help them make their businesses ADA-compliant. 

Audiences 

The primary audience for the campaign is small business owners. Important secondary 

audiences include Americans with disabilities, small business associations, commercial 

landlords, and architects, as well as the media, disability advocates, and others specified 

in the rationale and implementation strategy for each communication product. Secondary 

audiences play a key role in distribution of messages targeted at the primary audience. 

Communication and Distribution Strategies 

Communication and distribution strategies for each communication product are spelled 

out in the rationale and implementation strategy for each product. Communication 

strategies outline the underlying logic of the message and how the message will help 

achieve the goals of the campaign. Distribution strategies outline how the communication 

products will be delivered to the target audience. Often, secondary audiences serve as 

couriers for communication products, so that the message has greater impact (e.g., 

mediated communication facilitated by face-to-face communication from a member of a 

secondary audience to a primary audience; for example, an individual with a disability 

hands a brochure promoting Easy Access to a small business owner). 

Impact Evaluation 

For every communication product, a small-scale, cost-effective impact evaluation 

strategy is suggested. If this prototype were to be funded as a full-scale campaign, these 

small-scale evaluations could be supplemented by an overall impact evaluation. In an 

impact evaluation, the public information campaign would be implemented in five major 

target markets; five other markets of comparable size would be included in the evaluation 

as comparison markets. Awareness, knowledge, knowledge-seeking behaviors, opinion, 

and compliance behaviors among small business owners would be measured in target and 

comparison markets before and after the campaign was implemented. Data from the 

227
target and comparison markets would be compared to evaluate the impact of the 

campaign on desired outcomes. 

Communication Products 

The most visible, tangible aspects of a public information campaign are the 

communication products themselves. The Easy Access prototype includes three different 

types of communication products: short motivational messages for small business 

owners, more detailed informational messages for small business owners, and messages 

for secondary audiences that serve as dissemination channels and credible information 

sources. 

Motivational messages are designed to cut through the advertising/information clutter in 

which most small business owners are immersed. The goal of motivational messages is to 

encourage small business owners (and secondary audiences) to seek out more detailed 

information and to direct them to those resources. The Easy Access prototype includes 

five such motivational communication products: 

• Launch news release. The launch news release takes an event of established hard 

news value and provides the first opportunity to put key message points before the 

target audiences. Because the release deals with hard (or breaking) news, newspapers 

and magazines are more likely to use it. The template begins with an endorsement of 

the campaign by the “U.S. Association of Small Businesses.” This endorsement would 

need to be replaced by actual quotes from an actual organization; the rest of the release 

is ready to be used. 

• Feature news release. This feature article highlights a small business testimonial on 

the benefits of compliance. 

• Small business brochure. This product is targeted directly to small businesses. 

• Scripts for audio messages. Scripts for 30-second and 60-second spots are provided. 

These short ads can carry only a little information and so must focus on motivation 

and on providing a gateway to more detailed information, by, for example, providing a 

toll-free phone number or an Internet URL. 

228
• Storyboards for video messages. Scripts are provided with descriptions of video 

shots for both 30- and 60-second videos that can be aired as public service 

announcements (PSAs), paid ads, or downloads or links on the Web, or distributed to 

bloggers and webmasters. 

Informational messages provide detailed information to the target audience, once the 

audience has been sufficiently motivated to access the information. The Easy Access 

prototype includes three such informational communication products: 

• Online FAQs. The FAQ (frequently asked questions) format has become increasingly 

familiar to the general public through the Internet. Many Web sites have FAQs 

prominently displayed on their home page. In public information campaigns, FAQ 

handouts are standard collateral materials in press kits and at meetings. 

• Fact sheet on myths and facts about the ADA. A fact sheet summarizes the most 

salient points in a succinct format. This communication product uses a “myth and fact” 

format adapted from DOJ materials to distill the most common misperceptions among 

small business owners and to provide correct factual information. 

• Access laminated card. This pocket-sized card includes the key campaign messages 

on one side and a very brief checklist of access-related points on the other. This would 

typically be used as a take-away from an ADA-centered meeting or event. 

To further the objectives of the Easy Access campaign, secondary audience messages are 

designed to use these influential stakeholders as couriers of campaign information, 

serving both as a means of distribution and a form of third-party endorsement that 

enhances the credibility of the information provided. The Easy Access prototype includes 

four such secondary audience communication products. 

• Landlord brochure. Landlords share access responsibility with their tenants. The 

brochure seeks to raise the awareness of landlords’ own shared responsibility for 

accessibility and to communicate with tenants about the key messages of the 

campaign. 

229
• Architect flyer. This flyer is designed to motivate architects to communicate with 

their clients regarding the messages of the campaign and is accompanied by the small 

business brochure, which they can share with their clients. 

• Small business association letter and toolkit. This packet is designed to make it easy 

for neighborhood business associations, Rotary Clubs, and so on to conduct an 

informational session at a meeting using a variety of materials. The seven-page packet 

includes a cover letter, a description of package contents, suggestions for how to use 

the materials, a handout that describes basic facts of ADA compliance, and a sample 

meeting flyer. 

• People with disabilities brochure. The brochure is designed to motivate people with 

disabilities and their advocates to communicate with small businesses regarding the 

messages of the campaign. 

Distribution Strategies for Communication Products 

The following are seven distribution strategies for getting the Easy Access message to the 

right primary and secondary audiences. For each distribution strategy, an example from 

the prototype information campaign is provided. 

• News media example. A news release featuring a small business would be targeted to 

business editors and through PR Newswire. Once the article has been published, a 

digital laser image of the article can be transferred onto a plaque with a Good News 

Commendation from the Easy Access campaign that is suitable for permanent display 

at the place of business. A digital version of the article could also be stored on an Easy 

Access Web site in a “Small Business Testimonials” archive that holds high-credibility 

messages about ADA compliance. 

• Bulk distribution example. Secondary audiences will receive copies of the small 

business brochures in bulk through organizations with which they affiliate, as well as 

directly from the Easy Access campaign. 

• Pass-along example. Secondary audiences—such as small business associations, 

community organizations such as Rotary Clubs, architects serving small businesses, 

230
and people with disabilities—will pass along brochures to the primary audience (small 

business owners). 

• Direct mail example. Architects will receive brochures through direct mail. 

• Search engine advertising example. When the search terms “ADA” and “small 

business” are used in an online search (using popular search engines such as Google, 

Yahoo, and MSN), the small business brochure will be supported as a sponsored link 

on the right side of the search display screen. Clicking on the link will display a digital 

version of the brochure, suitable for printing from the screen or downloading as a PDF 

file. Sponsored links for additional search terms will be added as appropriate. 

• iPod download example. Audio and video messages will be recorded and available as 

podcast downloads. Using the podcast distribution format, business associations, 

advocates, and others will be able to download these messages. For example, the 

graphics in the small business brochure will be displayed in the Now Playing box on 

iTunes while an audio version of the brochure is playing. 

• USB thumb drive promotional example. Promotional USB thumb drives, with the 

Easy Access logo and Web address (URL) stamped on the casing, will be given away 

at small business functions. The audio small business brochure might be stored as an 

MP3 file labeled “LISTEN TO ME FIRST!” Clicking on this icon will launch the 

MP3 application on the recipient’s computer. The PowerPoint version of the brochure 

could also be stored on the thumb drive and labeled, “SEE ME FIRST!” 

II. The Easy Access Prototype 

Following is the set of model communication products that were developed for the Easy 

Access, along with the rationale and implementation strategy document created for each 

communication product that provides the reasoning behind that particular product and a 

plan for implementing it. This series of interrelated materials is intended to be used in 

combination to address the goals of the Easy Access public information campaign: While 

each product addresses its own objectives, the different products work to maximum 

benefit when used together. 

231
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 


LIST OF DOCUMENTS

Introduction/Overview

Short Motivational Messages: 

1. Launch News Release/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

2. Feature News Release/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

3. Small Business Brochure/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

4. Scripts for Audio Messages/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

5. Storyboards for Video Messages/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

6. Disability-Friendly Yellow Pages Ad/Rationale and Implementation 

Strategy 

Informational Messages: 

7. The Americans with Disabilities Act: FAQs for Small Businesses/Rationale 

and Implementation Strategy 

8. Myths and Facts about the ADA/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

9. Access Laminated Card/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

Messages for Secondary Audiences: 

10. People with Disabilities Brochure/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

11. Business Association Toolkit/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

12. Landlord Brochure/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

13. Architect Flyer/Rationale and Implementation Strategy 

232
An Introduction to the Easy Access Public Information Campaign Prototype 

A. Introduction/Overview 

PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN STRATEGY 

This overview of the strategic framework for the prototype public information campaign 

summarizes the strategic thinking, data collection, and planning that went into its 

development. In constructing the prototype, a series of communication products were 

developed, including news releases, public service announcements, brochures, and Webbased digital products. For each communication product, a rationale and implementation 

strategy is provided that explains the objectives for the product, a brief analysis of 

research on the target audiences, and the communication/distribution strategy for that 

product. 

As a prototype, this campaign provides a model that is ready to be implemented and that 

can also be adapted to other ADA implementation goals and audiences. 

Problem 

Statement 

Situation 

Analysis 

Many small businesses* are not in compliance with the public 

accommodations mandate of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), despite the legal requirement that all businesses, large 

and small, must comply. 

* Businesses selling goods/services to the public that meet the 

small business size standards of the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

Americans with disabilities and their advocates rightfully feel 

that 16 years after the ADA went into effect, small businesses 

should be in compliance with its public accommodations 

requirements. In the stakeholder dialogues conducted for this 

report, high—and sometimes unrealistic—expectations for what 

can be accomplished through a public information campaign 

were in evidence. The analysis of the external situation, which 

included focus groups with small business owners, indicated 

basic awareness of the ADA but limited knowledge regarding (1) 

whether the ADA applies to them and (2) exactly how to comply. 

Further research showed that a wealth of information is available 

to help small businesses with compliance. What’s missing is the 

motivation among small business owners to become more 

knowledgeable about how to comply. Gaining knowledge is the 

first step toward desired behavior (compliance). 

233
Goals 

Audiences 

Communication 

and 

Distribution 

Strategies 

Based on stakeholder dialogues and focus groups with small 

business owners, four major goals were established for the Easy 

Access public information campaign: 

■ To increase awareness among small business owners that all 

businesses must comply with the ADA. 

■ To increase awareness among small business owners of the 

number and spending power of Americans with disabilities. 

■ To increase awareness among small business owners of the 

resources available to them to make ADA compliance easy. 

■ To increase the number of small business owners who 

actively seek more information that will help them make 

their businesses ADA-compliant. 

The primary audience for the campaign is small business owners. 

Important secondary audiences include Americans with 

disabilities, small business associations, commercial landlords, 

and architects, as well as the media, disability advocates, and 

others specified in the rationale and implementation strategy for 

each communication product. Secondary audiences play a key 

role in distribution of messages targeted at the primary audience. 

Communication and distribution strategies for each 

communication product are spelled out in the rationale and 

implementation strategy for each product. Communication 

strategies outline the underlying logic of the message itself and 

how the message will help achieve the goals of the campaign. 

Distribution strategies outline how the communication products 

will be delivered to the target audience. Often, secondary 

audiences serve as couriers for communication products, so the 

message has a greater impact (e.g., mediated communication 

facilitated by face-to-face communication from a member of a 

secondary audience to a primary audience; for example, a person 

with a disability hands a brochure promoting easy access to a 

small business owner). 

234
Impact For every communication product, a small-scale, cost-effective 

Evaluation impact evaluation strategy is suggested. If this prototype were to be 

funded as a full-scale campaign, these small-scale evaluations could 

be supplemented by an overall impact evaluation. In an impact 

evaluation, the public information campaign would be implemented 

in five major target markets; five other markets of comparable size 

would be included in the evaluation as comparison markets. 

Awareness, knowledge, knowledge-seeking behaviors, opinion, and 

compliance behaviors among small business owners would be 

measured in target and comparison markets before and after 

campaign implementation. Data from the target and comparison 

markets would be compared to evaluate the impact of the campaign 

on the desired outcomes. 

The campaign includes three different types of communication products: 

1. Short motivational messages 

a. Launch news release 

b. Feature news release 

c. Small business brochure 

d. Scripts for 30-second and 60-second audio messages 

e. Video storyboard 

f. Disability-friendly Yellow Pages ad 

2. Informational messages 

a. Online FAQ 

b. Myths and facts 

c. Laminated checklist card 

3. Messages for secondary audiences 

a. Landlord brochure 

b. Architect brochure 

c. Small business association letter and brochure 

d. People with disabilities brochure 

The communication products developed for this prototype campaign are designed as a 

series of interrelated materials intended to be used in combination to address the 

campaign’s goals. While each product addresses its own objectives, the products work to 

maximum benefit when used together. Similarly, the information campaign alone is not 

sufficient to change behavior. For significant changes in behavior to occur, education 

strategies must be combined with engineering and enforcement strategies. This report 

includes recommendations for engineering and enforcement strategies that, together with 

effective education efforts such as this prototype information campaign, can lead to more 

effective ADA implementation. 

235
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

Contact: Mary Flacker 

Public Information Officer 

ADA Easy Access Campaign 

440 Grand Avenue, Suite 500 

Oakland, CA 94610 

510-465-7884 

U.S. Association of Small Businesses Endorses ADA “Easy Access” 

Campaign to Encourage Small Business Compliance 

WASHINGTON, DC—The U.S. Association of Small Businesses announced its 

support today of an information campaign targeted at small businesses that 

encourages compliance with the 1992 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

“Most small business owners know about the ADA,” said John Smith, president 

of the U.S. Association of Small Businesses. “But many small businesses 

assume the law does not apply to them. Other small business owners simply 

don’t know what to do to comply.” 

Regardless of size, all businesses that provide goods and services to the public 

are required to make their businesses accessible to people with disabilities. 

However, government agencies have provided mechanisms for small 

businesses to make compliance as painless as possible. For example, the 

Department of Justice operates a toll-free ADA Information Line at 800-514­

0301, providing technical assistance to small businesses regarding ADA 

compliance. 

236
Although small businesses are required to remove physical barriers that keep 

customers with disabilities away, the changes must be readily achievable, 

meaning that they must be easy to accomplish with little difficulty or expense. 

Also, small businesses can phase in compliance by removing barriers over 

several years. Tax credits and deductions for ADA compliance reduce burdens 

on small businesses. 

In a series of discussions with small business owners, researchers for Berkeley 

Policy Associates (BPA) discovered that many small business owners were 

aware of the ADA but did not know precisely how to comply. The current 

information campaign uses two key messages to draw attention to the ADA and 

increase awareness of specific ways in which small businesses can comply with 

the law. These key messages are that making businesses accessible to people 

with disabilities is good business and that compliance need not be very 

expensive or burdensome. 

The information campaign will be rolled out in 10 major markets, with 10 others 

used for comparison purposes. At the end of the campaign, researchers will 

compare outcomes in markets that received the campaign information with 

outcomes in markets where no new information was provided. 

Dr. Kay Magill of BPA, which designed a prototype of the campaign, compared 

the current campaign to those encouraging seat belt use and forest fire safety. 

“It’s very important for all stakeholders to understand that voluntary compliance 

237
campaigns achieve success in a step-by-step fashion,” said Magill, who has 25 

years of experience evaluating communication programs. “Americans took 

decades to use seat belts conscientiously.” 

“Like any positive social change, you begin at the beginning,” said Magill. “In this 

case, the first step is providing small business owners with helpful, detailed 

information about what steps they can take now to begin complying with the 

ADA. Of course, the long-term goal is to ensure that people with disabilities can 

have full access to all small businesses.” 

Based on research conducted by Berkeley Policy Associates, many small 

business owners are wary of ADA compliance. But that attitude changes when 

business owners learn of the discretionary spending power of people with 

disabilities. According to the Department of Justice, Americans with disabilities 

control $175 billion in discretionary income. “With that kind of consumer 

spending power, providing access is simply good business,” said Magill. 

 “It makes no sense for small businesses to ignore the ADA,” said Smith. 

“People with disabilities are a huge potential market, and compliance really is 

not that difficult. It is the law but, more than that, it makes good business sense.” 

For more information, go to www.ada/easyaccess.com.

1

### 

1

 Not an actual Web site – URL included for illustrative purposes only. 

238
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 


1. LAUNCH NEWS RELEASE 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication Launch news release template: 550–600 words. The quotations in the

Product sample release are for illustration only; they would be replaced with 

actual quotations from a spokesperson from a national association of 

small businesses. The URL www.ada/easyaccess/com also is 

included for illustrative purposes only; it is not an actual Web site. 

The rest of the news release can be used “as is.” 

The launch news release takes an event of established hard news 

value and provides the first opportunity to put key message points 

before the target audiences. Because the release deals with hard 

(breaking) news, newspapers and magazines are more likely to use it. 

Because the news release deals with small businesses, the “pitch” 

letter from the campaign should be directed to the current business 

editors of publications in the target markets. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish three objectives: 

■ To provide the target audience and the media outlets that serve 

that audience with their first introduction to the Easy Access 

campaign. 

■ To motivate small business owners to seek more information 

about how to comply with ADA, by mentioning the discretionary 

spending potential of Americans with disabilities. 

■ To have a credible source (e.g., the Administrator of the U.S. 

Small Business Administration) point out that ADA compliance 

is mandatory and makes good business sense. 

239
Situation Through focus groups with the target population, BPA learned that— 

Analysis 

■ Most small business owners and managers are unclear on their 

specific obligations under ADA to provide access to people with 

disabilities. 

■ Many small business owners were not aware that the ADA 

applied to them, as well as every other small business selling 

goods and services to the public. 

■ Many small business owners are unaware of the discretionary 

spending power of Americans with disabilities. 

Primary Owners of small businesses (defined as any business that sells goods 

Audience and services to the public and meets the small business size standards 

of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 

Secondary Secondary audiences are key stakeholders who may be unaware that 

Audiences small businesses are required to comply with the ADA, need 

encouragement to bring the ADA to the attention of small 

businesses, or have expectations about what the Easy Access 

campaign can accomplish. Secondary audiences include— 

■ People with disabilities 

■ ADA advocates, both individuals and groups 

Communication ■ This communication product seeks to create an initial awareness 

Strategy of the Easy Access campaign. 

■ The goal is to motivate the primary target audience to seek 

additional information from resources on the Web or via the 

telephone. 

■ The strategy combines a big carrot ($175 billion in discretionary 

income) and a small stick (statement from an authority figure that 

ADA compliance is required by law). 

■ Embedded in the message are efforts to educate Americans with 

disabilities and their advocates about the limits of what can be 

accomplished in the short run through public information 

campaigns (i.e., to manage expectations). 

240
Distribution 

Strategy 

Impact 

Evaluation 

■ Online Media Distribution 

News releases will be distributed to online news publications, 

including newsletters for small business associations, industry 

associations, disability advocacy organizations, and so on. 

■ PR Newswire 

News releases will also be distributed via PR Newswire and other 

methods to the current business section editors of print 

newspapers in target markets. 

■ Pass-Along 

Once published in print, the newspaper clippings can be passed 

along to the primary audience via face-to-face interactions. 

■ E-mail Distribution 

Once published online, the article can be forwarded to other 

publications and individuals via download or e-mail. 

■ Use search engine to locate number of sites publishing the news 

release and number of stories or articles that refer to the news 

release on the Internet. 

■ Use a clipping service or contact newspapers in target market to 

determine which/how many published a story based on the news 

release. 

■ Contact a sample of small business owners in the target market to 

determine how many have seen articles based on the news 

release. 

241
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

2. FEATURE NEWS RELEASE 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication Feature news release template: 350 words. Material highlighted in

Product green is customized for each market. The rest of the news release can 

be used “as is.” 

The feature news release is a tactic used to take relatively timeless 

information and give it a “news peg” (i.e., some attribute that makes 

it current and newsworthy). This article takes a human interest angle, 

examining how one local business owner brought his business into 

compliance with ADA requirements. This provides the context for 

communicating additional background information about ADA 

compliance for small businesses. The news release is targeted for the 

business section and is written from a business point of view. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish three objectives: 

■ To localize the issue of ADA compliance by providing a local 

community example of a small business taking steps to make his 

or her business accessible. 

■ To motivate small business owners to seek more information 

about how to comply with ADA by rewarding a local business 

for ADA compliance with free publicity. 

■ To teach small business owners basic facts about ADA and small 

business requirements under ADA. 

Situation Through focus groups with the target population, BPA learned that—

Analysis 

■ Most small business owners and managers were unclear on their 

specific obligations under ADA to provide access to people with 

disabilities. 

■ Compliance projects in San Francisco and Chicago indicated that 

small business owners are not sufficiently motivated to comply 

or to seek information. 

Primary Owners of small businesses (defined as any business that sells goods 

Audience and services to the public and meets the small business size standards 

of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 

242
Secondary 

Audiences 

Communication 

Strategy 

Distribution 

Strategy 

Secondary audiences play a role in identifying a target ADAcompliant business and amplifying the article by passing it along to 

other businesses. Secondary audiences include— 

■ Small business associations 

■ People with disabilities 

■ ADA advocates, both individuals and groups 

■ This communication product seeks to encourage informationseeking behaviors of the primary audience by localizing 

compliance through an example of a small business owner 

complying with the ADA. 

■ The goal is to motivate this audience to seek additional 

information from resources on the Web and elsewhere. 

■ Small business owners with recent ADA compliance would be 

identified in each target market with the help of small business 

associations. 

■ A telephone interview would be used to gather information for 

the local material highlighted in green. 

■ Local Business Editor 

Localized news releases will be distributed to the current 

business section editor of the newspaper in that market. 

■ News Clipping Pass-Along 

People with disabilities and advocates for the ADA may 

distribute copies of the news clipping to other businesses in the 

community to ensure exposure and to “reward” ADA-compliant 

businesses with publicity. 

■ “Good News” Award 

Once the article has been published, a digital laser image of it 

will be transferred onto a plaque with a Good News 

Commendation from the Easy Access campaign. This plaque will 

be suitable for permanent display at the place of business. 

■ Digital Archive 

A digital version of the newspaper clipping will be stored on the 

Easy Access Web site in a section set aside for “Small Business 

Testimonials.” This section of the Web site will serve the dual 

purpose of providing high-credibility message points about ADA 

compliance, where small business owners communicate with 

each other, and of providing ideas for small business promotion 

through ADA compliance. 

243
Impact ■ Contact newspapers in target market to determine which/how 

Evaluation many published a story based on the news release. (A clipping 

service can provide this information for a charge.) 

■ Contact a sample of small business owners in the target market to 

determine how many saw articles based on the news release. 

■ Contact the featured business owner by phone 30 days after the 

news release is published. Ask the owner what kind of reaction 

he or she has received as a result of the article. Ask specifically 

about any reactions from other business owners. 

244
IT’S EASIER THAN YOU INFORMATION – 

THINK AT YOUR FINGERTIPS! AAcccceess

Providing access to your business is not necessarily difficult or expensive. Think about how hard you work already to attract new customers and to provide good service to the customers you have! All you need to do is take the next easy step to get information about how to make sure your business is accessible to people with disabilities. 

As you can see, people with disabilities may be a large untapped market. A wealth of information about the Americans with Disabilities Act has been tailored for small businesses like yours. Go to the Easy Access Web site at: www.ada/easyaccess.com 

for information about— 

■ Evaluating what barriers you may 

need to remove. 

■ Determining what is “readily 

achievable.” 

■ Doing new construction, alterations, 

and additions. 

■ Complying with ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design. 

■ Other access requirements. 

Or contact an ADA specialist at the U.S. Department of Justice by calling 800-514-0301 (voice) or 800-514-0383 (TTY). 

GGOOOODD

BBuussiinn

.. .. .. aann

tthhaa

SMALL 

AND THE AM

DISABILIT

245
CUSTOMERS NEED ACCESS 

People need “a way in” to your business if they are going to become your customers. If your business is in a building that’s difficult to enter, or if you limit some people’s ability to have access to the full range of your products or services, you are literally turning away customers. That’s what happens when your business has barriers to access by people with disabilities. As one business owner said, “You’re leaving money on the table when people with disabilities can’t get into your store.” 

RAMP UP YOUR BUSINESS 

More than 50 million Americans – almost one in five – told the U.S. Census in 2000 that they have a disability. That means that there are millions of potential customers for businesses that provide access to people with disabilities. Not counting older Americans, who also need access to businesses, people with disabilities are estimated to have about $175 billion in discretionary income! Invest in Access. With numbers like these, 

it’s clear that you’re making a good investment when you make sure your business is accessible to people with disabilities. Plus, making your business disability-friendly makes it user-friendly to everyone. 

ACCESS I

Yes, it’s the law, and you own or operate a the public, Title III of tDisabilities Act (ADA) against people with dpublic accommodatiofacilities, and it appliebusiness currently sedisabilities or not. The ADA says you mreadily achievable moto remove barriers anpeople with disabilitiethan a building code, than just ramps and drequired by the ADA your customers to intyour business. 

246
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

3. SMALL BUSINESS BROCHURE 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleee&&& IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication Single-sheet 8.5” X 11” brochure with two folds, printed front and

Product back, with graphics. This product provides a brief treatment of the 

message points included in the campaign and is used as collateral 

material along with other pieces of the campaign. The brochure also 

directs the reader to more detailed sources of information. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish four objectives: 

■ To increase awareness among small business owners of the 

number and spending power of Americans with disabilities. 

■ To increase awareness among small business owners of the 

resources available to them that make ADA compliance easy. 

■ To increase awareness among small business owners that all 

businesses must comply with the ADA. 

■ To increase the number of small business owners who actively 

seek more information that will help them make their businesses 

ADA-compliant. 

Situation Through a series of focus groups with the target population, BPA

Analysis learned that— 

■ Most small business owners and managers have a rudimentary 

awareness of ADA. 

■ However, most were unclear as to their specific obligations under 

ADA to provide access to people with disabilities. 

■ Further, focus groups indicated that participants needed more 

information about how exactly to comply; they needed how-to 

guidance. 

■ Materials that have already been developed by SBA and DOJ are 

seen as useful and appropriate, but most business owners don’t yet 

know of their existence. 

Primary Owners of small businesses (defined as any business that sells goods

Audience and services to the public and meets the small business size standards 

of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 

247
Secondary Secondary audiences for this product are identified as potential 

Audiences channels of distribution of brochures to the primary audience. The 

secondary audiences also will learn useful facts about the ADA and its 

application to small businesses. 

■ Small business associations 

■ Architects serving small business clientele 

■ People with disabilities 

Communication The brochure provides a communication vehicle to facilitate face-toStrategy face communication between secondary and primary audiences. As a 

printed document capable of communicating moderately dense 

information, the brochure can educate as well as motivate audience 

members to seek more information. 

The brochure can also be used as part of an online package of 

materials, not only visually pleasing online, but also easy to download 

and distribute in printed form. 

The communication strategy executed in this product provides 

rudimentary information about the obligations of small businesses 

under ADA (500 words). The brochure also motivates business owners 

to seek additional information from resources on the Web. 

Distribution ■ Pass along

Strategy Secondary audiences such as small business associations, 

community organizations such as Rotary Clubs, architects serving 

small businesses, and people with disabilities will pass along 

brochures to the primary audience (small business owners). 

■ Bulk Distribution 

Secondary audiences will receive copies of the brochures in bulk 

through organizations with which they affiliate, as well as directly 

from the Easy Access campaign. 

■ Direct Mail 

Small business owners and managers will receive brochures 

through direct mail. 

■ Easy Access Web Download 

A digital version of the small business brochure will be stored as a 

PDF file on the Easy Access Web site, suitable for downloading. 

In addition, a PowerPoint version of the brochure can be 

downloaded from the Web site. These digital versions of the 

brochure will have the same full graphical support as the paper 

brochure. 

248
Distribution 

Strategy

(cont’d) 

Impact 

Evaluation 

■ Easy Access Web Download 

A digital version of the small business brochure will be stored as a 

PDF file on the Easy Access Web site, suitable for downloading. 

In addition, a PowerPoint version of the brochure can be 

downloaded from the Web site. These digital versions of the 

brochure will have the same full graphical support as the paper 

brochure. 

■ Search Engine Advertising 

When the search terms “ADA” and “small business” are used in an 

online search (using popular search engines such as Google, 

Yahoo, or MSN), the small business brochure will be supported as 

a sponsored link on the right side of the search display screen. 

Clicking on the link will display a digital version of the brochure, 

suitable for printing from the screen or downloading as a PDF file. 

Sponsored links for additional search terms will be added as 

appropriate. 

■ iPod Downloads 

An audio version of the small business brochure will be recorded 

and available as an iPod download. Using Apple’s iTunes 

distribution system, small business owners will be able to 

download the audio brochure to play while jogging, walking, and 

so forth, as well as to listen to while driving (using an interface 

device to connect the iPod to the car stereo). The graphics in the 

small business brochure will be displayed in the “Now Playing” 

box on iTunes while the audio file is playing. 

■ USB Thumb Drive Promotionals 

Promotional USB thumb drives, with the Easy Access logo and 

URL stamped on the casing, will be given away at small business 

functions. The audio brochure will be stored as MP3 files labeled 

as “LISTEN TO ME FIRST!” Clicking on this icon will launch the 

MP3 application on the recipient’s computer. The PowerPoint 

version of the brochure will also be stored on the thumb drive and 

labeled “SEE ME FIRST!” 

The hotlink (URL) on the brochure could be specific to the brochure. 

A person accessing the Web site would first go to a Web page that 

simply counts the hits and click-throughs. 

This would provide a behavioral measure of the brochure’s 

effectiveness at motivating small business owners and managers to 

seek more information. 

249
4. SCRIPTS FOR AUDIO MESSAGES 

ADA Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

30-second Audio Message 

A. Two Shop Owners Discuss ADA 

SFX: GENERIC BUSINESS SHOP DOOR CHIME/BUZZER (03 

SECONDS) 

MS. BRODY: Good morning, Mr. Latch. Maria’s watching my shop. Heard you 

remodeled. 

MR. LATCH: Nothing major. Just a ramp to replace that front step. 

MS. BRODY: Must have cost a bundle. 

MR. LATCH: No, I went to a Web site for small businesses. It helps us comply with 

the Americans with Disabilities Act. Didn’t cost much. 

MS. BRODY: Still, it IS an expense... 

MR. LATCH: No, it’s an investment. People with disabilities have 175 BILLION 

dollars in discretionary income to spend. 

MS. BRODY: I never see any of that! 

MR. LATCH: Maybe they can’t get past your door. You know, access is good 

business. 

ANNCR: For more information, go to www–DOT–ada–SLASH–easyaccess– 

DOT–com. 

250
ADA Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

60-second Audio Message 

B. Two Shop Owners Discuss ADA 

SFX: GENERIC BUSINESS SHOP DOOR CHIME/BUZZER (03 

SECONDS) 

MS. BRODY: Good morning, Mr. Latch. I’ve got Maria watching the shop. Thought 

I’d come down and see what you’ve been up to. Heard you were 

remodeling. 

MR. LATCH: Yup. Nothing major. Just a ramp in front to replace that step. And I 

rearranged some of the display tables. 

MS. BRODY: Nice! It feels roomier. But you must have spent a bundle. 

MR. LATCH: Not really. I got all the ideas off the Internet. There’s a Web site for 

small businesses that helps you comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. 

MS. BRODY: Oh boy! Now you’re making me nervous... 

MR. LATCH: You shouldn’t be. The way the law works, you can make your 

business more accessible in affordable steps. 

MS. BRODY: Still, it’s an expense... 

MR. LATCH: I think of it as an investment – in new customers. Did you know that 

people with disabilities have 175 BILLION dollars in discretionary 

spending? 

MS. BRODY: I didn’t know that. How come I never see any of that spending power 

in my shop? 

MR. LATCH: Maybe they can’t get past your door. You know, access is good 

business. And it’s a lot easier than you think. 

ANNCR: Any business that sells goods and services to the public must 

comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. For more 

information, go to www–DOT–ada–SLASH–easyaccess–DOT–com. 

251
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication 30-second and 60-second audio messages for radio broadcasting,

Product Web links, and Internet downloads and podcasts. 

The audio message is the mainstay of many not-for-profit public 

information campaigns. Often aired as a free PSA (public service 

announcement) by radio stations and multimedia communication 

vehicles, these short ads can carry little information and so must 

focus on motivation and on providing a gateway to more detailed 

information, often on another medium (e.g., radio announcements 

that provide a toll-free phone number or an Internet URL). 

These audio messages can also be used as paid ads, which offers the 

sponsoring organization control over when the messages are aired 

(on radio) or how they are presented as downloads or links (on the 

Web). 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish two objectives: 

■ To motivate small business owners to seek more information 

about ADA compliance by appealing to their desire to invest in 

attracting new customers. 

■ To provide access to more detailed how-to information via the 

Internet. 

Situation Through focus groups with the target population, BPA learned that—

Analysis 

■ Most small business owners and managers were unclear on their 

specific obligations under the ADA. 

■ Compliance projects in San Francisco and Chicago indicated that 

small business owners are not sufficiently motivated to comply, 

or to seek information. 

■ Focus groups indicated that small business owners are responsive 

to the notion that compliance is an investment in attracting new 

customers, not a cost. 

252
Primary Owners of small businesses (defined as any business that sells goods 

Audience and services to the public and meets the small business size standards 

of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 

Secondary Secondary audiences play a role in identifying a target ADAAudiences compliant business and amplifying the communication product by 

passing it along to other businesses. These audiences include— 

■ Advertising and public affairs staff at broadcast, cablecast, and 

satellite radio stations that serve selected markets. 

■ People with disabilities. 

■ ADA advocates, both individuals and groups. 

Communication ■ This communication product seeks to encourage informationStrategy seeking behaviors of the primary audience by positioning ADA 

compliance as an investment rather than an expense. 

■ The goal is to motivate this audience to seek additional 

information, especially from resources on the Web. 

■ By casting the audio message as a dialog between two shop 

owners, message resistance is reduced because business owners 

are not being lectured to. 

■ The 60-second audio message acknowledges that ADA 

compliance is a topic that makes small business owners nervous, 

then reduces those concerns by indicating how easy it is to 

comply with the ADA. 

■ Both the 30-second and 60-second audio messages would air in 

the same markets. The 30-second spot is more terse and 

underscores points that listeners learn from the longer audio 

message. 

■ Small businesses will not be the only ones that hear the radio 

and/or podcast messages. People with disabilities and their 

advocates also will hear the messages, which communicate that 

efforts are underway to improve access to small businesses for 

people with disabilities. This will reinforce other efforts to bring 

small businesses into compliance. 

■ The general public will also hear the messages, which will serve 

to raise awareness about public accommodation issues under the 

ADA and about the importance of public access to all places of 

business, small or large. 

253
Distribution 

Strategy 

Impact 

Evaluation 

■ Radio 

The 60-second and 30-second audio messages will be delivered 

to the advertising and public affairs staff at broadcast, cablecast, 

and satellite radio stations that serve the target markets; 

advertising or sponsorship time will be purchased for news and 

talk shows with high concentrations of business listeners, such as 

Marketplace or Tech Nation on NPR; airtime during these and 

similar programs will be requested for PSAs. 

■ Easy Access Web Downloads 

The 30-second and 60-second audio messages will be available 

as digitally downloadable files on the Easy Access Web site, for 

playback on computers, iPods, and other personal playback 

devices. 

■ iPod Downloads 

Both the 30-second and 60-second audio messages will be 

available as iPod downloads. Using Apple’s iTunes distribution 

system, small business owners will be able to download the 

messages for playback on iTunes or iPods. 

■ USB Thumb Drive Promotionals 

Promotional USB thumb drives, with the Easy Access logo and 

URL stamped on the casing, will be given away at small business 

functions and as “freebies” at the front desk of small business 

association offices. Both audio messages will be stored as an 

MP3 file labeled as “LISTEN TO ME FIRST.” Clicking on this 

icon will launch the MP3 application on the recipient’s computer. 

Without a survey of small business owners in the target markets, 

impact evaluations are difficult to achieve for this communication 

product. Several process measures are possible that look at the 

necessary conditions for impact, such as successfully distributing the 

message. However, measuring the process of message dissemination 

is not the same as measuring the final impact of the campaign. 

Regarding downloads from the proposed campaign Web site, a 

simple counter on the Web site could keep a running tally of the 

number of downloads occurring over designated time frames. 

Regarding over-the-air broadcasting of the audio messages, whether 

as paid advertising or PSAs, evaluators from the campaign can 

contact radio stations in the target markets to determine how often 

the messages ran. This information can be coupled with secondary 

research from the rating services to estimate how many potential 

audience members were reached by the messages. 

254
5. STORYBOARDS FOR VIDEO MESSAGES 

ADA Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

30-second Video Message 

VVViiidddeeeoooSSStttooorrryyybbboooaaarrrddd::: AAAcccccceeessssssiiibbbllleeeSSShhhoooppppppiiinnnggg

SEQUENCE: Series of scenes of people going by several stores. A variety of people go in and out of the 

one store that is accessible, in some cases going past it and then going back to it when they realize that it 

is accessible. Everyone goes past the stores that are not clearly accessible. Some sample photos are 

provided. The shots and production elements line up as follows: 

AUDIO DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO DIAGRAM/PHOTO 

Music: Upbeat 

instrumental music 

SFX: Street noise 

(low volume) 

Narration: None 

Music: Upbeat 

instrumental music 

SFX: None 

Narration: “Do ALL of 

your customers have 

access to your 

business?” 

Music: Upbeat 

instrumental music 

SFX: Street noise 

(low volume) 

Narration: None 

Music: Low volume 

SFX: None 

Narration: “You’re losing 

money if they don’t.” 

Opening shot: Long 

shot of 3–4 storefronts, 

all with attractive 

window displays. 

1 

Zoom in for medium 

shot of store in center, 

show accessible 

entrance and other 

access features. 

Zoom out for wide shot 

of storefronts. People 

move in and out of 

frame, passing by the 

stores. 

2 

3 

People passing by take 

note of inaccessible 4 

entrance. 

PHOTO 

255
AUDIO 

Music: Low volume 

SFX: None 

Narration: “Access is 

good business.” 

Music: Low volume 

SFX: None 

Narration: “And the ADA 

– the Americans with 

Disabilities Act – says 

that any business that 

sells goods and 

services to the public 

must provide access to 

people with disabilities.” 

Music: Low volume

SFX: None 

Narration: “Access IS 

good business.” 

Music: Low volume

SFX: None 

Narration: “And it’s a lot

easier than you think. 

For more information, 

go to www–DOT–ada–

SLASH–easyaccess–

DOT–com.” 

DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO 

A variety of people go in 

and out of the one store 

that is accessible. For 

example, a person in a 

wheelchair goes past 

store, glances at store, 

turns back to store, 

looks at the ramp, goes 

up the ramp and into the 

store. 

Camera follows variety 

of people in and out of 

the accessible store 

(parents with strollers, 

more people with 

disabilities, etc.). 

5 

6 

Close-up of storefront 

with accessible 

entrance. 

7 

Closing shot. 8 

DIAGRAM/PHOTO 

PHOTO 

CAPTION: 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

**THE ADA** 

PHOTO 

Access is good 

business...and easier than 

you think. 

www.ada/easyaccess.com 

256
ADA Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

60-second Video Message 

VVViiidddeeeoooSSStttooorrryyybbboooaaarrrddd::: AAAcccccceeessssssiiibbbllleeeSSShhhoooppppppiiinnnggg

SEQUENCE: Series of scenes showing people going in and out of different stores that are accessible, in 

some cases passing by stores that do not appear to be accessible, or backing up to go into a store when 

they first pass it by and then realize that it is accessible. Some sample photos are provided. The shots 

and production elements line up as follows: 

AUDIO DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO DIAGRAM/PHOTO 

Music: Upbeat 

instrumental music 

SFX: Street noise 

(low volume) 

Narration: None 

Music: Upbeat 

instrumental music 

SFX: None 

Narration: “Do ALL of 

your customers have 

access to your 

business?” 

Music: Upbeat 

instrumental music 

SFX: Street noise 

(low volume) 

Narration: None 

Music: Upbeat 

instrumental music 

SFX: Street noise 

(low volume) 

Narration: None 

Opening shot: Long 

shot of 3–4 storefronts, 1 all with attractive 

window displays. 

Zoom in for medium 

shot of store in center, 

show accessible 2 

entrance and other 

access features. 

Zoom out for wide shot 

of storefronts. People 

move in and out of 3 

frame, passing by the 

stores. 

People passing by take 

note of accessible 4 

entrance. 

257
AUDIO DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO DIAGRAM/PHOTO 

Music: Low volume 

SFX: None 

Narration: “You’re losing 

money if they don’t.” 

Music: Low volume 

SFX: None 

Narration: “Access is 

good business.” 

Music: Low volume 

SFX: None 

Narration: “And the ADA 

– the Americans with 

Disabilities Act – says 

that any business that 

sells goods and 

services to the public 

must provide access to 

people with disabilities.” 

Music: Music comes up 

SFX: None 

Narration: None 

Music: Upbeat 

instrumental music 

SFX: None 

Narration: None 

People passing by take 

note of inaccessible 5 

entrance. 

Person in a wheelchair 

goes past store, glances 

at store, turns back to 

store, looks at the ramp, 6 

goes up the ramp and 

into the store. 

Camera follows variety 

of people in and out of 

different stores (people 7 

with disabilities, parents 

with strollers, etc.). 

Person using a cane 

walks out of the store 

slowly (path is clear for 8 

person with visual 

disability). 

Person with a mobility 

disability goes up a 9 

ramp and into a store. 

PHOTO 

PHOTO 

CAPTION: 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

**THE ADA** 

PHOTO 

258
AUDIO DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO DIAGRAM/PHOTO 

Music: Upbeat 

instrumental music 

SFX: None 

Narration: None 

Music: Fade to low 

volume 

SFX: None 

Narration: “Access 

under the ADA? Think 

of it as an investment – 

in new customers.” 

Music: Low volume

SFX: None 

Narration: None 

Music: Low volume

SFX: None 

Narration: “Access IS 

good business.” 

Music: Low volume

SFX: None 

Narration: “And it’s a lot

easier than you think. 

For more information, 

go to www–DOT–ada–

SLASH–easyaccess–

DOT–com.” 

Person in a wheelchair 

is in a store where 

aisles are wide enough 

to maneuver. 

10 

Transportation to hotel. 11 

Family entering hotel. 12 

Close-up of storefront 

with accessible 

entrance. 

13 

Closing shot. 14 

PHOTO 

Access is good 

business...and easier than 

you think. 

www.ada/easyaccess.com 

259
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication 30-second and 60-second video messages for television broadcasting,

Product Web links, and Internet downloads and podcasts. 

Video messages are often aired as free PSAs (public service 

announcements) on television stations and multimedia 

communication vehicles. Video spots can also be used as paid ads, 

which offers the sponsoring organization control over when the 

messages are aired (on television) or how they are presented as 

downloads or links (on the Web). The video messages can also be 

distributed to bloggers and webmasters, particularly those in the 

disability community, for use as links or downloads. 

Similar to messages produced for audio distribution, these short 

video messages focus on motivation and provide a gateway to more 

detailed information, often on another medium (e.g., television ads 

that provide a toll-free phone number or an Internet URL). However, 

video messages are far more expensive than audio messages to 

produce and, thus, are far less commonly used in not-for-profit 

public information campaigns. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish three objectives: 

■ To motivate small business owners to seek more information 

about ADA compliance by appealing to their desire to invest in 

attracting new customers. 

■ To provide access to how-to information via the Internet. 

■ To have a broader reach that includes secondary audiences. 

Situation Through focus groups and Stakeholder Dialogues, BPA learned

Analysis that— 

■ Most small business owners were unclear as to their specific 

obligations under ADA to provide access to people with 

disabilities. 

■ Small business owners are not sufficiently motivated to comply, 

or to seek information. 

■ Focus groups indicated that small businesses respond to the idea 

that ADA compliance is an investment, not a cost. 

260
Primary Owners of small businesses (defined as any business that sells goods 

Audience and services to the public and meets the small business size standards 

of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 

Secondary Secondary audiences play a role in identifying a target ADAAudiences compliant business and amplifying the communication product by 

passing it along to other businesses. These audiences include— 

■ Advertising and public affairs staff at broadcast, cablecast, and 

satellite television stations that serve selected markets. 

■ Bloggers and webmasters who provide links and/or air paid 

advertisements and PSAs. 

■ People with disabilities. 

■ ADA advocates, both individuals and groups. 

Communication ■ Showing customers of all types, with and without visible 

Strategy disabilities, using a store’s accessible entrance provides a strong 

visual message that “access is good business.” 

■ Another message that is communicated visually is that “access is 

for everyone.” 

■ Both the 30-second message and the 60-second message would 

air in the same markets. 

■ This communication product seeks to encourage informationseeking behaviors of the primary audience by positioning ADA 

compliance as an investment in bringing in customers, similar to 

an attractive window display. 

■ The goal is to motivate this audience to seek additional 

information, especially from resources on the Web. 

■ Small businesses will not be the only ones the messages will 

reach. People with disabilities and their advocates will also see 

the messages, which communicate that efforts are under way to 

improve access to small businesses for people with disabilities. 

This will reinforce other efforts to bring small businesses into 

compliance. 

■ The general public will also see the messages, which will serve to 

raise awareness about public accommodation issues under the 

ADA and the importance of public access to all places of 

business, small or large. 

261
Distribution 

Strategy 

Impact 

Evaluation 

■ Local Television Stations 

The video messages will be delivered to the advertising and 

public affairs staff at broadcast, cable, and satellite stations that 

serve the target markets; advertising or sponsorship time will be 

purchased for news and talk shows with high concentrations of 

business viewers, such as CNN, FOX, and other network 

programs on business and financial matters; airtime during these 

and similar programs will be requested for PSAs. 

■ Easy Access Web Downloads 

The video messages will be available as digital downloadable 

files on the Easy Access Web site for playback on computers, 

iPods, and other personal playback devices. 

■ iPod Downloads 

The video messages will be available as an iPod download. 

Using Apple’s iTunes distribution system, small business owners 

will be able to download the video messages to play on iTunes. 

■ Other Digital Outlets 

The video messages will also be made available to bloggers, 

webmasters, and others in the disability community as digital 

downloadable files. 

■ USB Thumb Drive Promotionals 

Promotional USB thumb drives, with the Easy Access logo and 

URL stamped on the casing, will be given away at small business 

functions. The video messages will be stored in RAM and WMV 

formats on the thumb drives. They will be labeled “SEE ME 

FIRST!” 

Without a survey of small business owners in the target markets, 

impact evaluations are difficult to achieve for this communication 

product. Several process measures are possible that look at the 

necessary conditions for impact, such as successfully distributing the 

message. However, measuring the message dissemination process is 

not the same as measuring the campaign’s impact. 

Regarding downloads from the proposed campaign Web site, a 

simple counter on the Web site could keep a running tally of the 

number of downloads occurring over designated time frames. 

Downloads from other sites could be tallied via the click-throughs. 

Regarding over-the-air broadcasting of the messages, whether as 

paid advertising or PSAs, evaluators from the campaign can contact 

broadcast and cable stations in the target markets to determine how 

often the messages ran. This information can be coupled with 

secondary research from the rating services to estimate how many 

potential audience members were reached. 

262
i -

6. DISABILITY-FRIENDLY YELLOW PAGES AD 

CCC... AAAdddvvveeerrrtttiiissseee iinnn ttthhheeeDDDiiisssaaabbbiiillliiitttyyy--FFFrrriiieeennndddlllyyyYYYeeellllllooowwwPPPaaagggeeesss!!!

What Are the Disability-Friendly 

Yellow Pages? 

The Disability-Friendly Yellow Pages is a service 

designed to help businesses access the growing 

market of consumers with disabilities. It is 

designed as an online information service for 

people with disabilities and their families, friends, 

or caregivers to help people locate businesses 

near them that are disability-friendly or barrierfree. The online service is searchable by 

keyword, type of business, location, type of 

product or service, and special features. 

What Is a Disability-Friendly 

Business? 

Before you decide whether to advertise your 

business in the Disability-Friendly Yellow Pages, 

consider what it means to be disability-friendly. It 

means that you have made and continue to make 

efforts to make your business and services 

accessible to individuals with disabilities. 

■ Can a person with a disability park, 

approach, and enter your business? 

■ Once inside, can customers with

disabilities access your goods and 

services? 

■ If public restrooms are available, are they 

accessible to customers with disabilities? 

■ Can you and your customers with 

disabilities communicate with each other? 

Why Advertise in the DisabilityFriendly Yellow Pages? 

More than 50 million Americans – almost one in 

five – told the U.S. Census in 2000 that they have 

a disability. That means millions of potential 

customers for businesses that are accessible to 

people with disabilities. Not counting older 

Americans, people with disabilities are estimated 

to have about $175 billion in discretionary 

income. If you want to reach this market, we can 

help. 

How Does a Business Get 

Listed? 

You are encouraged to assess whether you 

consider your business to be disability-friendly. 

(See How Disability-Friendly Is Your Business?) 

The choice to advertise is up to you. The service 

does not certify that businesses are barrier-free, 

but it does provide an opportunity for consumers 

to submit ratings and write reviews of their service 

experience (such as the customer rating system 

used by Amazon.com). To get a listing, go to 

www.disabilityyellow.com. 

How Can My Business Become 

More Disability-Friendly? 

There’s a wealth of information available about 

accessibility and the Americans with Disabilities 

Act, tailored to businesses that provide goods and 

services to the public. To view or download the 

brochure “Small Business and the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA)” or to find a variety of other 

easy-to-use information, go to 

www.ada/easyaccess.com. 

263
HHooww DDiissaabbiilliittyy--FFrri

ieennddllyy IIss YYoouurr BBuussiinneessss??

1. Can a person with a disability park, approach, and enter your 

business? 

• Is there a route of travel that does not require stairs? 

• Is route at least 36” wide and free from protruding objects blocking the path? 

• If ramps are required to approach or enter your business, are they— 

o No steeper than a 1:12 slope? 

o At least 36” wide between railings or curbs? 

o Covered in a nonslip material? 

o Equipped with a landing (flat space) at the top and bottom of the ramp? 

• Is adequate and appropriate accessible parking available? 

o Are there enough spaces (at least one space, even in small lots)? 

o Are spaces marked with a visible sign, without steep cross-slope, and the access aisles clearly 

marked? 

o Are the spaces near an accessible entrance, with an accessible path to that entrance? 

• Are exterior doors free from barriers? 

o When opened at a 90-degree angle, do entry doors provide for a minimum 32” clear opening? 

o Is door hardware operable with a “closed fist,” or without grasping or turning? 

o Is the threshold no more than 1⁄4” high (if beveled, 3⁄4”)? 

o Can the entrance door be opened without too much force? 

2. Do customers with disabilities have access to your goods and 

services? 

• Are circulation routes or aisles free from barriers? Do display racks allow for turning space for 

people who use wheelchairs (60” or “T-shaped”)? 

• Is at least a portion of the sales counter no more than 36” tall? 

• Is the approach to the sales counter clear? 

3. If public restrooms are available, are they accessible to customers 

with disabilities? 

• Are all restrooms accessible, or is there signage to direct people to accessible restrooms? 

• Do restroom doors provide 32” clear opening? 

• Is the path to the restrooms free of barriers? 

• Are faucet controls and soap and towel dispensers within reach? 

4. Can customers with disabilities communicate with you? • Do you have a TDD so customers who are deaf or hard of hearing can call you? If not, are you 

familiar with using the telephone relay service? 

• Do you keep paper and pencil handy for writing things down? 

• Do employees have a helpful and positive attitude toward serving customers? 

264
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication Single-sheet front and back mailing insert. Also an online 

Product advertisement. (The Yellow Pages itself is an online product.) 

This product is modeled after other specialized Yellow Pages such as 

the Hispanic Yellow Pages and the Asian Yellow Pages. The ad is 

designed to encourage business owners to consider how disabilityfriendly or barrier-free they are and to motivate them to advertise to 

the disability consumer market. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish four objectives: 

■ To increase awareness among small business owners of the 

number and spending power of Americans with disabilities. 

■ To increase awareness among small business owners of the key 

elements of accessibility under the ADA. 

■ To increase awareness among small business owners of the 

resources available to them to make ADA compliance easy. 

■ To motivate small business owners and operators to increase their 

accessibility to customers with disabilities. 

Situation Through a series of focus groups with the target population, BPA

Analysis learned that— 

■ Most small business owners and managers have a rudimentary 

awareness of ADA but are unclear on their specific obligations 

under ADA to provide access to people with disabilities. 

■ The obligation to make businesses accessible to people with 

disabilities is viewed in a positive light by small business owners 

when seen from the perspective of marketing to a new customer 

base. 

Primary Owners of small businesses (defined as any business that sells goods

Audience and services to the public and meets the small business size standards 

of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 

265
Secondary 

Audiences 

Communication 

Strategy 

Distribution 

Strategy 

Impact

Evaluation 

The audience of people with disabilities is an essential target for the 

Yellow Pages, as they are the end user. (Additional marketing 

materials would be developed to target people with disabilities as the 

prime user of the online service.) 

Small business associations are a secondary audience that would assist 

in disseminating this communication product to the businesses they 

serve. 

The ad encourages businesses to consider the value of the disability 

consumer market, consider how barrier-free their businesses are, and 

consider reaching people with disabilities to be a marketing effort just 

like reaching any other market segment. Using a familiar marketing 

tool like the Yellow Pages brings the concept of accessibility home by 

incorporating it into business owners’ familiar marketing territory, 

rather than treating ADA compliance as some separate, scary effort 

outside the realm of everyday experience. 

The primary distribution mechanism would be as a mailing insert for 

inclusion in commercial telephone bills. 

The ad would also be posted on phone company Web sites, small 

business and industry association Web sites, shopping sites and other 

sites that small business owners are likely to frequent, as well as being 

included on the Easy Access campaign Web site. 

The key measure of impact would be the number of businesses that 

advertise through the Yellow Pages. An intermediate outcome would 

be the number of hits on the Yellow Pages ad on the Easy Access Web 

site. 

266
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

7. THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: FAQS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES 

What is the Americans with Disabilities Act? 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990, signed into law by President George H. 

W. Bush. The ADA is a civil rights law for people with disabilities; it is intended to break down barriers to 

their leading the full, productive lives that all Americans are entitled to, and to enable society to benefit 

from their skills and talents. 

Who are Americans with disabilities? 

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, more than 50 million Americans reported that they had disabilities. 

That translates to almost one in five people in this country. In addition, AARP says that 4 million 

Americans turn 50 each year and become more likely to experience age-related changes in their hearing, 

vision, mobility, and overall physical condition that they may not define as disabilities. That’s a lot of 

people who shop, work, and live in our communities who might face barriers that could limit their access. 

Not counting older Americans, people with disabilities are estimated to have about $175 billion in 

discretionary income, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. 

What does the ADA cover? 

The ADA has different sections (titles) that prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities in 

several specific areas, including public accommodations, public services, employment, transportation, 

and telecommunications. 

I own a small business that’s been around since around 1980. Does the ADA apply to me? 

Yes, if you own or operate a business that serves the public. Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA) prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in all places of public accommodation and 

commercial facilities, and it applies whether your business currently serves customers with disabilities or 

not. The ADA applies to more than just ramps and doors; it’s about enabling your customers to interact 

with all aspects of your business. 

267
What does “public accommodation” mean? 

Under the ADA, “public accommodations” are facilities and establishments that serve the public. A wide 

range of business are considered to be public accommodations, including restaurants, hotels and other 

places of lodging, medical offices, stores, and places for exercise, recreation, or entertainment. 

Will I have to spend a lot of money to do this? 

No, the law only requires businesses to do what is “readily achievable.” This means you need only do 

what is “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” The law 

allows businesses to determine on a case-by-case basis what steps they will take to comply, based on 

their particular circumstances and available resources. This might include things like ramping a few steps 

or installing grab bars where only routine reinforcement of the wall is required. Where adjustments are not 

readily achievable, you can use alternatives such as helping a customer reach articles from inaccessible 

shelves, home delivery of groceries, or coming to the door to receive or return dry cleaning. Similarly, you 

can read information to your customers instead of Brailling menus or price tags, and you can 

communicate with your customers using a pen and notepad instead of hiring a sign language interpreter. 

Are there any tax breaks for money I spend to make my business accessible? 

A tax credit under Section 44 of the Internal Revenue Code is available to eligible small businesses; it 

covers a variety of ADA-related expenditures, including removal of architectural barriers and making 

alterations to comply with the applicable accessibility standards. (The credit cannot be used for new 

construction, only modifications of existing facilities.) A tax deduction is available under Section 190 of the 

Internal Revenue Code for the removal of architectural or transportation barriers to comply with applicable 

accessibility standards. 

Can I get fined or sued if my business does not comply? 

There is no current system for fining businesses that do not comply with the law. However, you could be 

sued if you discriminate against a person with a disability by failing to make your business accessible, 

and enforcement actions by the U.S. Department of Justice can involve civil penalties. 

Where can I find more information? 

For more information about how businesses can comply with the ADA and reach this nearly untapped 

market of people with disabilities, visit the Easy Access Web site at: www.ada/easyaccess.com.

 2 Or call 

the U.S. Department of Justice’s toll-free ADA Information Line: 800-514-0301 (voice) or 800-514-0383 

(TTY). 

2

 Not an actual Web site – URL included for illustrative purposes only. 

268
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication Two-page fact sheet on the ADA, organized in question-and-answer

Product format. 

The FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) format has become 

increasingly familiar to the general public through the Internet. Many 

Web sites have FAQs prominently displayed on their home page. In 

public information campaigns, FAQ handouts are standard collateral 

materials in press kits, meetings, and so on. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish three objectives: 

■ To provide small business owners with basic facts about ADA as 

it applies to small businesses. 

■ To provide small business owners with basic facts about the size 

of the population of people with disabilities who cannot do 

business with inaccessible businesses. 

■ To provide small business owners with access to a wide range of 

more detailed material for the Easy Access campaign Web site. 

Situation Through a series of focus groups with the target population, BPA

Analysis learned that— 

■ Most small business owners and managers have a rudimentary 

awareness of ADA. 

■ However, most are unclear as to their specific obligations under 

ADA to provide access to people with disabilities. 

■ Further, focus groups indicated that participants need more 

information about how exactly to comply; they need how-to 

guidance. 

■ Materials that have already been developed by SBA and DOJ are 

seen as useful and appropriate, but most business owners don’t 

yet know of their existence. 

Primary Owners of small businesses (defined as any business that sells goods

Audience and services to the public and meets the small business size standards 

of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 

269
Secondary Secondary audiences include—

Audiences 

■ Small business associations 

■ People with disabilities 

■ Individuals and organizations that advocate on behalf of people 

with disabilities 

Communication ■ This communication product seeks to motivate small business 

Strategy owners to seek more detailed information on ADA compliance. 

■ The strategy is to point out that compliance is the law and to 

address barriers to adoption of the desired behavior (making 

small businesses more accessible). 

■ This communication product seeks to begin the process to 

persuade small business owners that compliance is not expensive 

and that access will enable them to attract more customers. 

Distribution ■ Bulk Distribution 

Strategy Individuals and organizations that wish to use the fact sheet as 

collateral material at public presentations and as take-away 

materials in the offices of small business associations, chambers 

of commerce, and so on will order it in bulk from the Easy 

Access Web site. 

■ Direct Mail 

Small business owners will receive single copies of the fact sheet 

through direct mail. 

■ Easy Access Web Downloads 

“FAQs for Small Businesses” can be downloaded as a PDF file 

from the Easy Access Web site by small business owners, small 

business associations, people with disabilities, and ADA 

advocacy groups. 

■ PowerPoint Version 

A PowerPoint version of the “FAQs for Small Businesses” fact 

sheet will be created from the existing paper version. The 

PowerPoint file can be downloaded from the Easy Access Web 

site. 

270
Distribution ■ Collateral Material: Public Meetings 

Strategy The “FAQs for Small Businesses” fact sheet is an indispensable 

(cont’d) component of the collateral materials distributed to audiences 

whenever ADA is discussed in a public forum (e.g., meetings of 

small business associations). 

■ Collateral Material: Media

 “FAQs for Small Businesses” is provided to members of the 

media as additional collateral material whenever other 

communication products are distributed to the media. 

■ Search Engine Advertising 

When the search terms “ADA” and “small businesses” are used 

in an online search (using popular search engines such as Google, 

Yahoo, or MSN), the “FAQs for Small Businesses” fact sheet 

will be supported as a sponsored link on the right side of the 

search display screen. Clicking on the link will display a digital 

version of “FAQs for Small Businesses,” suitable for printing or 

downloading as a PDF file. Sponsored links for additional search 

terms will be added as appropriate. 

■ USB Thumb Drive Promotionals 

Promotional USB thumb drives, with the Easy Access logo and 

URL stamped on the casing, will be given away at small business 

functions. A PowerPoint version of the “FAQs for Small 

Businesses” fact sheet may be stored on the thumb drive and 

labeled “SEE ME FIRST!” 

Impact Whenever an evaluation is done of the Easy Access campaign, this 

Evaluation would be one of the communication products evaluated. For 

example, if a small business association organizes a meeting of 

business owners to discuss ADA, the fact sheet would be one of the 

products rated for usefulness/clarity by participants. 

271
8. “MYTHS AND FACTS” ABOUT THE ADA 

Myths and Facts About the

Americans with Disabilities Act

Excerpt from “Myths and Facts,” U.S. Department of Justice 

ADA Regulations and Technical Assistance Materials 

(updated April 4, 2006), available at: www.ada.gov/pubs/mythfct.txt 

MYTH: The ADA is rigid and requires 

businesses to spend lots of money to make their 

existing facilities accessible. 

FACT: The ADA is based on common sense. It 

recognizes that altering existing structures is 

more costly than making new construction 

accessible. The law only requires that public 

accommodations (e.g., stores, banks, 

restaurants, and hotels) remove architectural 

barriers in existing facilities when it is “readily 

achievable”; that is, it can be done “without 

much difficulty or expense.” Inexpensive, easy 

steps to take include ramping one step; installing 

a bathroom grab bar; lowering a paper towel 

dispenser; rearranging furniture; installing offset 

hinges to widen a doorway; or painting new lines 

to create an accessible parking space. 

MYTH: The ADA requires businesses to remove 

barriers overnight. 

FACT: Businesses are only required to do what 

is readily achievable at that time. A small 

business may find that installing a ramp is not 

readily achievable this year, but if profits 

improve it will be readily achievable next year. 

Businesses are encouraged to evaluate their 

facilities and develop a long-term plan for barrier 

removal that is commensurate with their 

resources. 

MYTH: Many ADA cases involve frivolous 

issues. 

FACT: The Justice Department’s enforcement of 

the ADA has been fair and rooted in common 

sense. The overwhelming majority of the 

complaints received by the Justice Department 

have merit. Our focus is on fundamental issues 

of access to goods and services that are basic 

to people’s lives. We have avoided pursuing 

fringe and frivolous issues and will continue to 

do so. 

MYTH: The government thinks everything is 

readily achievable. 

FACT: Not true. Often it may not be readily 

achievable to remove a barrier—especially in 

older structures. Let’s say a small business is 

located above ground. Installing an elevator 

would not, most likely, be readily achievable— 

and there may not be enough room to build a 

ramp—or the business may not be profitable 

enough to build a ramp. In these circumstances, 

the ADA would allow a business to simply 

provide curbside service to people with 

disabilities. 

MYTH: Restaurants must provide menus in 

Braille. 

FACT: Not true. Waiters can read the menu to 

blind customers. 

272
MYTH: Sign language interpreters are required 

everywhere. 

FACT: The ADA only requires that effective 

communication not exclude people with 

disabilities—which in many situations means 

providing written materials or exchanging notes. 

The law does not require any measure that 

would cause an undue financial or administrative 

burden. 

MYTH: The government is no help when it 

comes to paying for accessibility. 

FACT: Not so. Federal tax incentives are 

available to help meet the cost of ADA 

compliance. 

MYTH: Businesses must pay large fines when 

they violate the ADA. 

FACT: Courts may levy civil penalties only in 

cases brought by the Justice Department, not 

private litigants. The Department only seeks 

such penalties when the violation is substantial 

and the business has shown bad faith in failing 

to comply. Bad faith can take many forms, 

including hostile acts against people with 

disabilities, a long-term failure even to inquire 

into what the ADA requires, or sustained 

resistance to voluntary compliance. The 

Department also considers a business’s size 

and resources in determining whether civil 

penalties are appropriate. Civil penalties may 

not be assessed in cases against state or local 

governments or employers. 

MYTH: The Justice Department sues first and 

asks questions later. 

FACT: The primary goal of the Department’s 

enforcement program is to increase voluntary 

compliance through technical assistance and 

negotiation. Under existing rules, the 

Department may not file a lawsuit unless it has 

first tried to settle the dispute through 

negotiations—which is why most every 

complaint settles. 

MYTH: The Justice Department never files suits. 

FACT: As of January 19, 2007, the Department 

has been party to 335 suits under the ADA. 

Although it tries extensively to promote voluntary 

compliance, the Department will take legal 

action when entities continue to resist complying 

with the law. 

273
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication Double-sided 8.5” X 11” fact sheet 

Product 

A fact sheet summarizes the most salient points regarding an 

organization or issue in a succinct format. This communication 

product uses a “myth and fact” format to distill the most common 

misperceptions among small business owners and to provide correct 

factual information. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish two objectives: 

■ To provide accurate, factual information about the ADA and its 

application to small businesses. 

■ To dispel widely held myths among small business owners about 

the actual or potential negative impact of ADA enforcement on 

businesses. 

Situation Through focus groups with the target population, BPA learned that—

Analysis ■ Many small business owners and managers believe myths or 

“urban legends” about the ADA and its enforcement. 

■ Many small business owners are fearful that the Department of 

Justice will cause severe economic hardships for small business 

through overzealous enforcement of the ADA. 

■ Many small business owners fear that the government’s 

enforcement of the ADA is unmindful of the challenges faced by 

small businesses. 

Primary Owners of small businesses (defined as any business that sells goods 

Audience and services to the public and meets the small business size standards 

of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 

Secondary Secondary audiences play a role as channels to help inform small 

Audiences business owners about the myths and facts of ADA enforcement. 

Secondary audiences include— 

■ Small business associations 

■ People with disabilities 

■ ADA advocates, both individuals and groups 

274
Communication 

Strategy 

Distribution 

Strategy 

■ This communication product seeks to address misperceptions 

regarding ADA enforcement by putting these misperceptions into 

words and labeling them as myths. 

■ For each misperception about ADA enforcement, the fact sheet 

provides specific facts about actual ADA enforcement practices 

by the Department of Justice, as documented in literature 

provided by DOJ. 

■ The goal of the fact sheet is to address as many myths as possible 

using terse language to put the misperception on the table and 

then dismantle it with facts. 

■ Bulk Distribution 

Individuals and organizations wishing to use the fact sheet as 

collateral material at public presentations and as take-away 

material in the offices of small business associations, chambers 

of commerce, and so on will order the fact sheet in bulk from the 

Easy Access Web site. 

■ Direct Mail 

Small business owners will receive single copies of the fact sheet 

through direct mail. 

■ Easy Access Web Downloads 

The “Myths and Facts” fact sheet can be downloaded as a PDF 

file from the Easy Access Web site by small business owners, 

small business associations, people with disabilities, and ADA 

advocacy groups. 

■ PowerPoint Version 

A PowerPoint version of the “Myths and Facts” fact sheet will be 

created from the existing paper version. The PowerPoint file can 

be downloaded from the Easy Access Web site. 

275
Distribution ■ Collateral Material: Public Meetings 

Strategy The “Myths and Facts” fact sheet is an indispensable component 

(cont’d) of the collateral materials distributed to audiences whenever 

ADA is discussed in a public forum (e.g., meetings of small 

business associations). 

■ Collateral Material: Media 

The fact sheet is provided to members of the media as additional 

collateral material whenever other communication products are 

distributed to the media. 

■ Search Engine Advertising 

When the search terms “ADA” and “compliance” are used in an 

online search (using popular search engines such as Google, 

Yahoo, or MSN), the “Myths & Facts” fact sheet will be 

supported as a sponsored link on the right side of the search 

display screen. Clicking on the link will display a digital version 

of the fact sheet suitable for printing or downloading as a PDF 

file. Sponsored links for additional search terms will be added as 

appropriate. 

■ USB Thumb Drive Promotionals 

Promotional USB thumb drives, with the Easy Access logo and 

URL stamped on the casing, will be given away at small business 

functions. A PowerPoint version of the fact sheet may be stored 

on the thumb drive and, as desired, labeled “SEE ME FIRST!” 

Impact The number of downloads from the Easy Access campaign Web site 

Evaluation can be counted digitally. Whenever the “Myths and Facts” fact sheet 

is used at a public presentation, simple evaluation postcards 

(preaddressed, with return postage provided) can be used to evaluate 

this communication product, along with other communication 

products. 

276
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign


9. ACCESS LAMINATED CARD 

AAACCCCCCEEESSSSSS IIISSSGGGOOOOOODDDBBBUUUSSSIIINNNEEESSSSSS.........

Sometimes, finding new customers 

and satisfying existing ones all comes 

down to access. 

Block people’s access to your business with 

physical or communication barriers, and there’s a 

good chance they won’t be spending their money 

there. Remove barriers, and your business can 

really profit. And, you’ll be complying with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by serving 

people with disabilities on an equal basis with 

everyone else. 

How disability-friendly is your business? Turn this 

card over and ask yourself Easy Access’s four key 

questions. 

IIITTT’

’’SSSEEEAAASSSIIIEEERRRTTTHHHAAANNNYYYOOOUUUTTTHHHIIINNNKKK!!!

Do you consider your business to be disabilityfriendly? 

 Can a person with a disability park, approach, 

and enter your business? 

 Once inside, can customers with disabilities 

access your goods and services? 

 If public restrooms are available, are they 

accessible to customers with disabilities? 

 Can you and your customers with disabilities 

communicate with each other? 

For more information on providing access 

to people with disabilities, go to the 

Easy Access Web site at www.ada/easyaccess.com. 

277
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication Laminated 2 1⁄2” x 3” card, printed front and back, with graphic

Product 

This product is a pocket-sized card that provides a treatment of the 

message points included in the campaign on one side and a very brief 

checklist of access-related points on the other. It will be used as 

collateral material along with other campaign items, typically as a 

take-away from an ADA-centered event. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish two objectives: 

■ To remind small business owners that complying with the ADA 

means serving people with disabilities on an equal basis with 

everyone else. 

■ To motivate small business owners to provide access and comply 

with the ADA. 

Situation Through a series of focus groups with the target population, BPA 

Analysis learned that— 

■ Most small business owners and managers have a rudimentary 

awareness of ADA. 

■ However, most were unclear as to what compliance with the ADA 

might entail, and some were fearful that compliance was difficult 

and/or costly. 

Primary Owners of small businesses (defined as any business that sells goods

Audience and services to the public and meets the small business size standards 

of the U.S. Small Business Administration) 

Secondary Secondary audiences for this product are identified as potential

Audiences channels of distribution of brochures to the primary audience. The 

secondary audiences also will learn useful facts about the ADA and its 

application to small businesses. 

■ Small business associations 

■ Community-based organizations that may hold events or make 

presentations for owners of small businesses 

■ People with disabilities 

278
Communication The laminated card provides a communication vehicle to facilitate 

Strategy face-to-face communication between secondary and primary 

audiences. As a take-away from a presentation or ADA-centered 

event, the card can serve as a reminder of the need to comply with the 

ADA, and can educate—and reassure—owners of small businesses 

about easy ways to be disability-friendly. 

The card can be expanded in size and used as an additional fact sheet 

in an online package of materials that is easy to download and 

distribute in printed form. 

The communication strategy used in this product provides rudimentary 

information about the obligations of small businesses under ADA and 

provides small business owners and operators with a checklist that 

illustrates easy ways to provide access and be disability-friendly. 

Distribution ■ Face-to-Face 

Strategy Secondary audiences such as small business associations, 

community organizations (e.g., Rotary Clubs), and people with 

disabilities will pass the card along to the primary audience. 

■ Bulk Distribution 

Secondary audiences will receive cards in bulk through 

organizations with which they affiliate, as well as directly from the 

Easy Access campaign. 

■ Business Web Site Links 

Many business associations, chambers of commerce, and so forth 

have Web sites. The expanded, “fact sheet” version of the Easy 

Access laminated card will be made available on these Web sites 

as a hyperlink, similar to a sponsored link on a search engine. 

Clicking on the link will display a digital version of the card, 

suitable for printing or downloading as a PDF file. 

Impact A tally of the number of cards passed along by a sample of the 

Evaluation organizations (secondary audiences) to which the cards were 

distributed would provide a measure of small business interest in the 

message of the card and in the ADA-centered events and presentations 

at which the cards are distributed. 

279
280 

INFORMATION – AT YOUR FINGERTIPS! For information at your fingertips, go to the Easy Access Web site at www.ada/easyaccess.com. 

The Easy Access Web site has materials that may be of use to you in your communications with small business owners and others in your area, including— 

■ ADA Frequently Asked Questions (FA

Qs) 

■ Small Business Brochure ■ ADA “Myths and Facts” ■ Sample news releases and scripts for 

audio messages 

In addition to materials that target small businesses directly, there are also materials for organizations and associations that support small businesses, as well as landlords and architects. You can use these materials 

to persuade others to get involved in Easy Access and work with you to help your community’

s small 

businesses offer more access to people with disabilities. Order free copies of Easy Access materials to hand out to small businesses and others i

n your 

area, or download them to your computer to print out or distribute through e-mail or other electronic means. If you modify any of the materials or adapt them to your community and would like to share your versions with other advocates working to improve implementation of ADA compliance, please upload your materials to the Easy Access Web site by clicking on the “Add Materials” button, or go to www.ada/easyaccess/newmaterials.com. 

You may be i“rationale and strategy” devecommunicatiofor the Easy Awhich describmaterials was it is i

ntended 

Keep in mind materials help one-on-one ccan’t replace on-one commbusiness ownimportant cusbe the A

DA’s 

tool of persua
’

AAcccceessss iiss

GGOOOODD

BBuussiinneessss

......aanndd iitt’ss eeaassiieerr tthhaann

yyoouu tthhiinnkk!! THE EASY 

INFORMA

W H AT PEOPLE 

DO TO EN C OU 

TO BECO

281 
282 

THE EASY ACCESS PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN If you are a person with a disability—or an advocate on behalf of people with disabilities— you are invited to be part of a multifaceted information campaign to encourage o

wners of 

small busin

esses to imple

ment the Americans 

with Disabiliti

es Act (ADA). 

Eas

y Access 

■ Targets small businesses. ■ Promotes the idea to small business 

own

ers that it’s good busin

ess to com

ply 

voluntarily with the ADA, while reminding them that “it’s the law.” 

■ Tells small business owners that “it’s 

easi

er than you think” to implement the 

ADA. 

■

C

onnects s

m

all business owners 

with 

specific h

ow-to information and motivates 

them to use it to make their businesses more accessible. 

Access is the Law. Title III of the ADA says that any business that serves the public must be readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The Easy Access public information campaign was developed in the belief that the more different ways in which small businesses get the important message about the ADA, the more likely they are to respond. Taking a Guerilla Marketing Approach. Guerilla marketing means applying just the right kind of pressure in just the right way to bring about desired change. This approach is ide

al for 

activists who seek to bring about positive social change, people who are driven more by their convictions than their pocketbooks. In essence, we do more with less by using all our res

ources 

and being smart about how we use them. By using co

m

munication m

aterials and strategies 

from E

asy Access and making direct connections 

with small business owners you know or encounter, you can h

elp promote communitybased ADA a

wareness and compliance. In fact, 

one-on-one communication between business own

ers and people with disabilities—who, after 

all, are an important market segment for them— may be the ADA’s single m

ost powerful tool of 

persuasion. 

ALLIES IN ACResearch suggests are a

w

are that the 

about how it applietheir businesses acdisabilities. By usinas your lead stratelast resort, you can ally and a valued cown

er is pleased to 

You can provide a business o

wners y

providing the

m with 

they don’t need to of currently a

vailab

tailored to help smaADA. Point them to guides, especially from the De

p

artme

Business AdministEducation alone mbusinesses to makplace to start. You kee

p in mind that th

of you—as well as the win-win: You wcustomers. 
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaat

tteeegggyyy

Communication Single-sheet 8.5” X 11” brochure with two folds, printed front and 

Product back, with graphics. 

This product provides a brief treatment of the message points included 

in the campaign and is used as collateral material along with other 

pieces of the campaign. The brochure also motivates people with 

disabilities and their advocates to communicate with small businesses 

regarding the messages of the campaign and to direct them to seek 

more detailed sources of information. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish three objectives: 

■ To provide people with disabilities and those who advocate on 

behalf of them with strategies and tactics for encouraging small 

business owners to comply with the ADA. 

■ To provide people with disabilities and their advocates with facts 

about themselves as consumers that they can share with small 

business owners. 

■ To motivate people with disabilities and their advocates to play a 

role in the dissemination of Easy Access materials. 

Situation Through stakeholder dialogues with people with disabilities and their 

Analysis advocates, BPA learned that— 

■ People with disabilities are frustrated by the lack of ADA 

compliance among small business owners. 

■ Many people with disabilities feel that small business owners will 

comply with ADA only if forced to do so through mediation or 

litigation. 

■ Many people with disabilities feel that small business owners are 

best persuaded to comply voluntarily by emphasizing their moral 

and legal obligation to comply. 

■ According to research on public information campaigns, that kind 

of persuasive strategy is not effective at bringing about desired 

behaviors. 

Primary People with disabilities.

Audience 

283
Secondary 

Audiences 

Communication 

Strategy 

Distribution 

Strategy 

Secondary audiences in the Easy Access campaign are potential 

channels of distribution of brochures to the primary audience. The 

secondary audiences also will learn useful facts about the ADA and its 

application to small businesses. Secondary audiences include— 

■ Individuals and organizations that advocate on behalf of people 

with disabilities 

■ Small business owners 

The brochure for people with disabilities provides a vehicle to 

facilitate face-to-face communication between secondary and primary 

audiences. As a printed document capable of communicating 

moderately dense information, the brochure can educate as well as 

motivate audience members to seek more information. The brochure 

motivates people with disabilities and their advocates to seek 

additional information from resources on the Web. 

In addition, recognizing that people with disabilities are frustrated by 

the lack of small business compliance with ADA, the brochure shows 

them how to direct their energies in ways that are most likely to be 

effective. The brochure seeks to direct people with disabilities away 

from communication strategies that will not work with small business 

owners. 

By explaining how important people with disabilities are as a market 

segment (the language of commerce), the brochure seeks to enhance 

the self-esteem and efficacy of people with disabilities. 

■ Pass-along 

Secondary audiences such as people with disabilities, their 

advocates, small business associations, and community 

organizations such as Rotary Clubs will pass the brochure along to 

the primary audience (small business owners). 

■ Bulk Distribution 

The secondary audiences will receive copies of the brochure in 

bulk through organizations with which they affiliate, such as 

Centers for Independent Living, as well as directly from the Easy 

Access campaign. 

■ Easy Access Web Download 

A digital version of the brochure will be stored as a PDF file on the 

Easy Access Web site, suitable for downloading. A PowerPoint 

version also can be downloaded from the Web site. These digital 

versions of the brochure will have the same full graphical support 

as the paper brochure. 

284
Distribution ■ Search Engine Advertising 

Strategy When the search terms “ADA” and “small business” are used in an 

(cont’d) online search (using popular search engines such as Google, 

Yahoo or MSN), the Brochure for People with Disabilities will be 

supported as a sponsored link on the right side of the search 

display screen. Clicking on the link will display a digital version of 

the Brochure for People with Disabilities, suitable for printing 

from the screen or downloading as a PDF file. Sponsored links for 

additional search terms will be added as appropriate. 

■ iPod Downloads 

An audio version of the brochure will be recorded and available as 

an iPod download. Using Apple’s iTunes distribution system, 

people with disabilities and their advocates will be able to 

download the “audio brochure” to play while doing other things, 

including driving (using an interface device to connect the iPod to 

the car stereo). The graphics in the brochure will be displayed in 

the “Now Playing” box on iTunes while the audio file is playing. 

■ USB Thumb Drive Promotionals 

Promotional USB thumb drives, with the Easy Access logo and 

URL stamped on the casing, will be given away at functions 

attended by people with disabilities and their advocates. The audio 

brochure will be stored as MP3 files labeled “LISTEN TO ME 

FIRST!” Clicking on this icon will launch the MP3 application on 

the recipient’s computer. A PowerPoint version of the brochure 

can be created and stored on the thumb drive and labeled “SEE 

ME FIRST!” 

Impact The hotlink (URL) on the brochure could be specific to it. A person 

Evaluation accessing the Web site would first go to a Web page that simply 

counts the hits and click-throughs. 

This would provide a behavioral measure of the brochure’s 

effectiveness at motivating small business owners and managers to 

seek more information. 

285
’

11. BUSINESS ASSOCIATION TOOLKIT 

Access is

GOOD Business

......aanndd iitt’ss eeaassiieerr

tthhaann yyoouu tthhiinnkk!!

SMALL BUSINESSES AND 

THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) 

286
PROGRAM AND PRESENTATION TOOLKIT 

287 
[LETTERHEAD] 

[DATE] 

Easy Access Public Information Campaign Sponsors 

Address 

City, State, ZIP 

Dear Supporters of America’s Small Businesses, 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law by President George H. W. Bush 

in 1990. It was intended to break down the barriers that prevented people with disabilities from 

leading the full, productive lives that all Americans are entitled to, and to enable society to benefit 

from their skills and talents. There is a long way to go, however, before the promise of the ADA is 

fulfilled, especially when it comes to people with disabilities having access to the products and 

services of our country’s small businesses. 

As an organization that supports or provides a forum for owners and operators of small 

businesses in your community [or state, or region], you are in a position of leadership and 

responsibility with regard to members of your association and other small businesses in your 

area. Not only is promoting compliance with the law consistent with the mission of an organization 

like yours that supports small businesses, it also can be of enormous financial benefit to the small 

businesses you serve and, most likely, to you as small business owners yourselves. People with 

disabilities may be a large untapped market for you! 

This ADA Program and Presentation Toolkit is being provided by [Information Campaign 

Sponsors] for your use in the meetings, programs, presentations, and events you hold for the 

benefit of the small businesses you serve. There is a wealth of information about the ADA, 

tailored for small businesses like theirs, that is available, and you can help them find it! 

Sincerely, 

Easy Access Public Information Campaign Sponsors 

288 
PROGRAM AND PRESENTATION MATERIALS 

WHAT MATERIALS ARE IN THIS TOOLKIT? 

■ Handout: Access Is Good Business 

■ Sample Flyer: Inviting members to attend program 

■ Small Business Brochure 

■ ADA FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) 

■ Myths and Facts about the ADA 

■ Access Checklist 

■ Additional communication products for architects and landlords 

■ “Ten Small Business Mistakes” video from the U.S. Department of Justice 

(available in the online and downloadable versions of this Toolkit) 

WHAT DO THE MATERIALS IN THIS PACKAGE COVER? 

The materials in this package provide a brief overview of facts small businesses 

need to know about the ADA, and they tell the audience where to go for detailed 

how-to information about— 

■ New construction, alterations, and additions. If a business building or facility 

is altered in any way that affects its usability (e.g., remodeling, renovation, 

changes in the structure of the building), the part of the building that is 

altered must be as accessible to and usable by people with disabilities as 

feasible. New buildings or facilities must be built in strict compliance with 

the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. 

■ Determining what is “readily achievable.” The ADA requires that businesses 

that serve the public remove architectural barriers in existing facilities when 

it is “readily achievable”; that is, it can be done without much difficulty or 

expense. Think about how hard businesspeople work already to attract new 

customers and to provide good service to the customers they have—it’s an 

easy step to get information about how to make sure their businesses are 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

■ Learning how access for all of a business’ customers and potential 

customers can be easily achieved by following the principles of universal 

design. Universal design is both art and craft, combining imaginative design 

with functional elements that work for everyone, regardless of where they 

are on the continuum of human abilities. In universal design, access is the 

rule, not the exception. 

289 
■ Finding out about tax incentives that are available to small businesses that 

incur expenses in removing barriers or increasing access for people with 

disabilities. A tax credit is available to eligible small businesses for a variety 

of ADA-related expenses, including removal of architectural barriers. A tax 

deduction is also available for the removal of architectural or transportation 

barriers to comply with applicable accessibility standards. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR USING THE MATERIALS IN THIS PACKAGE 

The materials in this package can be used alone or in combination for programs, 

presentations, or other events sponsored by your organization, or as agenda or 

program elements in your regular meetings. Feel free to employ them in any way 

that is useful to your organization and its members. You may want to hold events 

or make presentations on topics such as— 

■ How removing barriers to access for people with disabilities can be seen as 

a business opportunity, not just a legal requirement. 

■ How the ADA is about much more than just lawsuits (or fear of lawsuits). 

■ How providing the access required by the ADA is easier that you might 

think. 

An important goal of this package is to connect small businesses with the many 

available resources on the ADA that are tailored just for them. To download 

materials from the Easy Access public information campaign or find links to the 

U.S. Access Board, the Department of Justice’s ADA Business Connection, and 

other useful resources on the Web, go to www.ada/easyaccess.com.

3 

A wealth of information about the ADA has been created specifically for 

American’s small businesses—and you can help them find it! 

3

 Not an actual Web site – URL included for illustrative purposes only. 

290 
HANDOUT 

ACCESS IS GOOD BUSINESS BECAUSE— 

CUSTOMERS NEED ACCESS 

People need “a way in” to a business if they are going to become customers. If 

the business is in a building that’s difficult to enter, or if some people’s ability to 

have access to its full range of products or services is limited, customers are 

literally being turned away. That’s what happens when a business has barriers to 

access by people with disabilities. As one business owner said, “You’re leaving 

money on the table when people with disabilities can’t get into your store.” 

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES REPRESENT A LOT OF CUSTOMERS 

According to the 2000 U.S. Census, more than 50 million Americans reported 

that they had disabilities. That translates to almost one in five people in this 

country. In addition, AARP says that 4 million Americans turn 50 each year and, 

thus, become more likely to experience age-related changes in their hearing, 

vision, mobility, and overall physical condition that they may not define as 

disabilities. That’s a lot of people who shop, work, and live in our communities 

who might face barriers that could limit their access. 

PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES HAVE A LOT OF SPENDING POWER 

Not counting older Americans, people with disabilities are estimated to have 

about $175 billion in discretionary spending power, according to the U.S. 

Department of Labor. 

ACCESS IS A GOOD INVESTMENT 

It’s clear that businesses are making a good investment when they make sure 

people with disabilities have easy access to their buildings and facilities. Plus, 

making a business user-friendly to people with disabilities makes it user-friendly 

to everyone. Businesses such as architects, interior designers, and commercial 

real estate agents who have small business clients can serve their clients well— 

and profitably—if they can offer important know-how about access. Small 

business clients are not likely to have in-house staff or consultants who are 

knowledgeable about access for people with disabilities; the professionals who 

serve them are perfectly positioned to earn their business by helping them make 

their facilities welcoming to all customers, including people with disabilities. For a 

landlord, making a business property accessible to people with disabilities makes 

it a more valuable business location, not only for current tenants but also for 

businesses looking to lease a property in the future. 

291 
ACCESS IS EASIER THAN YOU THINK 

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that businesses make only 

those changes that are “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without 

much difficulty or expense,” such as simple ramping of a few steps, installation of 

grab bars, and similar adjustments. 

ACCESS IS THE LAW 

Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in all 

places of public accommodation and commercial facilities. If you own, operate, or 

lease a business that serves the public, you must remove barriers to the extent 

feasible to allow access by people with disabilities. If you are engaging in new 

construction for your business building or facility, you must make sure it is readily 

accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. 

The ADA applies whether a business currently serves customers with disabilities 

or not. More than just a building code, the ADA goes beyond just ramps and 

doors. The access required by the ADA is about enabling customers to interact 

with all aspects of a business. 

292 
SAMPLE FLYER 

INVITING MEMBERS TO ATTEND PROGRAM 

[NAME OF YOUR ORGANIZATION] 

EXPAND YOUR CUSTOMER BASE! 

Do you own a small business or 

know somebody who does? 

Expand your customer base by improving the access people with 

disabilities have to your business. Customers need access. If some 

people’s access to your full range of products or services is limited, 

you are literally turning away customers. 

[Name of your organization] is presenting a program called “ACCESS 

IS GOOD BUSINESS” that is important for all small businesses. The 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination 

against people with disabilities in all places of public accommodation 

and commercial facilities, applies to you if you own, operate, or lease 

a business that serves the public. 

Come to “ACCESS IS GOOD BUSINESS” – this important event will 

take place: 

Day of the week and date 

Time 

 Location 

This event is sponsored by [name of your organization]. For more 

information on programs and membership, please contact 

________________. 

293 
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication Seven-page printed packet that includes cover letter, a description of

Product package contents, suggestions for how to use the materials, a handout 

that describes basic facts of ADA compliance, and a sample flyer for 

a meeting sponsored by a business association on the topic of ADA 

compliance. 

The package serves as an introduction to a set of collateral materials 

(other communication products containing other campaign message 

points directed at small business owners) that would be sent to 

business associations as part of the toolkit. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish three objectives: 

■ To provide business associations that have small business 

members with basic facts about ADA compliance for small 

businesses. 

■ To provide business associations that have small business 

members with materials about the ADA that are useful and 

valuable to their members and are easy to use for presentations, 

meetings, and events. 

■ To motivate small business associations to play a role in the 

dissemination of Easy Access materials. 

Situation Through stakeholder dialogues and discussions with small business 

Analysis owners, BPA learned that— 

■ Small business owners network with other small business owners 

through business associations that include small businesses as 

members. 

■ Small business associations provide a safe environment for small 

business owners to learn about a topic they don’t fully understand 

and may consider a threat to their profitability. 

294 
Situation 

Analysis

(cont’d) 

Primary 

Audience 

Secondary 

Audiences 

Communication 

Strategy 

Distribution 

Strategy 

■ Because small business owners interact frequently with these 

associations, the organizations provide a good dissemination 

point. The materials allow the association to provide a valueadded service to its members at no cost. 

■ Research on social marketing shows that people are more likely 

to sustain desired behaviors when they commit to a behavior in 

the presence of others whose opinions they respect. Small 

business owners who make a commitment to access in the 

context of a meeting with other business owners are more likely 

to honor the commitment. 

Small business associations and other community organizations that 

have small business members. 

Secondary audiences include small business owners. 

This communication product seeks to motivate small business 

associations to provide ADA-related information to their members as 

a service by— 

■ Providing information about the importance and value of ADA 

compliance. 

■ Providing materials that are easy for organizations to present to 

their members. 

■ Packaging together materials that could be used for a full meeting 

agenda or program. 

■ Direct Mail 

The business association toolkit is mailed and e-mailed to small 

business associations by the organization sponsoring the Easy 

Access campaign, using membership lists of such organizations 

as the Rotary Club. The toolkit serves as a gateway to a variety of 

materials directly targeted at small businesses. 

■ Search Engine Advertising 

When the search terms “ADA” and “small business” are used in 

an online search (using popular search engines such as Google, 

Yahoo, or MSN), the toolkit will be supported as a sponsored 

link on the right side of the search display screen. Clicking on the 

link will display a digital version of the toolkit, suitable for 

printing from the screen or downloading as a PDF file. 

Sponsored links for additional search terms will be added as 

appropriate. 

295 
Distribution 

Strategy

(cont’d) 

■ Easy Access Web Download 

PDF versions of the business association toolkit and its 

associated materials will be available as a download from the 

Easy Access Web site. This digital version of these materials will 

have the same full graphical support as the paper materials. The 

materials will include— 

o Small Business Brochure 

o ADA FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) 

o Myths and Facts about the ADA 

o Access Laminated Card 

o Architect Flyer and Landlord Brochure 

o “Ten Small Business Mistakes” video from the U.S. 

Department of Justice (available in the online and 

downloadable versions of this toolkit) 

■ iPod Downloads 

An audio version of the business association toolkit and its 

associated materials will be recorded and available as an iPod 

download. Using Apple’s iTunes distribution system, members 

of small business associations will be able to download the 

“audio flyer” to play while jogging, walking, and so forth, as well 

as to listen to while driving (using an interface device to connect 

the iPod to the car stereo). The graphics in the business 

association toolkit will be displayed in the “Now Playing” box on 

iTunes while the audio file is playing. 

■ USB Thumb Drive Promotionals 

Promotional USB thumb drives, with the Easy Access logo and 

URL stamped on the casing, will be given away at small business 

association functions. PowerPoint versions of the toolkit and its 

associated materials, including the DOJ video “Ten Small 

Business Mistakes,” can also be stored on the thumb drive and 

labeled “SEE ME FIRST!” 

Impact

Evaluation 

When the business association toolkit and its associated materials are 

sent to a small business association (whether solicited or unsolicited), 

a follow-up phone call would confirm that the materials arrived to 

the destination. In that call, the evaluator could determine how the 

materials are being used. If a meeting of small businesses is planned 

to discuss the ADA, a packet of program evaluation postcards (return 

postage prepaid) could be sent to the association. 

296 
297 

INFORMATION – AT YOUR FINGERTIPS! There’s a wealth of information available about the ADA, tailored for small business owners and managers, buil

ding owners, and 

other target audiences. You can provide a valuable servi

ce to the 

small business owners to whom you lease by helping them find an easy place to start, so they don’t need to plow through the vast amount of currentl

y available 

information that has been tailored to help small businesses comply with ADA. It’s easy to find information that can help you and your tenants and prospective tenants. 

To find informthat clarify younder the ADwww.ada/ea

There you wdeveloped sEasy Access campaign, avaluable resU.S. Access Business AdADA BusineDepartment topics such a

■ Evaluating 

remov

ed. 

■ Determinin■ Doing alter■ Complying 

Accessible 

■ Other acce

For additional infobusinesses, you mspecialist at the U800-514-03

01 (vo

4 Not an actu

al W

illustrative purpos
’

298 

AAcccceessss iiss

GGOOOODDBBuussiinneessss

.. .. .. aanndd iitt’ss eeaassiieerr

tthhaann yyoouu tthhiinnkk!!

BUSINESS PROPERTY OWNERS AND LANDLORDS AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) 
299 

KNOW YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in all places of public accommodation and commercial facilities. If you own, operate, or lease a business that serves the public, you must remov

e barriers to the 

extent feasibl

e to allow access by people with 

disabilities. Furthermore, if you are engaging in new construction for your busin

ess building or 

facility, you must make sure it is readily accessible and usa

ble by people with 

disabilities. If you own a building that inclu

d

es a place of 

public accom

modation (i.e., a business that 

serves the public), both you and those tenants are fully responsi

ble for complying with the 

ADA’s requirements. IMPROVE THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY Access is good business for you as a landlord. Makin

g your property accessible for pe

o

ple with 

disabilities m

akes it a more valuable business 

location not only for your current tenants but also for businesses looking to lease a property in the future. 

ACCESS IS THE LAW Yes, it’s the law, and yes, it applies to you if you lease to a business that serves the public. Title III of the ADA says you and your tenants must make whatever readil

y achievable modifications 

are needed to remove barriers and permit access by people with disabilities. Landlords and tenants may agree in their lease or other contract to allocate shared financial responsibility for ADA compliance, but such allocation is only between the two parties. Both landlord and tenant retain full legal responsibility for ADA compliance. Failure to address ADA issues may result in your being held liable for noncompliance with federal law. Be flexible as you work together to mak

e the 

place of business on your property as welcoming as possible to all cust

o

mers. 

IT’S EASIER The ADA says thatenant are fully liaprovisi

ons of the A

changes that are able to be carried expense,” such asteps, installation modest adjustmeYou and your tenadvantage of tax businesses that inbarriers or increadisabilities. A tax small busin

esses 

expenses, includibarriers. A tax deduction aof architectural or comply with appliFor more informathe Dep

artment o

Incentives Packet Disabilities Act” a
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication Single-sheet 8.5” X 11” brochure with two folds, printed front and

Product back, with graphics. 

This product provides a brief treatment of the message points included 

in the campaign and is used as collateral material along with other 

pieces of the campaign. The brochure also directs the reader to more 

detailed sources of information. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish three objectives: 

■ To persuade building owners who lease to small businesses of the 

value of their own and their tenants’ compliance with the ADA. 

■ To motivate building owners to communicate with their tenants 

regarding the messages of the campaign. 

■ To motivate building owners to seek more specific information 

about how to comply with the ADA and to tell their tenants where 

to obtain more detailed sources of information about how small 

businesses can comply with the ADA. 

Situation Through stakeholder dialogues with people with disabilities,

Analysis representatives of both large and small businesses, and other 

stakeholders, BPA learned that— 

■ Most building owners and landlords appear to have a rudimentary 

awareness of ADA. 

■ However, many seem to be unaware of their own ADA 

responsibilities and those of their small business tenants with 

regard to providing access to people with disabilities. 

■ Materials that have already been developed by entities such as 

SBA and DOJ appear to be well known to landlords for large 

businesses, but many landlords of small businesses don’t yet know 

of their existence. 

Primary Commercial building owners who lease to small businesses (defined 

Audience as any business that sells goods and services to the public and meets 

the small business size standards of the U.S. Small Business 

Administration). 

300 
Secondary Secondary audiences for this product are identified as potential 

Audiences channels of distribution of brochures to the primary audience. The 

secondary audiences also will learn useful facts about the ADA and its 

application to small businesses. 

■ Small business associations 

■ Other local associations of building owners, landlords 

■ People with disabilities 

Communication The brochure provides a communication vehicle to facilitate face-toStrategy face communication between secondary and primary audiences. As a 

printed document capable of communicating moderately dense 

information, the brochure can educate as well as motivate audience 

members to seek more information. 

The brochure can also be used as part of an online package of 

materials that are not only visually pleasing online but also easy to 

download and distribute in printed form. 

The communication strategy executed in this brochure provides 

rudimentary information about the obligations of landlords of small 

businesses under the ADA. The brochure also motivates such building 

owners and landlords to seek more specific information about how to 

comply with the ADA and to tell their tenants where to obtain more 

detailed sources of information about how small businesses can 

comply with the ADA. 

Distribution ■ Bulk Distribution 

Strategy Secondary audiences such as small business associations, other 

local associations of building owners and landlords, community 

organizations such as Rotary Clubs, and people with disabilities 

will pass brochures along to the primary audience (landlords for 

small businesses). These secondary audiences will receive copies 

of the brochures in bulk through organizations with which they 

affiliate, as well as directly from the Easy Access campaign. 

■ Direct Mail 

Building owners and landlords can receive brochures through 

direct mail. 

■ Search Engine Advertising 

When the search terms “ADA” and “architectural” are used in an 

online search (using popular search engines such as Google, 

Yahoo, or MSN), the architect flyer will be supported as a 

sponsored link on the right side of the search display screen. 

Clicking on the link will display a digital version of the flyer, 

suitable for printing or downloading. Other search terms and 

phrases can be added as sponsored links. 

301 
Distribution 

Strategy

(cont’d) 

Impact 

Evaluation 

■ iPod Download 

An audio version of the landlord brochure will be recorded and 

available as an iPod download. Using Apple’s iTunes distribution 

system, landlords will be able to download the “audio brochure”; 

they will be able to listen to it while driving (using an interface 

device to connect the iPod to the car stereo). The graphics in the 

brochure will be displayed in the “Now Playing” box on iTunes 

while the audio file is playing. 

The hotlink (URL) on the brochure could be specific to the brochure 

for landlords. A building owner or landlord accessing the Web site 

would first go to a Web page that simply counts the hits and clickthroughs. 

This would provide a behavioral measure of the brochure’s 

effectiveness at motivating building owners or landlords of small 

businesses to seek more information. 

302 
’

13. ARCHITECT FLYER 

ARCHITECTS AND INTERIOR DESIGNERS, TELL YOUR CLIENTS:

AAcccceessss iiss

GGOOOODD BBuussiinneessss ......aanndd iitt’ss eeaassiieerr

tthhaann yyoouu tthhiinnkk!!

THE VALUE OF ACCESS 

Your clients that are small businesses—or those 

who lease facilities to small businesses—may 

already recognize the economic benefits of having 

a place of business that is welcoming to everyone, 

including people with disabilities. They may also 

know that under Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) if you own, operate, or lease 

a business that serves the public and are 

engaging in new construction for your business 

building or facility, you must make sure it is readily 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

VALUE FOR YOU AND YOUR 

CLIENTS 

As an architect or interior designer, you are in a 

position of leadership and responsibility with 

regard to your clients. You are providing them with 

value when you let them know that new buildings 

and facilities must be built in strict compliance with 

the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and that 

you, as a professional, will seek to meet or exceed 

those standards for new construction and 

alterations. 

You also are providing them with value when you 

let them know that access for people with 

disabilities has clear economic benefits for them 

and that they are making a good investment when 

they make sure that people with disabilities have 

easy access to their buildings and facilities. 

Doing your part to make sure that 

everyone can access the buildings 

that you design is a good 

investment for you as an architect. 

You can take the small business’s 

dreams and design a place that 

welcomes all customers, including 

people with disabilities. 

IT’S EASIER THAN YOU THINK 

A wealth of information is available about the ADA, 

tailored for clients like yours, and you can help 

them find it! To download the accompanying 

brochure—“Small Business and the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA)”—or to find other 

information suitable for handouts, flyers, and so 

on, go to www.ada/easyaccess.com.

 5 

There you will find links to the U.S. Access Board, 

the Department of Justice’s ADA Business 

Connection, and other value-added material to 

give your clients regarding— 

■ Requirements for new construction. 

■ Doing alterations and additions. 

■ Complying with ADA Standards for 

Accessible Design.

■ Other access requirements. 

5

 Not an actual Web site – URL included for 

illustrative purposes only. 

303 
Small Business Easy Access Public Information Campaign 

RRRaaatttiiiooonnnaaallleeeaaannnddd IIImmmpppllleeemmmeeennntttaaatttiiiooonnnSSStttrrraaattteeegggyyy

Communication 8.5” X 11” flyer with graphics

Product 

This product provides a brief treatment of the message points included 

in the campaign and is used as collateral material along with other 

pieces of the campaign. The flyer also instructs the reader to 

communicate with his or her clients regarding the messages of the 

campaign and direct them to more detailed sources of information. 

The flyer will be accompanied by the “Small Business and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)” brochure, which may be 

distributed by the architects to their clients. 

Objective This product is tailored to accomplish two objectives: 

■ To persuade commercial architects with small business clients of 

the value of their clients’ compliance with the ADA. 

■ To motivate architects to communicate with their clients regarding 

the messages of the campaign and tell them where to obtain more 

detailed sources of information about how to comply with the 

ADA. 

Situation Through stakeholder dialogues with people with disabilities and 

Analysis representatives of both large and small businesses, including 

architects, BPA learned that— 

■ Most architects are aware of the ADA. 

■ Technical assistance materials that have been developed by entities 

such as SBA and DOJ appear to be well known to architects, 

although they are not as well used as they might be. 

■ However, many architects are unaware that the ADA may be 

considered as a business opportunity for them rather than a 

compliance burden. 

■ Further, many are unaware of how they can be of service to their 

clients, especially their small business clients, with regard to 

compliance with the ADA. 

Primary Commercial architects with small business clients (defined as any 

Audience business that sells goods and services to the public and meets the small 

business size standards of the U.S. Small Business Administration). 

304 
Secondary 

Audiences 

Communication 

Strategy 

Distribution 

Strategy 

Secondary audiences for this product are identified as potential 

channels of distribution of flyers to the primary audience. The 

secondary audiences also will learn useful facts about the ADA and its 

application to small businesses. 

■ Associations for architects and builders (e.g., AIA) 

■ Other business associations 

■ People with disabilities 

The flyer provides a communication vehicle to facilitate face-to-face 

communication between secondary and primary audiences. As a 

printed document capable of communicating moderately dense 

information, the flyer can educate as well as motivate audience 

members to seek more information. 

The flyer will be accompanied by the “Small Business and the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)” brochure, which can be 

distributed by the architects to their clients. 

With the accompanying brochure, the flyer can also be used as part of 

an online package of materials that are not only visually pleasing 

online but also easy to download and distribute in printed form. 

The communication strategy executed in this flyer provides messages 

that motivate architects to communicate with their clients regarding 

the messages of the overall campaign and tell them where to obtain 

more detailed information from resources on the Web. 

■ Bulk Distribution 

Associations for architects and builders, other business 

associations to which architects may belong, community 

organizations such as Rotary Clubs, and people with disabilities 

will pass along the flyers and accompanying brochures to the 

primary audience (architects). 

These secondary audiences will receive copies of the flyers and 

brochures in bulk through organizations with which they affiliate, 

as well as directly from the Easy Access campaign. 

■ Direct Mail 

Architects will receive the flyers and accompanying brochures 

through direct mail, using membership lists of such organizations 

as AIA. 

■ Easy Access Web Download 

A PDF version of the architect flyer (and of the small business 

brochure) will be available as a download from the Easy Access 

Web site. This digital version of these materials will have the same 

full graphical support as the paper materials. 

305 
Distribution ■ Search Engine Advertising 

Strategy When the search terms “ADA” and “architectural” are used in an 

(cont’d) online search (using popular search engines such as Google, 

Yahoo, or MSN), the architect flyer will be supported as a 

sponsored link on the right side of the search display screen. 

Clicking on the link will display a digital version of the flyer, 

suitable for printing or downloading. Other search terms and 

phrases may be added as sponsored links. 

■ iPod Downloads 

An audio version of the flyer will be recorded and available as an 

iPod download. Using Apple’s iTunes distribution system, 

architects will be able to download the “audio flyer” to play while 

jogging, walking, and so forth, as well as to listen to while driving 

(using an interface device to connect the iPod to the car stereo). 

The graphics in the flyer will be displayed in the “Now Playing” 

box on iTunes while the audio file is playing. 

■ USB Thumb Drive Promotionals 

Promotional USB thumb drives, with the Easy Access logo and 

URL stamped on the casing, will be given away at architects’ 

functions. The audio flyer and brochure will be stored as MP3 files 

labeled “LISTEN TO ME FIRST!” Clicking on this icon will 

launch the MP3 application on the recipient’s computer. A 

PowerPoint version of the flyer and the brochure can also be stored 

on the thumb drive and labeled “SEE ME FIRST!” 

Impact The hotlink (URL) on the flyer could be specific to the flyer for 

Evaluation architects. An architect accessing the Web site would first go to a Web 

page that simply counts the hits and click-throughs. 

This would provide a behavioral measure of the flyer’s effectiveness at 

motivating architects with small business clients to seek more 

information. 

Conclusion 

Research, as well as collaboration and dialogues with diverse ADA stakeholders nationwide, 

revealed a picture of ADA implementation that is both hopeful and fraught with challenges. The 

ADA has achieved important and lasting successes in certain sectors of society. Stakeholders 

point out the increase in accessible fixed-route public transportation as required by Title II and 

the widespread availability of communications access made possible by implementation of the 

relay service as required by Title IV of the ADA. They also report an increase in architectural 

access, especially in newly constructed buildings and facilities that are subject to the 

306 
requirements of Title II and III. These important accomplishments are making it easier for more 

people with disabilities to live active and engaged lives in their communities, as the ADA 

intended. However, while these notable successes call for acknowledgment, stakeholders 

identified areas where implementation has lagged far behind. They also identified methods for 

addressing some of the key implementation issues that have the potential for broad impact. 

These methods include a stepped-up role for Federal Government enforcement agencies, 

especially for investigating violations of Title III, and greater federal agency leadership in 

establishing government/business collaborations that could address many of the key needs. These 

needs include ADA training and education on Title I and III for broad audiences; creation of 

centers of excellence across all titles of the law; evaluation of existing ADA technical assistance 

methods, procedures, and materials; and initiating needed research. The Department of 

Transportation was called on to take specific actions related to enforcement of the ADA’s transit 

provisions, and the Federal Communications Commission should take steps to ensure funding as 

new communication technologies come online. 

Many stakeholders called on Congress to take action in a variety of areas, including restoring the 

definition of disability so certain people who experience discrimination in employment again 

have access to remedies, and removing attorney fee restrictions on ADA cases so people with 

disabilities can secure legal representation when they need it for civil rights claims. 

Other creative ideas for improving ADA implementation came out of the discussions and 

research. They focus on building alliances among diverse business communities; membership, 

trade, and professional associations; and unions; and increasing disability awareness. Some 

exciting and effective ADA implementation practices were identified that can serve as models 

and that illustrate how diverse covered entities are going about making the promise of the ADA a 

reality. These practices demonstrate the need for organized, ongoing best practices research that 

will add to the ADA implementation knowledge base. 

Significant effort was devoted to analyzing and understanding why small businesses have failed 

to implement Title III of the ADA. The reasons for this failure are complex and arise, ironically, 

from an attempt to ensure that small businesses in particular were not subject to an inflexible 

307 
burden of compliance. The lack of reliable, tailored technical information and insufficient 

motivation for businesses to seek out information proactively contribute to the problem. There is 

also insufficient administrative enforcement, which would provide motivation for compliance 

while also publicizing how the “readily achievable” barrier-removal standard of Title III works 

in practice. These factors leave people with disabilities with only two options to resolve access 

problems: They can ask the business to comply voluntarily or they can file a lawsuit. Research 

revealed and stakeholders confirmed that requests for voluntary compliance have met with 

limited success. While the media have portrayed those who litigate as self-serving, the 

percentage of attorneys and plaintiffs who bring Title III lawsuits primarily for self-gain is 

minuscule compared with the number of businesses that persist in ignoring the existence of 

obligations under federal and state accessibility laws. There is a private right of action under 

Title III because Congress recognized that voluntary compliance and collaboration is an 

unreliable vehicle for providing access and that people with disabilities should no longer be 

forced to rely on the kindness of neighbors or strangers. 

Diverse stakeholders identified numerous methods for improving Title III implementation, 

especially by small businesses; these included tying licensing to ADA training for building and 

construction professionals, creating targeted materials for businesses and peer-to-peer 

distribution mechanisms, and creating incentives and penalties that are embedded in business 

interactions with locales. ADA training for people with disabilities remains a very high priority, 

and concerns of culturally diverse communities should be the focus of new initiatives. 

Specifically, the Department of Justice and all technical assistance organizations, such as the 

ADA Technical Assistance and IT Centers, must be given a specific funding and mandate for 

outreach to chambers of commerce, Rotary Clubs, and other small business organizations— 

including those serving culturally diverse communities, rural areas, and small towns—to 

disseminate technical resource information and to help lower the current level of tension and fear 

about the ADA that is present in business communities. 

The accessibility requirements of civil rights law must be publicly broadcast, acknowledged, and 

respected at the same level as other applicable regulations and laws, and equally acknowledged 

as a make-or-break issue in running a business. Widespread Title III compliance cannot be 

308 
achieved without business and public outreach, a visible and efficient administrative enforcement 

procedure, the wide availability of qualified accessibility expertise, and economic incentives 

such as tax and other credits. 

309 
Endnotes 

1

 Fifty-seven individuals concerned with ADA Title I implementation identified and discussed 

specific issues from their different perspectives. These issues formed the basis for identification 

of specific recommendations that are intended to improve ADA implementation and additional 

research that is needed. Participants represented a variety of types of entities and organizations 

covered by Title I. Included were state and local government employers, as well as private 

employers, including representatives from health care, public utilities, software companies, 

museums, banks, insurance companies, and nonprofit organizations. Also included were plaintiff 

and defense attorneys, and representatives from the Society for Human Resource Management 

(SHRM), state employment development departments, state vocational rehabilitation agencies, 

unions, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Disability and Business 

Technical Assistance and Assistive Technology Centers, the Protection and Advocacy system, 

governors’ committees on employment of people with disabilities, chambers of commerce (U.S., 

regional, and local), disability community leaders and representatives of key disability 

organizations, job developers, and training program representatives. 

2

 Fall of 2006 ODEP sponsored the first national conference on mentoring youth with 

disabilities. Boston, MA. 

3

 Cal. Gov't. Code §12950.1. 

4

 The Stakeholder Dialogue on ADA Transportation took place April 5–6, 2006, in Washington, 

DC, at the offices of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), part of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT). There was representation from every stakeholder sector in the field of 

ADA transportation: public transportation providers including bus, rail, and paratransit, and their 

trade associations; private transportation providers and their trade associations; government 

officials and staff from regulatory agencies; researchers; and advocacy organizations, both rural 

and urban. 

5 Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART), 391 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2004). 

6

 Title III of the ADA describes the prohibitions against discrimination by privately operated 

public accommodations, commercial facilities, and private entities offering certain examinations 

and courses. 

7

 Ninety-six stakeholders identified and discussed specific issues related to ADA Title III 

implementation from their different perspectives. These issues formed the basis for identification 

of key recommendations aimed at improving ADA implementation, and additional research that 

is needed. Participants represented a variety of types of entities and organizations covered by 

Title III. Included were representatives of business trade associations; architects, planners, and 

building officials; covered entities such as restaurants, theaters, hotels, motels, stadiums, health 

care facilities and health plans, museums, banks, and YMCAs; neighborhood business 

associations and chambers of commerce (U.S. and local); defense and plaintiff attorneys; 

disability community leaders and representatives of key disability organizations; and 

representatives from various units of local government, the Department of Justice Disability 

Rights Section, and the Disability and Business Technical Assistance and Assistive Technology 

Center. 

310 
8

 Department of Justice Web site at www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/taprog.htm (last visited June 2, 

2006). 

9

 Thirty stakeholders participated in the Stakeholder Dialogue on Telecommunications, including 

relay consumers, representatives of consumer organizations, relay providers, and representatives 

from states and from the Federal Communications Commission. Consultants with extensive 

experience working with both consumers and industry interests on relay issues over the past two 

decades were also present. 

10 At a meeting dedicated to emergency access held the day after the Title IV Stakeholder 

Dialogue and attended by many of the stakeholders present at the Title IV dialogue, efforts to 

foster such collaboration were initiated. 

11 Two types of relay services now permit a transparent and automatic connection to relay users 

without the use of any extraneous relay numbers. The first of these is two-line captioned 

telephone service, which simultaneously directs all incoming calls to both the captioned 

telephone recipient and the CA. The second is a wireless relay service by which a relay provider 

assigns customers individual phone numbers. The customer then arranges with the relay provider 

for this number to be linked with AOL’s instant messaging service. When the hearing person 

dials the assigned telephone number, the CA comes on the line and attempts to make an instant 

messaging connection. In the event there is no answer, the hearing person receives what appears 

to be a voicemail request from the CA. Specifically, the CA informs the calling party, “Your 

party is not answering; would you like to leave a message?” Once the message is provided, the 

CA sends it to the relay user’s e-mail address, which reaches the recipient’s computer or wireless 

pager. 

12 Bob Segalman, founder of STS, challenged the dialogue participants to find a single person in 

each state to help lobby state public utility commissions to train consumers in this fashion. 

13 One such organization—Speech Communication Assistance by Telephone, Inc. (SCAT)—was 

incorporated by Bob Williams in 1990 to provide general education and training in assistive 

technology for people with disabilities. In 2005, SCAT redirected its mission to focus on 

providing community training and outreach needed to help potential STS users access these 

services. SCAT intends to obtain statistical data on STS use through a national survey, work with 

independent living centers to identify and train consumers, educate consumers and professionals 

at disability conferences and conventions, and disseminate information about STS through its 

Web site, www.speechtospeech.org. 

14 As this report was going to press, the FCC issued a rule on internet-based captioned telephone 

service. See, Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals 

with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Docket No. 03-123. 

15 Fifty-eight disability community members participated in two stakeholder dialogues for people 

with disabilities. They identified and discussed key ADA implementation issues, which are 

presented and discussed in this report, and made recommendations for improving 

implementation from their perspectives. The dialogues included cross-disability representation as 

well as participation by individuals from diverse regions and fields of work and interest. 

311 
16 The National Judicial College in Reno has provided judicial education and professional 

development for the nation’s judiciary, and for judges from other countries, for 42 years. NJC is 

the top judicial training institution in the United States; it has awarded more than 70,000 

professional judicial education certificates since 1963. The institution offers an average of 90 

courses annually. These are held onsite, around the country, and internationally, with more than 

2,700 judges enrolling from all 50 states, U.S. territories, and more than 150 countries. Programs 

offered at NJC are designed to give participants the practical tools they need to serve effectively 

on the bench. 

17 In fact, the group was generally correct in its assumption. The states represented in the focus 

group all had laws aimed at preventing disability discrimination that raised the concept of 

reasonable accommodations/modifications, though they differ in varying degrees from the ADA 

and one another in specifics such as their definition of disability, scope of coverage, exemptions, 

enforcement, and remedial provisions. 

For applicable employment provisions, see Ind. Code §22-9-5-1 et seq. (Employment 

Discrimination Against Disabled People); Ind. Code §§16-32-3-1 to –5 (Rights of Blind and 

Other Physically Disabled People); Ind. Admin. Code tit. 910, r. 1-1.5-1 et seq. (Civil Rights 

Commission); Ky. Rev. Stat.§344.010 et seq. (Civil Rights Act); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §207.130 et 

seq. (Equal Opportunities Act); 104 Ky. Admin. Regs. 1:020 et seq. (Commission on Human 

Rights); La. Rev. Stat. §23:301 et seq. (Employment Discrimination Law); La. Rev. Stat. 

§51:2231 et seq. (Louisiana Commission on Human Rights); Nev. Rev. Stat. §233.010 et seq. 

(Equal Rights Commission); Nev. Rev. Stat. §613.310 et seq. (Equal Opportunities for 

Employment); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 426.005 et seq. (People with Disabilities); Nev. Admin. Code 

ch. 233, §233.002 et seq. (Equal Rights Commission); N.D. Cent. Code §14-02.4-01 et seq. 

(Human Rights Act); N.D. Cent. Code §§25-13-01 to –05 (Blind and Disabled People’s 

Activities); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4112.01 et seq. (Civil Rights Commission); Ohio Admin. 

Code §4112-5-08 (Discrimination in the Employment of the Disabled); Okla. Stat. tit. 25, ch. 21, 

§1301 et seq. (Discrimination in Employment); Okla. Admin. Code §335:15-9-1 to –4 

(Interpretive Guidelines on Discrimination Against the Handicapped); Okla. Admin. Code 

§340:1-11-1 et seq. (Civil Rights and Nondiscrimination on Basis of Race, Color, National 

Origin, Sex, Age, Religion, or Disability); 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §951 et seq. (Human Relations 

Act); 16 Pa. Code §44.1 et seq. (Discrimination on the Basis of Handicap or Disability); Va. 

Code Ann. §51.5-1 et seq. (Virginians with Disabilities Act); Va. Code Ann. §2.2-3900 to –3902 

(Human Rights Act); 22 Va. Admin. Code §25-10-10 et seq. (Regulations to Safeguard 

Virginians’ Human Rights from Unlawful Discrimination). 

For applicable Public Services provisions, see Ind. Code §22-13-1-1 et seq. (Labor and Industry 

Safety); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §198B.010 et seq. (Building Code); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §344.010 et 

seq. (Civil Rights Act); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §40:1731 et seq. (Equal Access to Governmental and 

Public Facilities for Physically Handicapped); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §46:1953 (White Cane Law); 

§46:2251 et seq. (Civil Rights Act for Handicapped People); Nev. Rev. Stat. §338.180 et seq. 

(Accommodation of physically handicapped or disabled people); Nev. Rev. Stat. §426.005 et 

seq. (People with Disabilities); N.D. Cent. Code §14-02.4 et seq. (Human Rights Act) and §48­

02 et seq. (Public Buildings); N.D. Cent. Code §54-21.3-04.1 (State Building Code 

[Accessibility Standards]); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3781.111 (Building Standards); Okla. Admin 

Code §335:10-1-1 et seq. (Enforcement of Anti-Discrimination Act); Okla. Stat. tit. 61, §§11 & 

312 
12 (Public Buildings and Public Works); 61 Pa. Cons. Stat. §1455.1 et seq. (Grounds, Buildings 

and Facilities); 43 Pa. Con. Stat. §963 et seq. (Human Relations); Va. Code Ann. §51.5-1 et seq. 

(Virginians with Disabilities Act). 

For applicable provisions relating to Public Accommodations, see Ind. Code §§16-32-3-1 to –5 

(Rights of Blind and Other Physically Disabled People); Ind. Code §22-9-1-1 et seq. (Civil 

Rights Act); Ind. Admin. Code tit. 910, r. 1-1.5-1 et seq. (Civil Rights Commission); Ky. Rev. 

Stat.§344.010 et seq. (Civil Rights Act); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §207.130 et seq. (Equal 

Opportunities Act); 104 Ky. Admin. Regs. 1:020 to :100 (Commission on Human Rights); La. 

Rev. Stat. §51:2231 et seq. (Louisiana Commission on Human Rights); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 

§49:146 (Use of Buildings); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §46:1953 (White Cane Law); La. Rev. Stat. 

Ann. §21:52 (Hotels and Lodging Houses – Offenses by Guests); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §40:1631 

et seq. (Building Regulations); Nev. Rev. Stat. §233.010 et seq. (Equal Rights Commission); 

Nev. Rev. Stat. §426.005 et seq. (People with Disabilities); Nev. Rev. Stat. §651.050 et seq. 

(Equal Enjoyment of Places of Public Accommodation); Nev. Admin. Code ch. 447, §010 et seq. 

(Public Accommodations); N.D. Cent. Code §14-02.4-01 et seq. (Human Rights Act); N.D. Cent. 

Code §§25-13-01 to –05 (Blind and Disabled People’s Activities); N.D. Cent. Code §54-21.3-01 

to -08 (State Building Code); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4112.01 et seq. (Civil Rights Commission); 

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4112.1 et seq. (Civil Rights Commission – General Provisions); Ohio 

Rev. Code Ann. §3781.111 (Building Standards); Stat. tit. 25, §1101 et seq. (Anti-Discrimination 

Act); Okla. Admin. Code §335:10-1-1 et seq. (Enforcement of the Anti-Discrimination Act); 

Okla. Stat. tit. 7, §19.1 (Services to the Blind); 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §951 et seq. (Human Relations 

Act); 35 Pa. Cons. Stat. §7210.101 et seq. (Construction Code Act); 71 Pa. Cons. Stat. §1455.1 et 

seq. (Grounds, Buildings and Facilities); 16 Pa. Code §44.1 et seq. (Discrimination on the Basis 

of Handicap or Disability); Va. Code Ann. §51.5-1 et seq. (Virginians with Disabilities Act); Va. 

Code Ann. §2.2-3900 to –3902 (Human Rights Act); 22 Va. Admin. Code §25-10-10 et seq. 

(Regulations to Safeguard Virginians’ Human Rights from Unlawful Discrimination). 

For applicable housing provisions, see Ind. Code §22-9.5-1-1 et seq. (Fair Housing); Ind. Code 

§22-9-6-1 to –6 (Equal Access to Housing for People with Disabilities); Ind. Admin. Code tit. 

910, r.2-1-1 et seq. (Fair Housing Complaints); Ky. Rev. Stat.§344.010 et seq. (Civil Rights 

Act); Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §207.130 et seq. (Equal Opportunities Act); 104 Ky. Admin. Regs. 

1:020 et seq. (Commission on Human Rights); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §41:2601 et seq. (Equal 

Housing Opportunity Act); Nev. Rev. Stat. §233.010 et seq. (Equal Rights Commission); Nev. 

Rev. Stat. §118.010 et seq. (Fair Housing Law); Nev. Admin. Code ch. 233, §233.002 et seq. 

(Equal Rights Commission); N.D. Cent. Code §14-02.5-01 et seq. (Housing Discrimination); 

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §4112.01 et seq. (Civil Rights Commission); Ohio Admin. Code §§4112­

6-01 to-04 (Housing Discrimination); Okla. Stat. tit. 25, §1101 et seq. (Discrimination); Okla. 

Admin. Code §335:20-1-1 et seq. (Interpretive Guidelines on Housing Discrimination); Okla. 

Admin. Code §340:1-11-1 et seq. (Civil Rights and Nondiscrimination on Basis of Race, Color, 

National Origin, Sex, Age, Religion, or Disability); 43 Pa. Cons. Stat. §951 et seq. (Human 

Relations Act); 16 Pa. Code §45.1 et seq. (Housing Accommodations/Commercial Property); Va. 

Code Ann. §36-96.1 et seq. (Fair Housing Law); Va. Code Ann. §2.2-3900 to –3902 (Human 

Rights Act); Va. Code Ann. §51.5-1 et seq. (Virginians with Disabilities Act); 18 Va. Admin. 

Code §135-50-200 (Fair Housing Regulations); 22 Va. Admin. Code §25-10-10 et seq. 

(Regulations to Safeguard Virginians’ Human Rights from Unlawful Discrimination). 

313 
18 Axis Health Care Homepage at http://www.axishealth.com/modelinaction/mndho.html (last 

visited Oct. 12, 2005). 

19 Pei-Shu Ho, Center for Health and Disability Research, National Rehabilitation Hospital, The 

Impact of the Minnesota Disability Health Options Program on the Health Care Experiences of 

People with Physical Disabilities in Minneapolis/St. Paul: Preliminary Longitudinal Survey 

Findings, 5 (2004). 

20 Office of Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor on Youth Leadership 

Forums: 

The goal of this project is to assist states in developing youth leadership training for high 

school students with disabilities. Based on a highly successful program of Youth 

Leadership Forums (YLF) in California, the long-term goal of the program is to replicate 

this training in all 50 states. Currently, there are active YLF programs in 21 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. An additional 13 states have convened YLF 

planning groups. 

See www.dol.gov/odep/programs/youth.htm (last visited Oct. 3, 2005). 

21 William Michael Bauer, The Impact of Leadership Training on High School Students with 

Disabilities (2003) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University) (Proquest 

Dissertations and Theses 2003, Publication Number AAT 3093627). 

22 Telephone interview with Barbara Wiener-Fischhof, Corporate Communications, U.S. 

Franchise Systems, Inc. (June 22, 2006). 

23 Telephone interview with Barbara Wiener-Fischhof, Corporate Communications, U.S. 

Franchise Systems, Inc. (Oct. 11, 2005). 

24 Telephone interview with David Koffman, principal investigator, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting 

Associates, San Francisco, CA (Oct. 7, 2005); telephone interview with Tammy Haenftling, 

assistant vice president of paratransit management services, Dallas Area Rapid Transit (July 14, 

2006). 

25 See Job Accommodation Network Web site at www.jan.wvu.edu/english/whatis.htm (last 

visited Sept. 22, 2005). 

26 D.J. Hendricks Et Al., Law, Health And Disability Policy Center, University Of Iowa, Cost 

And Effectiveness Of Accommodations In The Workplace: Preliminary Results Of A 

Nationwide Study, At 

disability.law.uiowa.edu/lhpdc/publications/abstracts/DSQ_fall2005_schartz_blanck.html (last 

visited Sept. 20, 2005). 

27 The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Interim Report on Best Practices for 

the Employment of People with Disabilities in State Government (2004), 

www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/nfi/int_states_best_practices_report.html. 

28 Id. 

29 Dep’t of Budget and Management, Maryland Annual Statewide Equal Opportunity Report 11, 

12 ( 2005), 

314 
www.dbm.maryland.gov/dbm_publishing/public_content/dbm_taxonomy/employee_services/eq 

ual_employment_opportunity/eeo_annual_report_for_2005.pdf (last visited July 12, 2006). 

30 U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Report on Best Practices for the 

Employment of People with Disabilities in State Government 44 (2005), 

www.eeoc.gov/initiatives/nfi/final_states_best_practices_report.pdf. (last visited June 3, 2006). 

31 Virginia Commonwealth University Research and Training Center on Workplace Supports, 

Business, Disability and Employment: Corporate Models of Success: Collection of Successful 

Approaches Reported from 20 Employers (Brian McMahon et al. eds., 2004). 

32 UCSF Disability Management Services Web site at www.ucsfhr.ucsf.edu/dismgmt/. 

Reasonable accommodation policy is further referenced at 

http://policies.ucsf.edu/150/15026.htm. 

33 Telephone interview with Larry Hickey, assistant manager of human resources, manager of 

disability services, University of California, San Francisco (June 28, 2006). 

34 See Employee Services – Disability Accommodation on the AlaskaWorld.com Web site at 

www.alaskasworld.com/es/employeeinjuryandillness/disability.asp. 

35 McMahon, et al., supra note 228. 

36 See Careers at Alaska Airlines on the AlaskaWorld.com Web site at 

www.alaskasworld.com/jobs/asjobs/Diversity.asp. 

37 While the We Welcome Service Animals video and training materials have been widely 

disseminated to hospitality industry operators, outcome data showing their effectiveness is not 

readily available. Telephone interview with Jim Abrams, president and CEO, California Hotel 

and Lodging Association (June 16, 2006). 

38 Telephone interview with James Terry, architect, Evan Terry Associates, AL (Oct. 10, 2005). 

39 Telephone interview with Judy Stoneham, director for disability services, Blue Ridge 

Community College, NC (June 15, 2006). 

40 Judy Stoneham, The Accessibility of the Community College Classroom to Students with 

Disabilities, 11:1 Information Technology and Disabilities (August, 2005), Equal Access to 

Software and Information Web site, www.rit.edu/~easi/itd/itdv11n1/stoneham.htm (last visited 

Oct. 3, 2005). 

41 Nat’l Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education, University of Wisconsin– 

Madison: A Promising Practice in Development, Articulation, and Support of a Web 

Accessibility Policy at www.washington.edu/accessit/articles?140 (last visited Oct. 11, 2005). 

42 Nat’l Center on Accessible Information Technology in Education. Oregon State University: A 

Promising Practice in Establishing Software Access Guidelines at 

www.washington.edu/accessit/articles?169 (last visited Sept. 27, 2005). Oregon State University 

Telephone interview with Angelo Gomez, director, Office of Affirmative Action and Equal 

Opportunity, Oregon State University (June 19, 2006). 

43 Telephone interviews with David Koffman, principal investigator, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting 

Associates, San Francisco, CA (Oct. 7, 2005) and John R. Rochford, transportation planner III, 

Access Operations (June, 14, 2006). 

315 
44 Telephone interview with Terry Parker, accessible services manager, Lane Transit District, 

Eugene Oregon (Oct. 8, 2005). 

45 Telephone interview with Chris Colburn, manager for specialized transportation, Whatcom 

Transportation Authority, WA (Oct. 7, 2005). 

46 U.S. Department of Justice, Enforcing the ADA: A Status Report from the Department of 

Justice (April – June, 2002). The SuperShuttle settlement agreement is available at 

www.usdoj.gov:80/crt/ada/superstl.htm. 

47 Press Release, U.S. ODEP, DisabilityInfo.Gov Wins Web Content Managers Best Practice 

Award (Sept. 28, 2005) available at www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/odep/odep20051842.htm 

(last visited Sept. 28, 2005). 

48 U.S. EEOC, supra note 227. 

49 U.S. Access Board Web site at www.access-board.gov/news/ieq.htm (last visited Sept. 27, 

2005). 

50 Telephone interview with Sally Conway, director of ADA technical assistance and mediation 

programs, U.S. Department of Justice, DC (Oct. 7, 2005, and June 15, 2006). 

51 Activist and commentator Jack Greenberg noted in his 1959 book Race Relations and 

American Law that civil rights laws could be enforced in three ways: “criminal prosecution, 

private civil suit for damages or injunction by an aggrieved person, and administrative or 

injunctive implementation by public officials.” While Greenberg’s own preference was for an 

administrative agency that would vigorously enforce antidiscrimination laws at public expense 

and without jury trials, he was speaking at a time when “civil rights” in America was seen 

primarily in terms of race relations. For Greenberg, criminal enforcement and civil suits for 

damages were problematic as a means of enforcement because they involved trial by jury, 

“which may very likely be as prejudiced as the defendant,” and private enforcement also 

required the costs of engaging counsel. 

52 Trial lawyer Andrew D. Levy spoke on this point in his 2000 testimony before Congress: 

Congress recognized that the Federal Government does not have the resources to enforce 

the civil rights laws entirely on its own. While the Department of Justice plays an 

important role, the ADA, like other civil rights statutes, relies primarily on private 

individuals for its enforcement. Congress created incentives for private individuals – 

acting as “private attorneys general” – to enforce the law. . . . Although Congress did not 

provide for damages [in Title III], it understood that if it was going to rely on private 

parties to enforce the ADA, it had to have some new provision encouraging the private 

bar to take the cases. . . . Keep in mind that there are important limitations on payment of 

attorney’s fees. First, plaintiffs’ attorneys are only entitled to be paid if they win. . . . 

Second, even if you win, you are only entitled to a fee that the judge finds is “reasonable” 

– usually calculated by the lawyer’s normal hourly rate (that is, the rate that his private 

clients in non-civil-rights cases pay) – multiplied by the number of hours the judge finds 

the case reasonably should have taken to litigate. 

316 
The ADA Notification Act, hearing on H.R. 3590 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution 

of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (2000), at 2000 WL 19303719 (statement 

of Andrew D. Levy). 

53 See 42 U.S.C. 12117 and 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.16-1641.8. 

54 See 42 U.S.C. 12134 and 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.101-35.190 for Part A of Title II, and 42 U.S.C. § 

12188(b) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.101-36.608 for Title III. Subpart G of the DOJ Title II regulations 

also designates other federal agencies to establish complaint procedures to address 

noncompliance with the ADA in each agency’s specific area of responsibilities and programs. 

55 See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12149, 12164, and regulations found at 49 C.F.R. pt. 27. 

56 See H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, at 98 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 267, 381 (“As with 

section 504, there is also a private right of action . . . which includes the full panoply of 

remedies. Again, consistent with section 504, it is not the Committee’s intent that people with 

disabilities need to exhaust Federal administrative remedies before exercising their private right 

of action.”). 

57 42 U.S.C. § 12205. See also Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 

(1968) (the purpose of the fee-shifting rule for litigation enforcing Title II of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 was “to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief 

under Title II”). See also Robert V. Percival & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Role of Attorney Fee 

Shifting in Public Interest Litigation, 47 Law & Contemp. Probs. 233, 241 (“Congress generally 

authorizes fee shifting where private actions serve to effectuate important public policy 

objectives and where private plaintiffs cannot ordinarily be expected to bring such actions on 

their own. Fee shifting is designed to remove some of the disincentives facing public interest 

litigants . . .”). 

58 In 1959, activist and commentator Jack Greenberg noted that civil rights laws could be 

enforced in three ways: “criminal prosecution, private civil suit for damages or injunction by an 

aggrieved person, and administrative or injunctive implementation by public officials.” Race 

Relations and American Law 15 (Columbia University Press, 1959). Greenberg’s own 

preference was for an administrative agency that would vigorously enforce antidiscrimination 

laws at public expense and without jury trials while potentially offering conciliation and 

mediation alternatives, but he was also speaking at a time when “civil rights” in America was 

seen primarily in terms of race relations. For Greenberg, criminal enforcement and civil suits for 

damages were problematic as a means of enforcement because the former required a standard of 

proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the latter required plaintiffs to bear the costs of engaging 

counsel, and both criminal and civil suits involved trial by a jury “which may very likely be as 

prejudiced as the defendant.” Id at 15, 16. 

59 Trial Lawyer Andrew D. Levy spoke on this point in his 2000 testimony before Congress: 

Congress recognized that the Federal Government does not have the resources to enforce 

the civil rights laws entirely on its own. While the Department of Justice plays an 

important role, the ADA, like other civil rights statutes, relies primarily on private 

individuals for its enforcement. Congress created incentives for private individuals – 

acting as “private attorneys general” – to enforce the law. . . . Although Congress did not 

provide for damages [in Title III], it understood that if it was going to rely on private 

317 
parties to enforce the ADA, it had to have some new provision encouraging the private 

bar to take the cases. . . . Keep in mind, that there are important limitations on payment of 

attorney’s fees. First, plaintiffs’ attorneys are only entitled to be paid if they win. . . . 

Second, even if you win, you are only entitled to a fee that the judge finds is “reasonable” 

– usually calculated by the lawyer’s normal hourly rate (that is, the rate that his private 

clients in non civil rights cases pay) – multiplied by the number of hours the judge finds 

the case reasonable should have taken to litigate. 

The ADA Notification Act, hearing on H.R. 3590 Before Subcomm. On the Constitution of the 

House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (2000), at 2000 WL 19303719 (statement of 

Andrew D. Levy). 

60 See 42 U.S.C. 12117 and 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.16-1641.8. 

61 See 42 U.S.C. 12134 and 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.101-35.190 for Part A of Title II, and 42 U.S.C. § 

12188(b) and 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.101-36.608 for Title III. Subpart G of the DOJ Title II regulations 

also designate other federal agencies to establish complaint procedures to address noncompliance with the ADA in each agency’s specific area of responsibilities and programs. 

62 See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12149, 12164, and regulations found at 49 C.F.R. pt. 27. 

63 See H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, at 98 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 267, 381 (“As with 

section 504, there is also a private right of action . . . which includes the full panoply of 

remedies. Again, consistent with section 504, it is not the Committee’s intent that people with 

disabilities need to exhaust Federal administrative remedies before exercising their private right 

of action.”). 

64 42 U.S.C. § 12205. See also Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 

(1968) (the purpose of the fee-shifting rule for litigation enforcing Title II of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 was “to encourage individuals injured by racial discrimination to seek judicial relief 

under Title II”). See also Robert V. Percival & Geoffrey P. Miller, The Role of Attorney Fee 

Shifting in Public Interest Litigation, 47 Law & Contemp. Probs. 233, 241 (“Congress generally 

authorizes fee shifting where private actions serve to effectuate important public policy 

objectives and where private plaintiffs cannot ordinarily be expected to bring such actions on 

their own. Fee shifting is designed to remove some of the disincentives facing public interest 

litigants . . .”). 

65 See for example James Bovard, The Disabilities Act’s Parade of Absurdities, Wall Street J., 

June 22, 1995, A16; George F. Will, Protection for the Personality Impaired, The Wash. Post, 

Apr. 4, 1996, A31; Trevor Armbrister, A Good Law Gone Bad: Drafted With the Best of 

Intentions, the Americans with Disabilities Act Has Created a Legal Nightmare, Reader’s Digest, 

May 13, 1998. 

66 See for example Peter David Blanck & Mollie Weighner Marti, Attitudes, Behavior and the 

Employment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 Villanova L. Rev. 345 (1997); 

Ruth Colker, The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Windfall for Defendants, 34 Harv. C.R.­

C.L. L. Rev. 99 (1999); Christine Jolls, Accommodation Mandates, 53 Stan. L. Rev. 223 (2000); 

Employment, Disability, and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Issues in Law, Public Policy, 

and Research ( Peter David Blanck ed., 2000); Amy L. Allbricht, ABA Special Feature: 2003 

Employment Decisions Under the ADA Title I-Survey Update, 28 Mental & Physical L. Rep. 319 

318 
(2003); Michael Ashley Stein, The Law and Economics of Disability Accommodations, 53 Duke 

L.J. 79 (2003); Samuel Bagenstos, “Rational Discrimination,” Accommodation, and the Politics 

of (Disability) Civil Rights, 89 Va. L. Rev. 825 (2003). 

67 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181-89. 

68 Kathryn Wexler, Big Winners in Disabled Crusade? Lawyers, St. Petersburg Times, Mar. 24, 

2002; Matt Krasnowski, Flood of ADA Lawsuits Irks Small Businesses, San Diego UnionTribune, September 12, 2004; Walter K. Olson, The ADA Shakedown Racket: The Americans 

with Disabilities Act Has Spawned a Sleazy Lawsuit Industry, City J., Winter 2004); Teri 

Figueroa, Disability Rights Advocates Split on Support of Lawyer, North County Times, Dec. 18, 

2005, www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/12/18/news/top_stories/23_24_0412_17_05.txt. Also see 

other media forums such as, for example; Web site at www.adaabuse.com. 

69 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a) only incorporates the “remedies and procedures set forth in section 

204(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” which only includes prospective injunctive relief. Ruth 

Colker has made the case that the unavailability of damages under the ADA are part of a “fragile 

compromise” entered to achieve passage of the ADA, in which “the remedies underlying ADA 

Title III were limited in exchange for an expansive list of commercial entities covered by the 

statute.” See Ruth Colker, ADA Title III: A Fragile Compromise, 21 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 

377, 385 (2000) [hereinafter Fragile Compromise]. 

70 42 U.S.C. § 12205. 

71 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(2)(C). 

72 See 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(B), and see also 28 C.F.R. 36.502 (Attorney General shall 

investigate alleged violations of the Act or this part . . . [but] he or she may initiate a compliance 

review). [Emphasis added.] 

73 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b)(1)(B). 

74 Michael Waterstone, The Untold Story of the Rest of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 

Vand. L. Rev.1807, 1874 (2005) [hereinafter Untold Story]. 

75 Id. 

76 National Council on Disability, Promises to Keep: A Decade of Federal Enforcement of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 2 (2000) (“Federal agencies charged with enforcement and 

policy development under the ADA, to varying degrees, have been overly cautious, reactive, and 

lacking any coherent and unifying national strategy”). With regard to Title III specifically, the 

DOJ has made “decisions not to open for investigation a large number of complaints received.” 

Id at 38. 

77 Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human 

Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001). 

78 Steward J. Schwab & Theodore Eisenberg, Explaining Constitutional Tort Litigation: The 

Influence of the Attorney Fees Statue and the Government as Defendant, 73 Cornell L. Rev. 719, 

768 (1988). 

79 In assessing DOJ’s enforcement of Title III, Ruth Colker found that in approximately six years 

of statutory enforcement, the agency had reached 46 settlements, reflecting “less than one 

319 
settlement a month by an agency charged with national enforcement.” See Colker, Fragile 

Compromise, supra note 28 at 404. Colker goes on to comment that “it is unrealistic to expect 

that such efforts will have much impact on the pattern of denial of accommodation that may exist 

in the larger society. It is hard to believe that the kinds of general problems that the DOJ found – 

inaccessible hotels and restaurants, improper service animal policies, and inappropriate photo 

identification policies – are isolated to those 46 entities.” Id. Colker subsequently extended the 

period of her study and found that DOJ had reached 107 in 10 years, which still represented less 

than one settlement a month. See The Disability Pendulum: The First Decade of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act 192 (2005). 

80 Representative Mark Foley, a prime sponsor of a bill that would place a mandatory 

prelitigation notice period upon the private right of action under Title III, stated that “no one 

disputes that ADA access violations exists” before asserting that most businesses are not aware 

that they are violating the ADA and would fix the violations if notified. The ADA Notification 

Act, hearing on H.R. 3590 Before Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the 

Judiciary, 106th Cong. (2000), at 2000 WL 19303719 (statement of Rep. Mark Foley). 

81 Telephone interview with San Francisco small businessman and participant in the San 

Francisco Collaborative project (June 22, 2006), see infra note 44. 

82 The Protection and Advocacy (P&A) system and client assistance program (CAP) comprise 

the nationwide network of each state’s congressionally mandated, legally based disability rights 

agency. P&A agencies are funded through federal grant monies administered through the states 

and authorized to provide legal representation and other advocacy services, under all federal and 

state laws, to all people with disabilities in accordance with a prioritized service system. The 

National Disability Rights Network (NDRN, formerly National Association of Protection and 

Advocacy Systems, NAPAS) is the nonprofit membership organization for P&A systems and 

CAP. 

83 The ADA Notification Act, hearing on H.R. 3590 Before Subcomm. on the Constitution of the 

House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (2000), at 2000 WL 19303719 (statement of 

Christine Griffin). 

84 Telephone interview with Sarah Triano, currently program director at Access Living in 

Chicago, and then youth and education team leader and project director for the 2001–2003 WIAfunded accessibility project (July 10, 2006). She later provided a portion of Access Living’s 

report on the project. 

85 The Collaborative’s inception, mission, and achievements are discussed in San Francisco 

Collaborative, Access to San Francisco Small Businesses a Problem for Customers with 

Disabilities or Risk Management Approach to Small Businesses Failing (2004). 

86 Title 24, California Administrative Code, first adopted in July 1992, is promulgated by the 

State Building Standards Commission to establish access standards for built and altered buildings 

in California. 

87 The physical accessibility of existing buildings that were constructed before, and not 

significantly renovated since, Title III’s effective date is measured against a “readily achievable” 

standard that requires public accommodations to make those modifications that are “easily 

accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” See 42 U.S.C. § 

320 
12181(9). Factors such as a public accommodation’s size and financial resources are to be 

considered in deciding whether a modification is readily achievable. See 42 U.S.C. § 

12181(9)(A)-(D). 

88 San Francisco Collaborative, Access to San Francisco Small Businesses, supra note 44 at 4. 

89 Fund money was obtained through a simple application that was usually approved within 24 

hours. Payment was made directly to the surveyor or planner on completion of the work. The 

fund could also potentially be used to pay for classes on accessibility requirements and solutions. 

90 Id at 2. 

91 Daniel L. Kaplan et al., Assessing and Improving Accessibility of Public Accommodations in 

an Urban Latino Community, 12 J. of Disability Pol. Studies 55 (2001) [hereinafter Accessibility 

in an Urban Latino Community]. 

92 Id at 56. 

93 Daniel Kaplan was a staff psychotherapist at the Counseling Service of the School of the Art 

Institute of Chicago; the other four authors were researchers and professors at either the 

Department of Disability and Human Development or the Department of Psychology at the 

University of Illinois at Chicago. 

94 The research team used 61 of the 92-item Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for 

Readily Achievable Barrier Removal (Adaptive Environments Center & Barrier Free 

Environments, 1992) to assess the accessibility of a business’s entrance and goods and services. 

A business was deemed “fully accessible” if it was accessible to a person who uses a wheelchair 

without the assistance of others. “Moderately accessible” meant that a person who uses a 

wheelchair could gain access to the store and its goods and services with mild assistance from 

others. A business was “inaccessible” if a person who uses a wheelchair could not gain entrance 

or get to goods and services even with mild assistance from others. Half of the initial assessment 

teams included a person with a visible disability, as the potential impact of this personal contact 

was one of the variables being measured in the study. 

95 The mailed feedback package included a tailored cover letter that emphasized the benefits of 

attracting and retaining customers with disabilities and the avoidance of future legal programs as 

incentives for voluntary compliance with the ADA, a copy of the ADA checklist, information 

about a statewide loan program that offered low-cost loans for barrier removal, and four 

additional ADA information handouts. The information was provided in Spanish to Spanishspeaking owners, and the baseline interview, feedback and follow-up interviews were conducted 

in Spanish or English at the interviewee’s preference. Feedback was either given face-to-face or 

mailed, as this was another of the variables being measured in the study. The feedback package 

also included a 9” × 12” sign in Spanish and English that simply stated “If you need assistance, 

please ask” and displayed the international symbol for accessibility. 

96 This figure corroborates the results of an unpublished 1995 study, which found that 52 percent 

of minority-owned businesses had never heard of the ADA, compared with 32 percent of nonminority-owned businesses. See S. Oneglia, A Survey of the Effectiveness of the Technical 

Assistance Efforts to Assist Very Small Businesses to Comply with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (1995) (Unpublished Manuscript, University of Maryland, Department of Social 

Work, Baltimore). 

321 
97 Kaplan, Accessibility in an Urban Latino Community, supra note 50 at 61. 

98 Id. 

99 There is very little empirical research that assesses how to promote compliance with Title III. 

A pre-ADA study concerning the promotion of physical accessibility in public accommodations 

was conducted by C. Nelson, M. Jones, and N. Salkind, Promoting Wheelchair Accessibility of 

Private Business Settings: An Analysis of the Effects of Information, Prompts, Feedback and 

Incentives, 18 Environment and Behavior, 132 (1986). In the study, 300 public accommodations 

of various kinds that were already partially accessible (someone using a wheelchair could at least 

enter the business) were sent an information packet that encouraged participants to call or write 

for free technical assistance on accessibility issues. Fifteen percent of those receiving a packet 

requested technical assistance. A follow-up telephone call was made to those who did not 

respond, and 52 percent said they were interested in an appointment to improve accessibility. 

100 Kaplan, Accessibility in an Urban Latino Community, supra note 50 at 61. 

101 Supra note 41. 

102 Information was obtained through a personal telephone interview (Oct. 17, 2000) with Janel 

Wright, a staff attorney with the Disability Law Center who helped spearhead the Ramps Project. 

A fuller report of the Ramps Project can be found at Silvia Yee & Marilyn Golden, Achieving 

Accessibility: How the Americans with Disabilities Act is Changing the Face and Mind of a 

Nation 413, 440-441, Disability Rights Law and Policy: International and National Perspectives 

(Mary Lou Breslin & Silvia Yee eds., 2002). 

103 Id at 441. 

104 Among the 62 businesses contacted, 12 already had access but had failed to post signage 

notifying the public, 5 agreed to provide alternative service, and 7 were determined to be in 

compliance for other reasons. 

105 Six businesses that already had access agreed to post signage notifying the public, 19 

businesses agreed to provide alternative service, and 33 were determined to be in compliance for 

other reasons. 

106 Doran v. Del Taco, Inc., 373 F. Supp.2d 1028, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2005). 

107 Id at 1033. 

108 Id at 1034. 

109 373 F. Supp.2d 1028 (C.D. Cal. 2005). 

110 532 U.S. 598 (2001). 

111 According to the NDRN Web site, “NDRN serves a wide range of individuals with 

disabilities—including, but not limited to, those with cognitive, mental, sensory, and physical 

disabilities—by guarding against abuse; advocating for basic rights; and ensuring accountability 

in health care, education, employment, housing, transportation, and within the juvenile and 

criminal justice systems.” See NDRN Web site available at www.napas.org/aboutus/default.htm 

(last visited July 7, 2006). 

322 
112 Compare this broad scope of coverage with that found under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, 

which explicitly lists entities such as hotels, restaurants, and places of entertainment as being 

covered but fails to explicitly include retail shops, department stores, drugstores, and other public 

places with goods for sale and explicitly exempts private clubs. See Colker, Fragile 

Compromise, supra note 28 at 386–88. 

113 Buildings that were in existence as of Title III’s effective date of January 26, 1992, are 

subject to the “readily achievable barrier removal” standard. See 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9). New 

construction that is permitted for occupancy after January 26, 1993, is required to be accessible 

in accordance with the higher new construction standard of being “readily accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities” that has been published by the DOJ. See 42 U.S.C. § 

12183. The portion of an existing building that is undergoing an alteration that “affects or could 

affect the usability of the facility or part thereof” after January 26, 1993, will also trigger the 

higher new construction standard for the area undergoing alterations, and there must be an 

accessible path of travel to the altered portion. Id. 

114 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv), (v) & 28 C.F.R. § 36.304 (the DOJ’s section-by-section 

analysis of § 36.304 clearly specifies an ongoing readily achievable barrier removal obligation). 

115 Any search for the term “small business” in the ADA’s legislative history reveals that 

Congress was deeply aware of and concerned about the law’s impact and potential burden on 

small business. For example, see Hearings Before the Committee on Labor and Human 

Resources and the Subcommittee of the Handicapped on S. 933, 101st Cong. (May 9, 10, 16, and 

June 22, 1989). 

116 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9)(a)–(d). 

117 One more layer of complexity exists in the fact that state building codes and accessibility 

requirements need not be the same as federal accessibility requirements, though there is 

provision for a state to apply to DOJ for certification if its state or local accessibility 

requirements meet or exceed the ADA’s accessibility requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b). The 

procedure is purportedly lengthy and can be fractious, but once a state or local code is certified, 

public accommodations that have complied with it have rebuttable evidence of compliance with 

Title III. Only Washington, Texas, Maine, Florida, and Maryland are currently certified, and 

DOJ has pending requests from California, Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Utah. See 

Waterstone, Untold Story, supra note 33 at 1358-59. Even for those states that lack certification, 

however, a lot of attention has been given in recent years by both the Access Board on the 

ADAAG side, and the International Code Council on the International Building Code (IBC) and 

ICC/ANSI A117.1 “Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities Standards” side, to the 

harmonization of the ADAAG with the model ANSI standards. The IBC and the ANSI A117.1 

are the model scoping and technical requirement codes used by most states for their own 

building codes, though admittedly some state adoption processes move slowly, and the new 

ADAAG standards have not yet been adopted by the DOJ. Eventually, however, harmonization 

of the IBC and ANSI A117.1 models with ADAAG will bring increased conformity to all state 

and federal access requirements. 

118 Supra note 43. 

119 Supra note 44 at 7. 

323 
120 Interview with a representative of the San Francisco Mayor’s Economic Development Office 

(July 10, 2005). 

121 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). One of the key congressional findings made in the law is that 

“individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination including 

outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural, transportation, and 

communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to make modifications to 

existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, 

and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities.” 42 

U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5). 

122 Title I applies to all private employers who have 15 or more employees. 42 U.S.C. § 12111. 

123 The “readily achievable” term is identified as “easily accomplishable and able to be carried 

out without much difficulty or expense.” 42 U.S.C. § 12181(9). 

124 Telephone interview with San Francisco building professional and small business owner (July 

7, 2006). 

125 Colker, Fragile Compromise, supra note 28 at 394. 

126 Samuel R. Bagenstos, The Paradox of Limited Civil Rights Remedies: The Case of “Abusive” 

ADA Litigation, 54 Ucla L. Rev. (forthcoming October 2006) (manuscript at 8) [hereinafter 

Paradox of Limited Remedies]. 

127 Waterstone, Untold Story, supra note 33 at 1870. 

128 Colker, Fragile Compromise, supra note 28 at 411-412. 

129 Daniel Kahneman, the 2002 Nobel Prize winner in economics, pioneered “prospect theory” in 

the field of behavioral finance to describe how people evaluate loss and gain in situations of 

uncertainty and risk. He found that the fear of loss has a greater impact on the individual than the 

hope of gain. See Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tverskey, Prospect Theory: An Analysis of 

Decision Under Risk, 47 Econometrica 312 (1979). 

130 The most well-known example of this is probably found in Clint Eastwood’s response to 

being sued by Zum Brennan, who alleged that a public accommodation owned and operated by 

Eastwood was in violation of Title III of the ADA. After a seven-day trial in which the plaintiff’s 

motivation and credibility were strongly attacked, the jury found two minor access violations 

without any award of damages to the plaintiff. Among Eastwood’s post-trial comments to the 

press was the admonition that “[y]ou only settle when you’re wrong.” Adam A. Milani, Go 

Ahead. Make My 90 Days: Should Plaintiffs Be Required to Provide Notice to Defendants Before 

Filing Suit Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act?, 2001 Wis. L. Rev. 107, note 

397 (quoting from phone conversation with Paul L. Rein) [hereinafter Make My 90 Days]. 

131 Congressmen Foley and Shaw first proposed amending the ADA by requiring a 90-day 

written notice requirement when they sponsored the ADA Notification Act in February 2000, 

shortly before the ADA’s tenth anniversary. See H.R. 3590, 106th Cong. (2d Sess. 2000). The 

same text was later introduced in the Senate. See S. 3122, 106th Cong. (2d Sess. 2000). 

Representative Foley introduced the bill with the assertion that “the ADA is being used by some 

attorneys to shake down thousands of businesses from Florida to California. And they’re doing 

so at the expense of people with disabilities” and emphasized the dangers of “rogue attorneys” 

324 
initiating a “blizzard of lawsuits.” See The ADA Notification Act: Hearing on H.R. 3590 Before 

the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. (2000) 

(Statement of Rep. Foley). Numerous witnesses, including Clint Eastwood, spoke at the May 18, 

2000, hearing on the proposed bill, which was eventually defeated. Some version of the bill has 

been introduced every year since 2000, but so far the ADA Notification Act has not garnered 

sufficient support to move out of the House. 

132 Title III’s private right of action enables only injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys’ 

fees and costs, without a right to monetary damages, 42 U.S.C.A § 12188(a)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 

2000a-3(a). The allegation is that plaintiffs and attorneys in states that have laws which enable 

plaintiffs to recover monetary damages for suffering disability discrimination—most notoriously 

California, Florida, and Hawaii—unduly encourage serial and vexatious access claims. See, for 

example, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et. seq., which both 

incorporates a violation of the ADA as an independent violation of the Unruh Act and gives 

plaintiffs the right to seek minimum statutory damages of $4,000.00. 

133 The federal courts make their written opinions publicly accessible and text-searchable on an 

automated Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, and the CM/ECF 

system may also have other case-related documents, such as a case summary, docket sheets, and 

pleadings available through the PACER Web site, pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/index.html (last visited 

July 2006). 

134 The Administrative Office of the Judiciary in Washington, DC, develops and establishes the 

forms and documents used in federal court, including the Civil Cover Sheet and its NOS choices. 

135 The “440” category represents “Other Civil Rights” cases, thereby spanning all cases filed 

under such laws as the Civil Rights Act (all Titles), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 

and the Fair Housing Act. Cases that should have been characterized as “446” could have been 

mistakenly checked under “440,” and we are aware that this happened, for example, in 

Wisconsin when 24 Title III physical accessibility cases filed in 2005 were found under “440.” 

Without prior specific information about these cases, they could not be found without 

individually examining hundreds of “440” complaints filed across the country. In addition, many 

federal districts have very limited documents and case information available online, so the 

complaints cannot be viewed without an actual visit to the courthouse. While we know that some 

cases filed under “440” have not been included, some “440” and “445” cases were 

mischaracterized as “446” cases. These have been included in our calculations whenever we 

have not been able to access a federal district’s complaints, as we chose to err on the side of 

inclusion. In those instances where we were able to fully access a federal court district’s 

complaints, we have excluded “446” cases that were brought under Title I or another civil rights 

law. 

136 The “at most” estimate for the Title III cases comes about because not all the federal court 

districts have all their complaints and other court documents available online. Without reading 

the complaint itself, the basis of the “446” claim cannot be determined. Those “446” claims that 

were brought against a public government entity or a school district/state education department 

have been excluded as cases that are likely brought under Title II of the ADA/Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act and IDEA, respectively. Cases in which the defendant was an individual or a 

Title III private entity have been included in our Title III case count even where the complaint 

325 
could not be viewed; therefore, some of these cases doubtless involve Title III issues other than 

physical accessibility (e.g., allegations of a failure to provide communication access or 

modification of practices and procedures). 

137 While New Jersey actually had a just a few more “446” filings than Texas for the first half of 

2005 (21 in New Jersey to 18 in Texas), Texas had a considerably higher proportion of possible 

Title III cases among the “446” filings (7 in New Jersey to 14 in Texas) for that period. 

138 California Senator Chuck Poochigian has a chart on his Web site that purports to track the 

filing of ADA lawsuits in California’s federal district courts and shows a steady increase from 26 

suits filed in 1992 to 2,231 suits filed in 2004 and 2,544 ADA lawsuits projected to be filed in 

2005. If this number is used, ADA lawsuits would constitute 10.6% of California’s civil cases for 

that year. The chart states that it does not include lawsuits filed in state courts or cases settled 

before a lawsuit is filed, but does not specify what is included in “ADA lawsuits” or how its 

numbers are tallied. See http://republican.sen.ca.gov/opeds/14/oped2725_print.asp (last visited 

July 17, 2006). 

139 See Cal Civ. Code (Unruh Act) § 54.3(a); Fl Civil Rights Law, § 760.11(5); NY Human 

Rights Law § 297(9); HI Rev. Stat. § 347-13.5; TX Human Resources Code § 121.004(b). 

140 Supra note 40. 

141 Christine Griffin, then executive director of the Disability Law Center, which was the 

Massachusetts protection and advocacy agency and a member of the National Association of 

Protection and Advocacy Systems (now National Disability Rights Network), testified before 

Congress concerning the breadth of real-life Title III issues the Disability Law Center had dealt 

with: “Why should a person who is blind and uses a guide dog for mobility assistance have to 

wait 90 days after they’ve been denied access to a restaurant? Why should a person who uses a 

wheelchair who has been denied access to a restaurant that was recently remodeled but failed to 

comply with state and federal access laws have to wait 90 days after their civil rights have been 

violated? Why should a person who has mental retardation wait 90 days to invoke a court’s 

jurisdiction after being told by a restaurant owner that he won’t serve him because he doesn’t 

think the other customers want to look at him?” The ADA Notification Act, Hearing on H.R. 

3590 Before Subcomm. On the Constitution of the House Comm. on the Judiciary, 106th Cong. 

(2000), at 2000 WL 19303717 (statement of Christine Griffin). 

142 Supra note 72 and discussion in Part IV.1.C on “Reasons for Widespread Non-Compliance 

with Title III.” 

143 See Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 4506(a). 

144 See Or. Rev. Stat. § 659A.885(3). 

145 See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 344.450, 207.260. 

146 See DC Code Ann. §2-1403.16(a). 

147 Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 344.450, 207.260. 

148 There are other litigation-related activities, such as prelitigation extrajudicial settlements and 

ADA claims joined to state disability law claims that are brought in state court, which are likely 

relevant to determining the impact of Title III private litigation. However, it is extremely difficult 

326 
to get accurate figures for lawsuits that were threatened and then “settled” informally, since such 

settlements are not necessarily tracked or published anywhere. Similarly, ADA claims brought in 

state court are not tracked consistently and are difficult to obtain for review. It is also more likely 

for state claims to be joined to a Title III claim in federal court than for a Title III claim to be 

brought in state court, at least in those federal court districts that have not placed specific 

procedural or other limitations on the filing of Title III lawsuits, see infra note 113 and text 

accompanying. While it is arguable that small claims cases can be linked to Title III, (e.g., a 

plaintiff with a disability could try to recover for relatively minor out-of-pocket medical 

expenses or equipment expenses allegedly caused by a defendant public accommodation’s 

failure to accomplish readily achievable barrier removal in accordance with Title III), it is even 

more difficult to consistently find and accurately analyze small claims cases, which are generally 

not formally tracked to nearly the same degree as federal cases. Defense attorney Gregory 

Hurley, through his work with the California Administrative Office of the Courts, has made 

estimates of state court and small claims ADA filings based on his own litigation experience; he 

acknowledges that it is difficult to find concrete evidence for these numbers. Telephone 

interview with Gregory F. Hurley (April 25, 2006). 

149 Colker, Fragile Compromise, supra note 28 at 399–400. 

150 Id at 401. 

151 Id at 399. It is worth noting that Colker published this article before to the Supreme Court’s 

decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and 

Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001). 

152 Waterstone, Untold Story, supra note 33 at 1826–27. 

153 Id at 1870. 

154 One prominent disability rights firm that represents serial plaintiffs throughout California 

indicated that in 2004 and earlier, it was filing almost exclusively in federal court. The firm now 

files much less in federal court, with approximately 50% or more of its current 70–75 cases filed 

in state court. One of the chief factors in the decision to file federally is the nature of the relief 

claimed. If a case involves a large or complex injunctive relief component, the firm will file in 

federal court because there is less chance that the defendant can simply fix everything and moot 

the federal case. Cases that involve less injunctive relief, where damages are a significant 

component of the remedial claim, are more likely to be filed in state court, since the plaintiff will 

have to go there anyway if the federal claim is mooted. This same firm has also seen federal 

court judges in one California district increasingly relinquish their supplemental jurisdiction over 

the state claims, even when the federal ADA claim remains live, and the plaintiff is required to 

refile in state court and simultaneously bring the action in two courts. The firm would rather file 

ADA and state claims in state court in the first place if it will have to try a claim there anyway. 

Oddly enough, the firm has also brought ADA and state claims in state court only to have the 

defendant ask for removal to federal court. Telephone interview with Jennifer Steneberg, staff 

attorney at The Frankovich Group (July 12, 2006). 

155 As long as the defendant addresses the issues raised in the plaintiff’s complaint before 

judgment or settlement, there will be no right to attorney fees under Buckhannon. One federal 

court in Florida granted the defendant restaurant’s request for a stay of the proceedings pending 

remediation so that plaintiff’s counsel could not earn fees. See Macort and Access Now, Inc. v. 

327 
Checker Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., 8:03-cv-1328-T-30EAJ, discussed in Association for 

Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Integra Resort Management, Inc., 385 F. Supp.2d 1272, 1284–85 

(M.D. Fla. 2005). 

156 See Graham v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 331 (Dec. 2, 2004); TiptonWhittingham v. City of Los Angeles, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 371 (Dec. 2, 2004). California’s Supreme 

Court in Tipton-Whittingham stated that “California law continues to recognize the catalyst 

theory and does not require ‘a judicially recognized change in the legal relationship between the 

parties’ as a prerequisite for obtaining attorney fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 

1021.5. In order to obtain attorney fees without such a judicially recognized change in the legal 

relationship between the parties, a plaintiff must establish (1) that the lawsuit was a catalyst 

motivating the defendants to provide the primary relief sought; (2) that the lawsuit had merit and 

achieved its catalytic effect by threat of victory, not by dint of nuisance and threat of expense, as 

elaborated in Graham; and (3) that the plaintiffs reasonably attempted to settle the litigation prior 

to filing the lawsuit.” Id at 375–76. In a subsequent modification of Graham v. DaimlerChrysler, 

34 Cal. 4th 553, 577, the Supreme Court clarified that under the catalyst theory, “[l]engthy 

prelitigation negotiations are not required, nor is it necessary that the settlement demand be made 

by counsel, but a plaintiff must at least notify the defendant of its grievances and proposed 

remedies and give the defendant the opportunity to meet its demands within a reasonable time." 

157 Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 347 F. Supp.2d 860, 866 (C.D. Cal. 2004). 

158 Id at 865. 

159 Wilson v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 411 F. Supp.2d 1196,1199 (E.D. Cal. 2006). 

160 Id at 1200. 

161 Id at 1201. 

162 Amy B. Vandeveld, an attorney and disability advocate, makes the same point when she asks 

“‘What difference does it make whether one person with a disability files 300 lawsuits or 

whether 300 different people with disabilities file one suit apiece?’ The barriers are the same. 

The damages are the same.” Quoted in Carri Becker, Private Enforcement of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act Via Serial Litigation: Abusive or Commendable?, 17 Hastings Women’s L.J. 93, 

108 (2006). 

163 Bagenstos, Paradox of Limited Remedies, supra note 85 (manuscript at 15). 

164 See discussion on sanctions immediately following. 

165 Black’s Law Dictionary 1596 (8th ed. 2004). 

166 See Weissman v. Quail Lodge, Inc., 179 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1999) (speaking to district 

court’s jurisdiction under All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a)). See also 28 U.S.C. § 1927 (court 

may hold any attorney or person who “multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and 

vexatiously” personally liable for additional costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees incurred as a 

result). 

167 305 F. Supp.2d 1278 (M.D. Fla. 2004). 

168 Id at 1285 and 1282 n. 14 (M.D. Fla. 2004). 

169 Id at 1285. 

328 
170 The ADA’s fee-shifting provision is permissive, stating that the court, “in its discretion, may 

allow the prevailing party . . . a reasonable attorney’s fee including litigation expenses, and 

costs.” 42 U.S.C. § 12205. 

171 See Macort v. Checker Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., 2005 WL 332422 *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 28, 

2005, unpublished) (“Court is not inclined to award attorney’s fees for prosecuting a lawsuit 

when a pre-suit letter to the Defendant would have achieved the same result”); Doran v. Del 

Taco, Inc., 373 F. Supp.2d 1028, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (“fair and reasonable to require a prelitigation unambiguous notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure before allowing attorneys’ 

fees in an ADA case”). 

172 Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Integra Resort Management, Inc., 385 F. Supp.2d 

1272 (M.D. Fla. 2005). The case contains an exhaustive review of decisions that have considered 

vexatious litigation under Title III, perhaps prompted by the fact that the case was remanded by 

the Eleventh Circuit when the plaintiffs’ appealed the district court’s original award of attorney’s 

fees only to the extent conceded by defendants. The decision to deny attorney’s fees and costs 

appears to be based not merely on the absence of presuit notice, but on a judgement that the 

plaintiff attorneys and his clients’ come to the court “without the normal presumption of 

integrity.” 

173 347 F. Supp.2d 860 (C.D. Cal. 2004). 

174 Id at 863. 

175 Id at 864–65. 

176 Id at 868. 

177 Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 359 F. Supp.2d 924, 929 (C.D. Cal. 2005). 

178 The text of Rule 11 is as follows: Rule 11. Signing of Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; 

Representations to Court; Sanctions 

(a) Signature. Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least 

one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name, or, if the party is not represented 

by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. Each paper shall state the signer's address 

and telephone number, if any. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or 

statute, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. An unsigned paper 

shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called 

to the attention of the attorney or party. 

(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, 

submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or 

unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, 

and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,-- 

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause 

unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; 

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law 

or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law 

or the establishment of new law; 

329 
(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if 

specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable 

opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and 

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so 

identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. 

(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court 

determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions 

stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that 

have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation. 

(1) How Initiated. 

(A) By Motion. A motion for sanctions under this rule shall be made separately from 

other motions or requests and shall describe the specific conduct alleged to violate 

subdivision (b). It shall be served as provided in Rule 5, but shall not be filed with or 

presented to the court unless, within 21 days after service of the motion (or such other 

period as the court may prescribe), the challenged paper, claim, defense, contention, 

allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or appropriately corrected. If warranted, the court 

may award to the party prevailing on the motion the reasonable expenses and attorney's 

fees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion. Absent exceptional circumstances, a 

law firm shall be held jointly responsible for violations committed by its partners, 

associates, and employees. 

(B) On Court's Initiative. On its own initiative, the court may enter an order describing 

the specific conduct that appears to violate subdivision (b) and directing an attorney, law 

firm, or party to show cause why it has not violated subdivision (b) with respect thereto. 

(2) Nature of Sanction; Limitations. A sanction imposed for violation of this rule shall be 

limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by 

others similarly situated. Subject to the limitations in subparagraphs (A) and (B), the 

sanction may consist of, or include, directives of a nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a 

penalty into court, or, if imposed on motion and warranted for effective deterrence, an 

order directing payment to the movant of some or all of the reasonable attorneys' fees and 

other expenses incurred as a direct result of the violation. 

(A) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded against a represented party for a violation of 

subdivision (b)(2). 

(B) Monetary sanctions may not be awarded on the court's initiative unless the court 

issues its order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or settlement of the claims 

made by or against the party which is, or whose attorneys are, to be sanctioned. 

(3) Order. When imposing sanctions, the court shall describe the conduct determined to 

constitute a violation of this rule and explain the basis for the sanction imposed. 

(d) Inapplicability to Discovery. Subdivisions (a) through (c) of this rule do not apply to 

disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions that are subject to 

the provisions of Rules 26 through 37. 

330 
179 See Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant, 2005 WL 3719631 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2005, 

unreported) (defendant’s Rule 11 application for sanctions in the amount of its attorney’s fees 

and costs denied for procedural defects, and because summary judgement was issued on standing 

grounds, which is not a decision on the merits). 

180 Rule 11(c)(1)(B). 

181 Rule 11(c)(2) and comments to 1993 amendments to Rule 11. 

182 Comments to 1993 amendments to Rule 11. 

183 Milani, Make My 90 Days, supra note 89 at 175–76. 

184 Infra notes 145-156 and accompanying text. 

185 Doran v. Vicorp Restaurants, Inc., 2005 WL 3244046 *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2005) (internal 

quotations omitted). 

186 Telephone interview with Bruce Hohol, owner of Hoho’s Café (July 19, 2006). 

187 Many small business entities indicate continuing unfamiliarity with the 10 Disability and 

Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs) located around the country that provide 

information, training, and technical assistance to ADA stakeholders through a toll-free line (1­

800-949-4232), a main Web site (www.adata.org/) and regional Web sites, and numerous 

publications. The DBTACs have more than 200 titles available, many in Spanish and other 

languages; they distributed over 7 million titles in the first decade of the ADA’s existence. 

Unfortunately, this information, along with such technical assistance publications as the DOJ’s 

“ADA Guide for Small Businesses,” does not appear to consistently filter down or garner 

sufficient attention at local levels. 

188 Telephone interview with Bobbie Beckman, executive director of the Heart of the Valley 

Chamber of Commerce (July 18, 2006) and February 2005 press release issued by the HOV 

Chamber. 

189 Telephone interview with, and March 25, 2005, press release issued by, Robert Shumaker, 

Esq., of DeWitt Ross & Stevens (July 19, 2006). 

190 Ed Lowe, Local Lawsuits Trigger Debate Over ADA Compliance, Post-Crescent News, July 

24, 2005. 

191 Id. 

192 Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires aggrieved people to provide 30 days’ notice 

to a state or local agency before filing a civil suit for race- or religious-based discrimination, but 

neither administrative exhaustion nor written notice to the defendants is required. See 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000a-3(c). See also Milani, Make My 90 Days, supra note 89 at 159–168. 

193 Wis. Stat. § 106.52(4)(e) (damages, including punitive, are available for violations of 

Wisconsin’s “Equal Rights Programs”). 

194 Telephone interview with Gene Zweben, Schwartz Zweben & Associates LLP (July 21, 

2006). 

195 Some of the ire felt against Hackel’s attorneys is clearly traceable to their status as “outsiders” 

to the state. It is an open question, though, how difficult it might have been for Hackel to find a 

331 
local attorney who would take her case. Shumaker replied negatively when he was asked 

whether he had heard of any Title III litigation or demand letters brought by Wisconsin lawyers 

other than the Fox Valley lawsuits. Hohol mentioned that if any law firm in the Valley or in 

Wisconsin had tried to bring a bunch of lawsuits without any notice, it would not be able to 

continue in business. However, Title III plaintiffs have a right to bring such lawsuits. The same 

“outsider” status is accorded to plaintiffs with disabilities who bring an access lawsuit against 

communities where they do not reside. 

196 The DOJ, for example, when it chose to establish a principle of “comparable sight lines” in 

stadium-style movie theaters where wheelchair users were relegated to the front row(s), 

“[a]ttacked this problem by suing two of the largest chains in the industry. (United States v. AMC 

Entertainment, Inc.; United States v Cinemark USA, Inc.) . . . [and] also opened several 

investigations of other national chains.” See Press Release, DOJ, Statement by the Department of 

Justice on the National Council on Disability’s Report on the ADA (June 27, 2000), available at 

www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/June/369cr.htm (last visited July 27, 2006). 

197 Robin Jones recalls one particular local radio host who ran phone-in sessions and tried to 

encourage balanced discussion of the issues raised by the lawsuits. E-mail communication from 

Robin Jones, director of the Great Lakes ADA and Accessible IT Assistance Center (June 22, 

2006). 

198 See, for example, Christopher R. Leslie, A Market-Based Approach to Coupon Settlements in 

Antitrust and Consumer Class Action Litigation, 49 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 991 (2002); Alexandra 

Lahav, Fundamental Principles for Class Action Governance, 37 Ind. L. Rev. 65 (2003); Edward 

Brunet, Class Action Objectors: Extortionist Free Riders or Fairness Guarantors, 2003 U. Chi. 

Legal F. 403; Michael Selmi, The Price of Discrimination: The Nature of Class Action 

Employment Discrimination Litigation and Its Effects, 81 Tex. L. Rev. 1249 (2003). 

199 Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, § 2(a)(2)(A) (codified as 

note to 28 U.S.C. § 1711). 

200 See Anthony Rollo and Gabriel A. Crowson, Mapping the New Class Action Frontier-A 

Primer on the Class Fairness Act and Amended Federal Rule 23, 59 Consumer Fin. L.Q. Rep. 11 

(2005) 

201 Rollo & Crowson, id at 17, summarizing Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, § 3(a) (codified as 

28U.S.C. §1715(b)). 

202 Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, § 3(a) (codified as 28 U.S.C. §1715(d)). 

203 Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4, § 3(a) (codified as 28 U.S.C. §1715(e)(1)-(2)). 

204 Supra note 41. 

205 Telephone interview with Lainey Feingold, Oct. 7, 2005; Telephone interview with Christina 

Galinda-Walsh and Kenneth Shiotani, Oct. 7, 2005. 

206 The following list is a condensed compilation of the different objections and/or supporting 

memorandums of law filed jointly by numerous P&A attorneys in each of the cases. While each 

set of objections refers to facts and violations of the ADAAG specific to each case, there is a 

general pattern of objections owing to the relatively consistent use of overreaching language in 

all proposed consent decrees. The degree of commonality suggests that, at the very least, the 

332 
party attorneys in these cases are aware of the arguments and settlement proposals used by the 

others. As one attorney involved in filing objections has noted: “the same identical sets of 

‘tolerances’ or ADAAG loopholes are reappearing as ‘Appendix 4’ in settlement after settlement 

in a fashion that could not be coincidence.” Interview with Amy Robertson, Oct. 11, 2005. The 

Department of Justice (DOJ) objections filed in the May Co. case, the objections filed by the 

United States amicus brief in the BFS case, and the objections filed by the Florida Attorney 

General amicus brief in the BFS case will also be reviewed for any additional, specifically 

government, arguments raised by those agencies to the court. 

207 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Twenty-one Protection and Advocacy 

Agencies’ Objections to Proposed Class Certification and Settlement at 2 (filed Aug. 9, 2001), 

hereinafter May Co. objections. 

208 Protection and Advocacy Agencies’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Objections to 

Class Certification and the Consent Decree at 3 (filed Jan. 9, 2002), hereinafter Amoco 

objections. 

209 Objections to Proposed Class Settlement by Twelve State Protection and Advocacy Agencies 

at 4 (filed Oct. 22, 2001), hereinafter 7-Eleven objections. 

210 Objections of Eleven Protection and Advocacy Agencies, and Dean Davis, Peter Giovanoli, 

Mary Giordan, and Carol Williams to Proposed Class Action Consent Decree at 10 (filed July 

18, 2002), hereinafter BFS objections. 

211 May Co. objections at 3. 

212 Amoco objections at 4. 

213 May Co. objections at 20. 

214 Id at 21. 

215 Memorandum Opinion and Order 6 (N.D. Tex., filed April 10, 2002). 

216 For example, Arizona’s Civil Rights Act gives the court discretion to “award such other relief 

as the court considers appropriate, including monetary damages to aggrieved people.” See A.R.S. 

§ 41-1492.09(B)(2). 

217 For example, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act grants minimum statutory damages of 

$4,000 for the failure to provide people with disabilities full and equal accommodations, 

advantages, facilities, privileges, and services in all business establishments. Prevailing plaintiffs 

are also entitled to attorney fees. See Cal Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq. 

218 See A.R.S. § 41-1492.09(C). 

219 May Co. objections at 21. 

220 BFS objections at 19-21. The settlement does not refer at all to any kind of relief for people 

with mental or psychological disabilities who face discrimination or policy/attitudinal barriers at 

BFS stores. Presumably, BFS could adopt an outright exclusion policy of people with 

developmental disabilities that would not be actionable, because such people are encompassed in 

the class and would be deemed to have released their rights under state and federal law. 

333 
221 For example, public accommodations are given greater flexibility and defenses for the 

retrofitting of older buildings that were already in existence on the ADA’s effective dates, see 28 

C.F.R. § 36.304(a), while stores built after Jan. 26, 1993, have much less discretion to avoid 

meeting the ADAAG standards, reflecting the fact that “accessibility can be more conveniently 

and economically incorporated in the initial stages of design and construction.” 28 C.F.R. § 

36.304 App. B. 

222 Telephone interview with Brian East, attorney with Texas P&A (June 22, 2006), and 

telephone interview with Larry Paradis, attorney with Disability Rights Advocates (June 22, 

2006). 

223 7-Eleven objections at 15, 9. 

224 Amoco objections at 32. 

225 Amoco objections at 14, BFS objections at 23. 

226 May Co. objections at 30. 

227 Id at 32. 

228 Id. 

229 Amoco objections at 13–15. 

230 May Co. objections at 29. 

231 Telephone interview with Larry Paradis, supra note 167. Paradis recognized that the insertion 

of adequate monitoring provisions into a settlement is “always a fight, because defendants don’t 

want it,” so plaintiff attorneys must build a credible record for refusing to enter settlement 

without provision for independent monitoring. Unfortunately, if part of the motivation for a 

settlement without monitoring is a collusive relationship between plaintiff and defense counsel, 

plaintiff counsel cannot be counted on to stand up strongly for adequate future monitoring of 

injunctive relief. 

232 7-Eleven objections at 23. 

233 In the May Co. case, the parties subsequently settled for all the Lord & Taylor stores in 

Florida only after the court denied class certification and the terms of the proposed class action 

settlement. In 7-Eleven, the court denied class certification and disapproved the proposed 

consent decree. 

234 Interview with Christina Galinda-Walsh, Oct. 7, 2005. 

235 Interview with Lainey Feingold concerning her intervention in 7-Eleven on behalf of the 

American Council for the Blind, on whose behalf she had already been negotiating for talking 

ATMs with 7-Eleven when the Association for Disabled Americans submitted the proposed 

consent decree (Oct. 7, 2005). 

236 National Class Action Settlements: When Should P&As Object? Fact Sheet by Disabilities 

Law Project and Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law (Oct. 1, 2002). 

237 Interview with Brian East, supra note 181. 

238 Court’s Order Approving Proposed Class Settlement (filed Feb. 19, 2002). 

334 
239 Court’s Order granting preliminary approval of proposed amended consent decree (filed Aug. 

16, 2002). 

240 Interview with Amy Robertson, Oct. 11, 2005, concerning Title III action initiated against 

Circle K. 

241 Id concerning Title III action initiated against Arby’s, see Access Now., Inc. and Christ Soter 

Tavantzis v. RTM Operating Company, d/b/a Arby’s, Case No. 02-23374-CIV-Martinez/Klein 

(S.D. Flo). 

242 The education of Title III class counsel on potential problematic settlement issues must be 

ongoing, as new counsel are always entering the field without sufficient awareness of all of the 

settlement pitfalls. East notes that many of the earlier problematic settlements used an “ADAAG 

light” measure of accessibility that permitted unacceptable levels of tolerances. Some of the 

more recent problematic settlements have had adequate accessibility measures and tailored 

remedies for people with mobility disabilities, but they have overly broad class definitions and 

inadequate remedial provision for people with other kinds of disabilities that fall within the class. 

Interview with Brian East, supra note 181. 

243 Communication from Elaine Feingold & Amy Robertson, Recommendations for Settling 

Class Actions under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (2002) (Oct. 13, 2005). This 

article has also been published by LRP. 

244 Interview with Brian East, supra note 181. 

245 Id. 

246 A sample of Feingold’s structured negotiations settlement agreement is attached as Appendix 

A. 

247 Communication from Lainey Feingold, “2004 Sample of Privileged and Confidential 

Settlement Communication from Linda Dardarian and Elaine B. Feingold” (Oct. 7, 2005). 

248 Telephone interviews with three separate corporate counsel, July 18, 21, and 27, 2006. The 

counsel worked with financial institutions ranging in size from a bank that operated in three 

states with 500–600 branches and 1,000 ATMs, to a bank with approximately 6,200 branches 

and 6504 ATMS, ranking in the top five of its industry for assets and market value of stock. 

249 Chandler Glover and Dean Albrecht, et al. v. John E. Potter, Post Master General, EEOC 

No. 320-A2-8011X; Agency No. CC-801-0015-99. 

250 2004 WL 2370633 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2004). 

251 Class Action Settlement Agreement, Travis D. v. Eastmont Human Services Center, No. CV96-63-H-CSO (D. Mont. Feb. 5, 2004). 

252 Id at Exhibit B, at 1, 4-11, 13-14, 15-17, 18. 

253 See, for example, Settlement Agreement between Cupolo and Bay Area Rapid Transit, No. C96-02991 CW/JSB (N.D. Cal. July 17, 1998). 

254 Disability rights advocates have initiated a number of lawsuits in this area. One was settled in 

Oregon in 2004. 

255 Case No. 99-MK-2086 (D.Col.) 

335 
336 
Appendix A – Sample Structured Negotiations Agreement 

1. Parties 

The Parties to this Agreement are (1) COMPANY and (2) Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, 

Borgen & Dardarian (GDB) and Co-Counsel Elaine B. Feingold (Feingold) and their 

clients: LIST CLIENTS (Claimants). 

2. Purposes 

The purposes of this agreement are: 

a. To protect the interest of all Parties during the pendency of negotiations 

concerning disputed claims over SUBJECT OF NEGOTIATIONS 

b. To provide an alternative to litigation in the form of good faith negotiations 

concerning disputed claims SUBJECT OF THE DISPUTE; and 

c. To explore whether the Parties’ disputes concerning the SUBJECT OF 

DISPUTE can be resolved without the need for litigation. 

3. Tolling of Alleged ADA and State Law Claims 

The Parties recognize and agree that, as used in this Agreement, the term 

“Claim(s)” includes any and all claims that could be brought either 

before an administrative agency or in a civil lawsuit in either state or 

federal court alleging that people with vision disabilities are being, have 

been, and continue to be discriminated against due to the alleged 

inaccessibility of SUBJECT OF DISPUTE 

To the extent that Claimants could assert a Claim or any Claims under any 

state or federal statute, which assertion COMPANY denies, such Claims 

will be tolled beginning with the effective date of this Agreement and will 

remain tolled during negotiations and throughout the duration of the 

tolling agreement as described in paragraph 6 below. 

The Parties agree that during the duration of the tolling agreement GDB, 

Feingold, and their clients will refrain from filing state or federal 

Claims against COMPANY with any agency or court regarding the 

subject of this Agreement. 

The Agreement is not intended to revive and does not revive any Claims which 

would have been barred by the applicable statute of limitations prior to 

the effective date of this Agreement. Further, the purpose and effect of 

this Agreement is to stop the running of any applicable statute of 

limitations as of the effective date of the Agreement and to restart the 

running of that statute of limitations immediately upon the expiration of 

the thirty-day period set forth in paragraph 6. At the end of the thirtyday period, all applicable statutes of limitations shall resume running 

A-1 
from the point that they were tolled. In other words, the statutes are not 

reset by the execution of this Agreement. 

4. Topics To Be Addressed through Negotiations: The Parties agree that the subject of 

negotiations undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will include, but are not limited to: 

a. BASIC TOPIC 

b. TRAINING OR POLICIES RELATED TO BASIC TOPIC; 

c. Reasonable damages and reasonable attorney fees, costs and litigation 

expenses as that term is defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 

U.S.C. § 12205 (the ADA) and applicable state laws. 

d. Scope and format of binding agreement addressing (a) – (c), monitoring, and 

other relevant issues. 

5. Attorney Fees 

The Parties recognize that execution of this Agreement is in lieu of Claimants filing a 

complaint in federal court. The Parties agree that Claimants shall not be precluded from 

recovering reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses, and costs, as defined by the 

ADA and applicable state laws, because Claimants pursued alternative means of dispute 

resolution, including but not limited to settlement negotiations, mediation and/or 

arbitration, rather than instituting a civil action in this matter. In this regard, COMPANY 

will not assert that Claimants or Counsel for Claimants are not entitled to recover 

attorney fees, expenses or costs because Claimants or their Counsel did not obtain relief 

in the form of an enforceable judgment, consent decree or court order. 

6. Duration of Tolling Agreement 

The tolling effectuated in this Agreement will remain in effect until thirty (30) days after 

any party gives written notice by certified mail to all other parties that the tolling 

agreement is no longer effective. Upon such notice, COMPANY’s obligation to negotiate 

with Claimants regarding the topics listed in paragraph 4 will expire. 

7. No Admission of Liability 

The Parties expressly recognize and agree that entering into this Agreement does not in 

any way constitute an admission of liability or any wrongdoing by any Party, and that all 

discussions and negotiations pursuant to this Agreement will constitute conduct made in 

an effort to compromise claims within the meaning of Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 

408 or any similar state rule of evidence. 

8. Confidentiality 

The Parties and their attorneys agree that all information discussed or exchanged during 

the negotiations contemplated by this Agreement about COMPANY including but not 

limited to information about LIST ISSUES OF IMPORTANCE TO COMPANY SUCH 

AS, business strategy or plans, staffing, internal processes, vendor capability, 

maintenance and equipment, product or service concepts or pricing, which are not 

generally available to the public (COMPANY Proprietary Information) shall not be 

disclosed to any third parties, including the general membership of the Claimants except 

as legally required. To the extent the Parties retain any experts or consultants for the 

A-2 
purposes contemplated by this Agreement, each such expert or consultant will be advised 

of the provisions of this paragraph and will execute an agreement to maintain the 

confidentiality of COMPANY Proprietary Information. 

9. Rules of Construction 

Each Party, through its legal counsel, has reviewed and participated in the drafting of this 

Agreement; and any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are construed 

against the drafting Party shall not apply in the interpretation or construction of this 

Agreement. Section titles used herein are intended for reference purposes only and are 

not to be construed as part of the Agreement. 

10. Effective Date 

The effective date of this Agreement is the date of the last signature below. 

CO-COUNSEL 

LAW OFFICE OF ELAINE B. FEINGOLD 

Date: __________________ By: ________________________________ 

 Attorneys for Claimants 

COMPANY 

Date: __________________ By: ________________________________ 

A-3 
A-4 
Appendix B – Stakeholder Dialogue Participants 

Disability Community 

February 10, 2006 

Sacramento, California 

Ana Acton, Systems Change Advocate 

FREED Center for Independent Living 

Grass Valley, CA 

Catherine Kelly Baird 

Executive Director 

California Governor’s Committee on 

Employment of People with Disabilities 

Sacramento, CA 

Susan Barnhill Chandler, Board Member 

Californians for Disability Rights 

Sacramento, CA 

Connie Barker, Vice President 

Environmental Health Network 

San Rafael, CA 

Dwight Bateman, Executive Director 

Disability Rights Resources Agency for 

Independent Living 

Modesto, CA 

Robert Benson 

California Disability Community Action 

Network 

Sacramento, CA 

Carol Bradley, ADA Coordinator 

City of Sacramento 

Sacramento, CA 

Leslie Brewer 

Director of Advocacy and Services 

Placer Independent Resource Services 

Auburn, CA 

Kim Carey 

Assistant to Executive Director 

California Governor’s Committee on 

Employment of People with Disabilities 

Sacramento, CA 

Brian Connors, Staff Services Analyst 

California Employment Development 

Department 

Sacramento, CA 

Rachel Ford 

California Disability Community Action 

Network 

Sacramento, CA 

Don Fox, Accessibility Compliance 

Coordinator 

Accessible Design Collaborative 

Mariposa, CA 

Kristi Gillen 

Sacramento, CA 

Ann Guerra, Executive Director 

FREED Center for Independent Living 

Grass Valley, CA 

Robert Holland 

Sacramento, CA 

Mark Leeper, Executive Director 

Disability Action Center NW 

Moscow, ID 

Bill Maskill 

Strokewaves, FREED CIL 

Grass Valley, CA 

B-1 
Tink Miller, Executive Director 

Placer Independent Resource Services 

Auburn, CA 

Christina Mills-Hovious 

Statewide Community Organizer 

California Foundation of Independent 

Living Centers 

Sacramento, CA 

Mary Nicholson 

Healing in Motion 

French Camp, CA 

Marty Omoto, Executive Director 

California Disability Community Action 

Network 

Sacramento, CA 

Pam Porteous-Hunt, Associate Director 

State Independent Living Council 

Sacramento, CA 

Mitch Pomerantz 

ADA Compliance Officer 

Department on Disability 

City of Los Angeles 

Los Angeles, CA 

Anne Scheck 

Trammart, Inc., Medical Writing 

Thousand Oaks, CA 

Richard Skaff 

Mill Valley, CA 

Ken Stein 

Mayor’s Office on Disability 

City and County of San Francisco 

San Francisco, CA 

Nancy Thomas 

Alameda County Network of Mental Health 

Clinics 

Oakland, CA 

Terelle Terry 

Californians for Disability Rights 

Sacramento, CA 

Laura Williams, President 

Californians for Disability Rights 

Glendona, CA 

Marcia Yamamoto, Manager 

California Employment Development 

Department 

Sacramento, CA 

B-2 
Title III, Large Businesses 

February 21–22, 2006 

San Francisco, California 

Shelley Bergum, CEO 

California Communications Access 

Foundation 

Oakland, CA 

Gene Chelberg, Director 

Disability Programs and Resource Center 

San Francisco State University 

San Francisco, CA 

Anne Cohen 

Disability and Health Policy Consultant 

Disability Health Access 

San Francisco, CA 

Lainey Feingold, Attorney 

Law Offices of Lainey Feingold 

Berkeley, CA 

Carl Goldberg, Associate Counsel 

Federated Department Stores, Inc. 

San Francisco, CA 

Hollis Harris, Capital Projects Team 

Manager 

Kaiser Permanente, Inc. 

Walnut Creek, CA 

Logan Hopper, Architect 

Logan Hopper Associates 

Oakland, CA 

Erica Jones, Executive Director 

Pacific ADA & TA Center 

Oakland, CA 

Karen Jackson 

Creative Movement Coordinator 

Berkeley YMCA 

Berkeley, CA 

Tracy Justesen, Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Walter Leveille 

Director of Access Compliance Services 

Evan Terry Associates 

Birmingham, AL 

Jim Mercurio 

Director, Stadium Operations 

San Francisco 49ers 

San Francisco, CA 

Blossom Michaeloff 

Web Research and Design 

Wells Fargo Bank 

San Francisco, CA 

Mark Neider, Nurse Manager 

Wells Fargo 

San Francisco, CA 

Larry Paradis, Executive Director 

Disability Rights Advocates 

Berkeley, CA 

Terrie Stanley, Director 

Health Services 

Partnership HealthPlan of California 

Fairfield, CA 

Ken Stein 

Mayor’s Office on Disability 

City and County of San Francisco 

San Francisco, CA 

Jim Terry, AIA 

Evan Terry Associates 

Birmingham, AL 

B-3 
Title III, Small Businesses 

February 23–24, 2006 

San Francisco, California 

Anita Aaron, Executive Director 

Rose Resnick Lighthouse for the Blind 

San Francisco, CA 

Jim Abrams, President and CEO 

California Hotel and Lodging Association 

Sacramento, CA 

Pat Christensen, President 

National Association of Small Businesses 

San Francisco, CA 

Paul Church 

Disability Service Specialist 

City of Berkeley 

Berkeley, CA 

Stephanie Cox, Outreach Coordinator 

Disability Rights Advocates 

Berkeley, CA 

Jan Garrett, Executive Director 

Center for Independent Living 

Berkeley, CA 

Erica Jones, Executive Director 

Pacific ADA and TA Center 

Oakland, CA 

Tracy Justesen, Attorney 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Tom Lakritz, Deputy City Attorney 

San Francisco City Attorney’s Office 

San Francisco, CA 

Herb Levine, Executive Director 

Independent Living Resources of San 

Francisco 

San Francisco, CA 

Walter Leveille, Architect 

Evan Terry Associates 

Birmingham, AL 

Michael Mankin, Architect 

Division of the State Architect 

Sacramento, CA 

Clifford Payne, Vice President 

Accessibility Development Associates 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Ken Stein 

Mayor’s Office on Disability 

City and County of San Francisco 

San Francisco, CA 

Jim Terry, AIA 

Evan Terry Associates 

Birmingham, AL 

B-4 
Transportation 

April 5–6, 2006 

Washington, D.C. 

Bob Ashby 

Deputy Assistant General Counsel for 

Regulation and Enforcement 

Office of the General Counsel 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, DC 

Barry Barker, Executive Director 

Transit Authority of River City 

Louisville, KY 

Pam Boswell, Vice President 

Program Management and Educational 

Services 

American Public Transit Association 

Washington, DC 

Victor Burke, Executive Vice President 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit 

Dallas, TX 

Dennis Cannon, Accessibility Specialist 

U.S. Access Board 

Washington, DC 

Robert Carlson 

Technical Assistance Specialist 

Community Transportation Association of 

America 

Washington, DC 

David Chia, Senior Consultant 

Planners Collaborative Transportation 

Boston, MA 

Nicholas Coates 

Equal Opportunity Specialist 

Office of Civil Rights 

Federal Transit Administration 

Washington, DC 

John Day 

Federal Transit Administration 

Washington, DC 

Nancy DiModica 

Office of Transportation Policy 

Office of Safety, Energy and Environment 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, DC 

Doug Douglas, Vice President 

Paratransit Services 

Dallas Area Rapid Transit 

Dallas, TX 

John Gaffney, Member 

Governor Bush’s ADA Working Group 

Ocala, FL 

Bonnie Graves, Attorney Advisor 

Office of Chief Counsel 

Federal Transit Administration 

Washington, DC 

Gerri Mason Hall, Vice President 

Business Diversity and Strategic Initiatives 

Amtrak 

Washington, DC 

Chris Hart 

Adaptive Environments 

Boston, MA 

Russell Haynes, ADA Coordinator 

Greyhound Lines 

Dallas, TX 

Kevin Irvine 

Senior Transportation Advocate 

Equip for Equality 

Chicago, IL 

B-5 
Christian Kent 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 

Authority 

Washington, DC 

Kyle Kleist 

Community Transportation Coordinator 

Center for Independent Living for Western 

Wisconsin 

Menomonie, WI 

David Knight 

Equal Opportunity Specialist 

Office of Civil Rights 

Federal Transit Administration 

Washington, DC 

Dan Manning, Litigation Director 

Greater Boston Legal Services 

Boston, MA 

Maureen McCloskey 

Advocacy Director 

Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Washington, DC 

Terry Moakley 

Associate Executive Director 

Communications and Public Affairs 

United Spinal Association 

Jackson Heights., NY 

Dennis Moore 

Senior Associate General Counsel 

Amtrak 

Washington, DC 

David Nelson, Specialist 

Amtrak 

Washington, DC 

Nancy Pineles, Managing Attorney 

Developmental Disabilities 

Maryland Disability Law Center 

Baltimore, MD 

Linda M. Pybas 

Office of Chief Counsel 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Washington, DC 

Sherry Repscher 

ADA Compliance Officer 

Civil Rights Department 

Utah Transit Agency 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Joyce Rose, Professional Staff 

Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and 

Pipelines 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure 

Washington, DC 

Tim Sheehan, Executive Director 

Center for Independent Living for Western 

Wisconsin 

Menomonie, WI 

Rosalyn Simon, President and CEO 

Simon & Simon Research and Associates 

Ellicott City, MD 

John Smolenski, Deputy Administrator 

Maryland Transit Administration 

Baltimore, MD 

Dennis Stombaugh 

Transportation Project Manager 

Association of Programs for Rural 

Independent Living 

Kent, OH 

Dawn Sweet 

Equal Opportunity Specialist 

Office of Civil Rights 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, DC 

B-6 
Donna R. Walton 

Equal Opportunity Specialist 

Office of Civil Rights 

Federal Transit Administration 

Washington, DC 

Jim Weisman, General Counsel 

United Spinal Association 

Jackson Heights, NY 

Michael Winter, Director 

Office of Civil Rights 

Federal Transit Administration 

Washington, DC 

Karen Wolf-Branigin 

Training and Technical Assistance Manager 

Project ACTION 

Easter Seals 

Washington, DC 

Pete Worthington, Consultant 

American Bus Association 

Punta Gorda, FL 

B-7 
Disability Community 

April 7, 2006 

Washington, D.C. 

Melanie Brunson, Executive Director 

American Council of the Blind 

Washington, DC 

Judi Chamberlin 

Director of Education and Training 

Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation 

Lawrence, MA 

Bobby Coward 

ADAPT 

Washington, DC 

Daniel Davis 

Acting Director of Advocacy and Public 

Policy 

National Council on Independent Living 

Washington, DC 

Mark Derry, Attorney 

Eastlake, Derry and Associates, LLC 

Accessibility Solutions 

Morgantown, WV 

Alexandra Finucane, Vice President Legal 

and Governmental Affairs 

Epilepsy Foundation 

Landover, MD 

Marcie Goldstein 

CRS Midwest Territory 

Cessi Accessible Solutions 

McLean, VA 

Christine Griffin, Attorney 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission 

Washington, DC 

Gary Gross, Director 

Jeanne A. Carpenter Epilepsy 

Legal Defense Fund 

Landover, MD 

Chris Hart 

Adaptive Environments 

Boston, MA 

Andy Imparato, Executive Director 

American Association of People with 

Disabilities 

Washington, DC 

Kyle Kleist 

Community Transportation Coordinator 

Center for Independent Living for Western 

Wisconsin 

Menomonee, WI 

David Knight 

Equal Opportunity Specialist 

Office of Civil Rights 

Federal Transit Administration 

Washington, DC 

Virginia Knowlton, Executive Director 

Maryland Disability Law Center 

Baltimore, MD 

Maureen McCloskey 

Advocacy Director 

Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Washington, DC 

Krista Merritt, Policy Analyst 

American Council of the Blind 

Washington, DC 

Kirsten Poston 

Disability Policy Analyst 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Washington, DC 

Denise Rozell 

Assistant Vice President 

Easter Seals 

Washington, DC 

B-8 
Tim Sheehan, Executive Director 

Center for Independent Living for Western 

Wisconsin 

Menomonie, WI 

Janna Starr 

Director of Disability Rights and 

Technology Policy 

The Public Policy Collaboration 

Washington, DC 

Kathleen Walsh 

Disability Rights Program Manager 

Equal Rights Center 

Washington, DC 

Jim Ward, Executive Director 

ADA Watch/National Coalition for 

Disability Rights 

Washington, DC 

Julie Ward 

Director of Employment and Transportation 

Policy 

United Cerebral Palsy 

Washington, DC 

Jim Weisman, General Counsel 

United Spinal Association 

Jackson Heights, NY 

B-9 
Employment, Title I 

April 18–19, 2006 

San Francisco, California 

Joni Breves, Executive Director 

Computer Technologies Program 

Berkeley, CA 

Kim Camacho, Diversity Consultant 

Kaiser Permanente Northern California 

Oakland, CA 

Claudia Center, Attorney 

Employment Law Center 

San Francisco, CA 

Sabrina Chiu, Staffing Consultant 

Pacific Gas and Electric 

Vacaville, CA 

Cynthia Cravens 

Joblink Program Coordinator 

Jewish Vocational Services 

San Francisco, CA 

Rebecca Davis 

Human Resources Services 

San Francisco, CA 

Alexa Frankenberg 

Senior Community Political Organizer 

SEIU 

Oakland, CA 

Steve Hirschfeld, Attorney 

Curiale Dellaverson Hirschfeld & Kraemer 

San Francisco, CA 

Bill Hirsh, Executive Director 

AIDS Legal Referral Panel 

San Francisco, CA 

Evelyn Hunt 

Lockheed Martin 

Sunnyvale, CA 

Philip La Barbera 

Senior Staff Interpreter 

Oracle Diversity 

Redwood Shores, CA 

Tina Marzell, Job Developer 

Toolworks 

San Francisco, CA 

Mark Neider, Nurse Manager 

Wells Fargo 

San Francisco, CA 

Patricia O’Sullivan 

Global Disability Program Manager 

Agilent Technologies 

Palo Alto, CA 

Michael Paravagna 

Chief, Disability Access 

California Department of Rehabilitation 

Sacramento, CA 

Jennifer Pesek, Staff Attorney 

California Center for Law and the Deaf 

San Leandro, CA 

Kathi Pugh, Pro Bono Program Counsel 

Morrison & Foerster 

San Francisco, CA 

Joe Quinn, Director of Training 

Computer Technologies Program 

Berkeley, CA 

Margie Rose, Employment Specialist 

Deaf Counseling, Advocacy & Referral 

Agency / California Employment 

Development Department 

San Leandro, CA 

B-10 
Jeffrey Sherman 

Director of Human Resources 

Exploratorium 

San Francisco, CA 

Francine Speer 

Senior Staffing Consultant 

Pacific Gas and Electric 

Vacaville, CA 

Anne Steiner 

Business Advisory and Placement 

Coordinator 

Computer Technologies Program 

Berkeley, CA 

Mary Telford, Employment Specialist 

Deaf Counseling, Advocacy & Referral 

Agency / California Employment 

Development Department 

Oakland, CA 

Mary Topliff, Attorney 

Law Offices of Mary L. Topliff 

San Francisco, CA 

Patricia Toussaint, Senior Consultant 

Affirmative Action and Equal Employment 

Opportunity and Diversity 

Pacific Gas and Electric 

San Francisco, CA 

Kay Tyhurst, Director of Employment 

Services for Deaf and Hard of Hearing 

Tri-Cities One-Stop Career Center 

Fremont, CA 

John Webber 

Associate Information Systems Analyst 

State Compensation Insurance Fund 

San Francisco, CA 

John Weber, Interagency Coordinator 

Improving Transition Outcomes Project 

Support for Families of Children with 

Disabilities 

San Francisco, CA 

Kenya Wiley, Manager 

Regulatory and Judicial Affairs 

Society for Human Resource Management 

Alexandria, VA 

B-11 
Title III, Large Businesses 

May 2–3, 2006 

Chicago, Illinois 

Sarah Alag, Assistant Coordinator 

Services for Students with Disabilities 

Loyola University 

Chicago, IL 

Christine Andrews, Director 

Health and Safety Regulatory Affairs 

National Restaurant Association 

Washington, DC 

Ellen Babbitt, Attorney 

Babbitt and Melton 

Chicago, IL 

Larry Biondi, Advocacy Coordinator 

Progress Center for Independent Living 

Forest Park, IL 

Lauren Blanchard, Assistant Coordinator 

Services for Students with Disabilities 

Loyola University 

Chicago, IL 

Jay Cardinali, Manager 

Global Operations 

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts 

Lake Buena Vista, FL 

Jack Catlin, Principal 

LCM Architects 

Chicago, IL 

Sally Conway, Director 

ADA Technical Assistance and Mediation 

Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Laurie Dittman, Senior Policy Analyst 

Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities 

Chicago, IL 

Steven John Fellman, Attorney 

Galland, Kharasch, Greenberg, Fellman & 

Swirsky, P.C. 

Representing NATO 

Washington, DC 

Frank Flanagan, Manager 

Human Resources 

St. Joseph County Airport Authority 

South Bend, IN 

Marc Freedman, Director 

Labor Law Policy 

Immigration and Employee Benefits 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Washington, DC 

Gerald Giovannelli 

Plant Operations Manager 

St. Xavier University of Chicago 

Chicago, IL 

Alan Goldstein, Senior Attorney 

PABSS Project Manager 

Equip for Equality 

Chicago, IL 

Ingrid Gould 

Assistant Vice President and Associate 

Provost 

University of Chicago 

Chicago, IL 

Carolyn Doppelt Gray, Attorney 

Barnes & Thornburg 

Washington, DC 

Robin Jones, Executive Director 

Great Lakes ADA and Accessible IT Center 

Chicago, IL 

B-12 
Carl King, Attorney 

Seyfarth Shaw 

Boston, MA 

Max Lapertosa, Attorney 

Access Living 

Chicago, IL 

Rene David Luna 

Research and Policy Analyst 

Access Living 

Chicago, IL 

Karen J. McCulloh, Director 

Disabilityworks 

Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce 

Chicago, IL 

Don Meckley 

Director of Production and Facilities 

Museum of Contemporary Art 

Chicago, IL 

Camille Olson, Attorney 

Seyfarth Shaw 

Chicago, IL 

Donzell Robinson, Program Manager 

Key Bridge Foundation 

Washington, DC 

Jennifer Schindl, Managing Director 

Chicagoland Business Leadership Network 

Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce 

Chicago, IL 

William Schurgin, Attorney 

Seyfarth Shaw 

Chicago, IL 

Sarah Triano 

Associate Director of Programs 

Access Living Chicago 

Chicago, IL 

Karen Tamley, Commissioner 

Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities 

City of Chicago 

Chicago, IL 

Ken Walden, Senior Attorney 

Civil Rights Team Leader 

Access Living 

Chicago, IL 

Karen Ward, Senior Counsel 

Equip for Equality 

Chicago, IL 

Kenya Wiley, Manager 

Regulatory and Judicial Affairs 

Society for Human Resource Management 

Alexandria, VA 

Tom Wilson 

Public Awareness and Health Care Team 

Leader 

Access Living 

Chicago, IL 

B-13 
Title III, Small Businesses 

May 4–5, 2006 

Chicago, Illinois 

Douglas Anderson, Principal 

LCM Architects 

Chicago, IL 

Todd Berens 

Workplace Initiatives Manager 

Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce 

Chicago, IL 

Larry Biondi, Advocacy Coordinator 

Progress Center for Independent Living 

Forest Park, IL 

Marca Bristo, Executive Director 

Access Living 

Chicago, IL 

Joe Chiappetta, Managing Director 

Chicagoland Business Leadership Network 

Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce 

Chicago, IL 

Diane Coleman, Executive Director 

Progress Center for Independent Living 

Forest Park, IL 

Sally Conway, Director 

ADA Technical Assistance and Mediation 

Programs 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Washington, DC 

Teri Fox 

Senior Vice President Operations 

Microtel Inns and Suites 

Atlanta, GA 

Jo Holzer 

Council for Disability Rights 

Chicago, IL 

Robin Jones, Executive Director 

Great Lakes ADA and Accessible IT Center 

Chicago, IL 

Harold Dean Kiewel 

Senior Architecture Specifier 

Ellerbe Becket, Inc. 

Minneapolis, MN 

Sarah Lawrence, Executive Assistant 

Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce 

Chicago, IL 

Rene David Luna 

Research and Policy Analyst 

Access Living 

Chicago, IL 

Linda Mastandrea 

Attorney 

Chicago, IL 

Rahnee Patrick 

Youth and Education Team Leader 

Access Living 

Chicago, IL 

Kelly Pierce, Disability Specialist 

Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office 

Chicago, IL 

Donzell Robinson, Program Manager 

Key Bridge Foundation 

Washington, DC 

John Salmen, President 

Universal Designers and Consultants 

Takoma Park, MD 

B-14 
Benny Stephens Karen Washington 

Vice President, Design and Construction Employment Readiness Coordinator 

U.S. Franchise Systems, Inc. Access Living 

Atlanta, GA Chicago, IL 

Sarah Triano 

Associate Director of Programs 

Access Living Chicago 

Chicago, IL 

B-15 
Telecommunications, Title IV 

May 8, 2006 

Washington, D.C. 

Brenda Battat 

Associate Executive Director 

Hearing Loss Association of America 

Bethesda, MD 

Marilyn Benoit 

Telecommunications Equipment 

Distribution Program Administration/ 

MassRelay 

Saugus, MA 

Anindya “Bapin” Bhattacharyya 

Helen Keller National Center 

Sands Point, NY 

David Birnbaum 

Birnbaum Interpreting Services 

Silver Spring, MD 

Clayton Bowen 

Virginia Relay 

Richmond, VA 

Kelby Brick 

National Association of the Deaf 

Silver Spring, MD 

Thomas Chandler 

Disability Rights Office 

Federal Communications Commission 

Washington, DC 

Richard Ellis 

MCI/Verizon 

Washington, DC 

Sheri Farinha 

NorCal Center on Deafness 

North Highlands, CA 

Cheryl Heppner 

Northern Virginia Resource Center for Deaf 

and Hard of Hearing People 

Fairfax, VA 

Gregory Hlibok 

Disability Rights Office 

Federal Communications Commission 

Washington, DC 

Pamela Holmes 

Ultratec, Inc. 

Madison, WI 

Jay Keithley 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 

Federal Communications Commission 

Washington, DC 

Brenda Kelly-Frey 

Maryland Relay 

Baltimore, MD 

Robert Lichtenberg 

Washington Relay 

Olympia, WA 

Paul Ludwick 

Sprint Nextel 

Overland Park, KS 

Mike Maddix 

Sorenson Communications 

Salt Lake City, UT 

Ron Obray 

Hands On VRS 

Rocklin, CA 

Richard Ray 

National Emergency Number Association 

Arlington, VA 

B-16 
Bill Schwall 

Communication Access Center 

Flint, MI 

Mark Seeger 

Communication Service for the Deaf 

Sioux Falls, SD 

Bob Segalman 

Founder of Speech to Speech Relay 

Sacramento, CA 

Mark Stern 

Go America – i711 

Hackensack, NJ 

Claude Stout 

Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard 

of Hearing, Inc. 

Silver Spring, MD 

Jim Tobias 

Inclusive Technologies 

Matawan, NJ 

Judy Viera 

Mission Consulting 

Sacramento, CA 

Dixie Ziegler 

Hamilton Relay 

Aurora, NE 

Judy Harkins 

Gallaudet University 

Technology Access Program 

Washington, DC 

B-17 
Employment, Title I 

May 16–17, 2006 

Houston, Texas 

Kara Wilson Anglin 

Wilson Ranches 

Houston, TX 

Robbie Arrington, Project Coordinator 

Career & Recovery Resources, Inc. 

Houston, TX 

Jacquie Brennan 

Disability Law Resource Project 

Houston, TX 

Latasha Brown 

Endeavors and Excellence, Inc. 

Houston, TX 

Surola Brown 

Endeavors and Excellence, Inc. 

Houston, TX 

Linda Caruso 

Life Academy 

The Monarch School 

Houston, TX 

Diego Demaya, Attorney 

Disability Law Resource Project 

Houston, TX 

Ulonda Forney 

EEOC 

Houston, TX 

Keith Fulp, Program Manager 

Goodwill Industries 

Austin, TX 

Joseph Galagaza, Attorney 

Seyfarth Shaw LLP 

Houston, TX 

Dolores Gonzalez 

ADA Office 

City of Austin 

Austin, TX 

Cheryl Guido 

Regional Program Specialist 

Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative 

Services 

Houston, TX 

Nada Hernandez 

Endeavors and Excellence, Inc. 

Houston, TX 

Katherine Jager, Field Instructor 

EEOC 

Houston, TX 

Kristen Jones 

National Youth Leadership Network 

Houston, TX 

Mitchell Katine, Attorney 

Williams, Birnberg & Andersen L.L.P. 

Houston, TX 

Edward Looby, Member 

Texas Governor’s Committee on People 

with Disabilities 

Alvin, TX 

Stacy Martin, Senior Coordinator 

Barbara Jordan Ambassadors Program 

Endeavors and Excellence, Inc. 

Houston, TX 

Kathy Overdiep, Advocate 

Advocacy, Inc. in Houston 

Houston, TX 

B-18 
Dinesh Pejaver 

Career and Recovery Resources, Inc. 

Houston, TX 

Tony Robertson, ADR Manager 

Training and Monitoring 

Texas Workforce Commission 

Austin, TX 

Matt Russell, ADA Coordinator 

City of Houston 

Houston, TX 

Mike Schepperly 

Operations Director for Programs 

Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative 

Services 

Houston, TX 

Thelma Scott, CEO 

Endeavors and Excellence, Inc. 

Houston, TX 

Aaron Smith 

Endeavors and Excellence, Inc. 

Houston, TX 

Vernus Swisher, CEO 

Career & Recovery Resources, Inc. 

Houston, TX 

Raul Tello, Area Manager 

Division of Rehabilitative Services 

Pasadena, TX 

Denise Torres, Placement Specialist 

Goodwill Industries 

Austin, TX 

Lane Transou 

Compensation and Benefits Consultant 

HR Houston 

Houston, TX 

Kenya Wiley 

Manager, Regulatory and Judicial Affairs 

Society of Human Resource Managers 

Alexandria, VA 

Tanya Winters 

City of Austin 

Austin, TX 

B-19 
B-20 
Appendix C – Attorneys Interviewed for Part 2 – Legal and 

Enforcement Tools 

Brian East, Advocacy, Inc. 

Lainey Feingold, Law Office of Elaine B. Feingold 

Christina Galinda-Walsh, NDRN 

Gregory F. Hurley, Greenberg Traurig, LLP 

Larry Paradis, Disability Rights Advocates 

Amy Robertson, Fox & Robertson 

Kenneth Shiotani, NDRN 

Robert Shumaker, Dewitt Ross & Stevens 

Jennifer Steneberg, The Frankovich Group 

Gene Zweben, Schwartz Zweben & Associates 

C-1 
C-2 
Appendix D – Judicial Stakeholder Focus Group Methodology 

Background 

According to a procedure developed with the National Judicial College (NJC), a package 

of information introducing the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF), 

the National Council on Disability (NCD), the ADA Implementation Study, the idea 

behind the focus group, and the project team members running the focus group was 

placed among materials given to judges attending courses at NJC November 14–17, 

2005, and March 27–30, 2006. Judges could volunteer to attend the focus group by 

indicating their interest on a sign-up sheet and by handing in a Consent Form when 

attending the focus group. Materials given to the judges simply referred to our desire to 

gain insight into the judiciary’s views and attitudes about disability rights claims and 

laws—the project team wanted to avoid the impression that state judge participants 

needed expertise in the ADA to attend or participate meaningfully in the focus group 

discussion. 

While a majority of the disability rights lawsuits brought in state court do not directly 

involve the ADA, many states have laws concerning disability discrimination in 

employment, state services, public accommodations, and housing that raise similar issues. 

Both national and state lawmakers have envisioned private enforcement in the courts as 

an important mechanism for the implementation of disability rights laws. Consequently, 

the knowledge, understanding, and viewpoints held by state judges concerning disability 

rights claims are important sources of information about how the judiciary sees the role 

and place of disability rights law among civil rights protections generally. 

The focus group sessions consisted of an informal 90-minute discussion facilitated by one 

project team member while the other team member primarily took notes. Participants 

were assured that their responses would be kept confidential and only reported 

anonymously or in the aggregate. The judges were free to speak directly to one another 

and to elaborate on issues that were raised by other participants. The sessions were not 

taped, as this was not allowed under NJC policies on confidentiality, but 

contemporaneous notes were taken, and the project team facilitators’ impressions were 

discussed and recorded soon after the session. 

DREDF made a number of attempts throughout 2006 to conduct similar focus groups 

among the federal judiciary. Specifically, DREDF contacted the Federal Judicial Center 

in Washington, DC; the Federal Magistrate Judges’ Association; and the National 

Association of Women Judges, which includes appellate, trial, tribal, and administrative 

law members from all 50 states as well as federal judges. Unfortunately, while each 

organization expressed interest in and support for the subject, there was a persistent 

concern that members of the federal judiciary would find it inappropriate to participate in 

a frank discussion of such policy-related matters as the effectiveness of the private 

enforcement of federal disability rights. One organization expressed concern about 

D-1 
helping us recruit retired federal judges, as such a solicitation could be perceived as an 

endorsement of the NCD project and its potential for influencing policymakers. 

Ultimately, no federal judicial focus groups were conducted given the federal judiciary’s 

reluctance to provide input to policymakers through such a forum. 

Development of Questions 

The questions used in the focus group were developed by project team members Linda D. 

Kilb, DREDF director, Legal Trust Fund Programs; Mary Lou Breslin, senior policy 

advisor; and Silvia Yee, staff attorney. The focus group was facilitated by Kilb, who has 

undergone training in the ethics and dynamics of running focus groups, and Yee. The 

questions were designed to solicit the judges’ general level of knowledge and perception 

of disability rights laws, as well as responses on such specific litigation concerns as class 

settlement enforcement and monitoring, and plaintiffs who bring multiple access cases. 

The planned areas of questioning encompassed the following: 

• Participant self-introduction consisting of name, type of bench, and areas and years of 

experience both in practice and on the bench. 

• Case management and general bench procedures. 

• How participates typically familiarized themselves when confronted with new legal 

issues on the bench. 

• Substantive knowledge of and experience with disability rights cases. 

• Knowledge of and involvement in disability rights case resolutions and settlements. 

• Views on private enforcement of disability rights cases. 

• Participants’ own needs and interests concerning disability rights laws and any 

suggestions for disability rights’ policy and lawmakers. 

Over the course of the focus group, the conversation among the participants became quite 

animated and free, as participants increasingly shared their own perceptions and 

responded to the comments made by others. For the purposes of the discussion below, 

participant responses have been organized into the framework of the questions, although 

the discussions did not necessarily adhere to a simple linear order. For example, when the 

judges were asked to introduce themselves in one focus group, one of the first responses 

included a reference to the accessibility features in his courtroom. All the subsequent 

responses included references to accessibility features and a few unsolicited remarks 

about the ADA and the kind of reasonable accommodations that it required of courts and 

other entities, although no one brought up any specific ADA case1

 or section of the law. 

For the purposes of building trust and encouraging a thoughtful and frank discussion, the 

participants were not constrained to answer relevant topics in strict order. 

D-2 
1

 The discussion of accessibility and policy accommodation features in the participants’ 

respective courthouses was likely prompted at some level by the Supreme Court’s finding 

in Tennessee v. Lane, 124 S.Ct. 1978 (2004) that Title II of the ADA, as applied to cases 

implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, constitutes a valid exercise of 

congressional enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment. 

D-3 
D-4 
Appendix E – Public Awareness Research Methods and 

Findings 

This appendix provides detailed background information about the research methods and 

findings that were used in the development of the Easy Access prototype public 

information campaign, including the formative evaluation research that led to targeting 

the campaign at small business owners. In addition, important concepts from social 

marketing are reviewed in the context of the Easy Access campaign. These concepts 

including branding; guerilla marketing; laser targeting; media-audience mix; emerging 

digital communication technology; global marketing; and the Three E’s of education, 

engineering, and enforcement. This appendix also provides a situation analysis, which 

converts the findings of the formative evaluation into an action-directed agenda for 

campaign planning. 

NCD’s recent efforts to pinpoint ADA implementation challenges and gaps identified the 

critical and unmet need to increase general public awareness about the ADA. The 

prevalence of negative ADA media stories and continued misperceptions about people 

with disabilities that pervade print, television, Internet, and other media underscored the 

importance of asserting a new message that portrays the ADA and people with 

disabilities in a different light. Identifying creative, proactive methods to achieve this 

goal became a central theme of NCD’s current initiative and a specific task assigned to 

the ADA Implementation Study team. 

The challenges to ADA implementation come from multiple sources and cannot be 

solved by a simplistic, one-size-fits-all approach. Effectively addressing them calls for a 

multipronged approach, an important element of which can be a public information 

campaign designed to address challenges to ADA implementation that arise from a lack 

of public awareness or from incomplete or inaccurate information. For example, if the 

challenge is that misconceptions exist about who is covered by the ADA, the most 

effective approach may be to develop a campaign that addresses these misconceptions 

head-on and presents information that counteracts and corrects them. In another example, 

if businesses have fears about the expense of providing public access, these fears might 

be alleviated by communicating the information that many accommodations are not 

expensive and that making them can attract more customers to the business. 

A public information campaign will not by itself address all challenges or solve all 

problems related to ADA implementation. To be most effective, such a campaign would 

be one of a comprehensive set of strategies, including providing incentives for 

compliance (for example, expedited business licenses for businesses that demonstrate 

compliance with the ADA) or increasing enforcement of the requirements of the ADA. 

E-1 
Formative Research Activities 

To assess current ADA public awareness activities and inform the development of a 

public awareness campaign, the following three formative research activities took place: 

• An assessment of the state of the art in public information campaigns, which provided 

not only the most up-to-date thinking about how to reach a target population with a 

well-designed message but also a framework for analyzing the current state of ADA 

awareness and guiding the development of the prototype. 

• A situation analysis; that is, an analysis of existing awareness of the ADA and of the 

ADA information environment, based on the following sources: 

o The stakeholder dialogues (see Part 1), in which members of key stakeholder 

groups discussed their awareness and knowledge of the ADA, and recommended 

messages and message strategies to encourage ADA implementation. 

o Focus groups with small business stakeholders to determine what they know 

about the ADA and what communication strategies they could suggest that would 

foster more effective implementation of the ADA. 

o Other ADA-related information in the existing information environment. 

• An assessment of publicly funded information campaigns on the ADA that have been 

conducted by government agencies and other entities, to identify effective strategies 

and considerations for developing a successful public information campaign. 

Following the formative evaluation, an additional focus group was conducted with small 

business owners to determine their reactions to a variety of proposed messages and logos. 

The results of that group were incorporated into the final communication products that 

were developed for the prototype. 

State of the Art in Public Information Campaigns 

Campaign Goals 

Fundamental to any public information campaign is an overall goal or goals that identify 

the end state or condition that the campaign is designed to accomplish. Perhaps the best 

metaphor is to consider the difference between a flashlight and a laser beam. Ineffective 

public information campaigns are like flashlights, seeking to illuminate the so-called 

“general public” across a wide range of issues. The net effect is no effect, much like 

shining a flashlight at the moon. This is especially the case with prosocial or cause-based 

public information campaigns with small budgets and large mandates to “change the 

world.” Because resources are limited, effective prosocial public information campaigns 

must be constructed like a laser beam: Highly focused illumination is targeted at 

narrowly defined and homogeneous target populations with carefully crafted message 

strategies designed to resonate with that population. 

E-2 
Defining Target Populations 

Defining target populations involves identifying specific segments of the public that will 

be the targets of the public information campaign. Campaigns are most effective if they 

speak directly to the interests of a clearly defined population and use messages that are 

tailored to the existing knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of that population. Campaigns 

that are not targeted must take into account large differences in what people know, how 

they feel, and the way they behave; such campaigns often lack focus and clarity. When a 

public information campaign tries to speak to everyone at once, it is not likely that it will 

communicate effectively with anyone.1 While the messages of a targeted campaign can 

be relevant for people outside the target group, the messages must be tailored for specific 

audiences, rather than assuming that a single message will work for everyone. 

Setting Objectives 

In commercial marketing campaigns, the practitioners set very specific measurable 

outcomes for their campaigns. In many prosocial public information campaigns, efforts 

are sometimes less than effective because no clear outcomes are specified in advance, and 

the campaign becomes an end in itself rather than a means to an end. 2 Such campaigns 

are regarded by the sponsoring organization as “successful” simply because they were 

implemented, not because they achieved a worthwhile objective. A state-of-the-art public 

information campaign, on the other hand, seeks to accomplish its overall goals through 

measurable objectives for each target population. 

Defining Messages 

Intuitively, a public information campaign starts with defining messages that 

communicate information deemed important by the organization sponsoring the 

campaign. However, effective message definition also requires a thorough understanding 

of the current awareness, knowledge, attitudes, behavioral predispositions, and behaviors 

of populations that are the focus of the campaign. A large body of research in marketing 

and public relations has shown that messages are most effective when they speak clearly 

to a homogeneous audience.3 For example, although large transnational corporations and 

small mom-and-pop enterprises are both “businesses,” they vary considerably with regard 

to such issues as financial resources, scope of operations, and personnel. Messages that 

resonate with decision makers in transnational corporations will probably not resonate 

with small business owners. 

Branding 

Branding is a concept borrowed from consumer marketing, where many products that 

differ little or not at all from each other compete for customers. Branding strategies seek 

to establish memorable connections between a particular brand and things that consumers 

value.4

 For example, an automobile manufacturer may use various branding techniques to 

E-3 
link a particular brand (e.g., Toyota) with the concept of reliability. Branding is relevant 

for a prosocial public information campaign because, in the cluttered, saturated 

information environment of the typical American, messages must be memorable, even 

iconic, and message strategies must be innovative.5

 No prosocial public information 

campaign will ever have the spending power of Madison Avenue and its multibilliondollar clientele, and they cannot depend solely on repetition and media saturation to cut 

through the clutter.6 

Media-Audience Mix 

In the context of a prosocial public information campaign, many of the best media buys 

(e.g., daily full page ad in the Wall Street Journal for six months) are not financially 

feasible. Therefore, prosocial public information campaigns must resort to smart media 

buys instead of expensive ones and must invent unique, memorable vehicles to deliver 

their messages to the appropriate target populations. 

Emerging Communication Technologies 

Emerging technologies may provide useful channels of dissemination when prosocial 

public information campaigns cannot compete head-to-head in the cluttered mainstream 

communication environment with multimillion dollar campaigns. The Internet, perhaps 

the most transformative medium since television,

7

 can level the playing field. It can 

provide the platform for distributing messages through e-mail, listservs, and the massive 

searchable library of publicly available documents, and can serve as the “superhighway” 

for corollary technologies such as podcasting, which uses the Internet to transmit audio or 

video files (multimedia) for downloading to personal computers or mobile devices such 

as iPods.8 (Another term coming into use is “vodcasting,” for the use of the Internet to 

transmit video content.) 

If the campaign is disseminating messages via the Internet and related technologies, it 

must motivate members of the target population to seek the information and must make it 

easy for them to access. Both accessibility and usability must be considered.9

 In addition, 

while the Internet provides a powerful device for storage and retrieval of information on a 

global, instantaneous basis, the sheer volume of information makes cross-channel 

promotion—the use of one medium to direct the target populations’ attention to 

another—essential. This kind of promotion is widely practiced in commercial marketing 

campaigns, where the URL for the company Web site is prominently displayed in print 

advertising, billboards, direct marketing pieces, and promotional merchandise (e.g., the 

ubiquitous refrigerator magnet). For less sophisticated users, the Web site can provide 

materials that are easily accessed online or downloaded for offline use. When using the 

World Wide Web as the repository of information in a public information campaign, 

cross-channel promotion is essential to the overall success of the campaign. 

E-4 
Timing 

The successful execution of a public information campaign depends on the sequencing 

and timing of key program components. Sequencing and timing should be regarded as a 

work in progress, as unexpected factors can dictate a change in plans. The following 

sequence is organized around large conceptual issues: (1) formative evaluation and 

design; (2) planning, including development of message strategies for each target 

population and selection of appropriate media to deliver those messages; (3) 

implementation; and (4) evaluation. 

Globalization 

Paradoxically, as emerging communication technologies can more easily reach larger, 

more global audiences, the need to target and segment messages becomes all the more 

critical. In the United States, the population is becoming more heterogeneous, and care 

must be taken when developing messages for audiences with regard to language, culture, 

socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and disabilities. Careful formative evaluation allows 

campaign planners and executers to bridge the gaps between various diverse audiences 

that may have little in common with each other, or with those conducting the campaign. 

Guerilla Marketing 

From the outset, the prototype campaign followed a “guerilla marketing” approach to 

bringing about social change, using unconventional marketing tools and strategies to 

maximize results with minimal resources. The Internet and the array of available digital 

technology create great opportunities for guerilla marketing. This approach is ideal for 

advocates seeking to bring about positive social change with limited budget resources. 

The prototype campaign, when implemented, will do more with less by being smart about 

how resources are used. 

Laser Targeting of Audiences 

Related to guerilla marketing, laser targeting means transmitting campaign messages to 

narrowly defined audiences that share many common characteristics (for example, small 

business owners). This concept is best illustrated using the previously mentioned 

metaphor of the difference between a flashlight and a laser beam. A campaign on ADA 

implementation must know precisely who the target is, what barriers must be overcome 

to implement the ADA, and whether audience issues have to do with knowledge, 

motivation, or behavior. 

Promoting Behavioral Change Using the Three E’s 

One requirement of laser targeting is a clear understanding of the target audience. 

Although compliance with the ADA is the overarching goal of the prototype campaign, 

E-5 
this behavioral change is most likely to occur when education, engineering, and 

enforcement work together. No public information campaign, by itself, can persuade 

small business owners to comply voluntarily with the ADA and make their businesses 

accessible to people with all kinds of disabilities. 

The example of seat belts shows the importance of the Three E’s. To promote behavior 

change—that is, to get people to use seat belts—the Three E’s were addressed in the 

following ways: 

• Education has involved many public information campaigns, over decades, telling 

people to “Buckle Up for Safety.” 

• Engineering—such as seat belt warning lights and alarms—made it difficult for 

automobile riders not to buckle their seat belts. 

• Enforcement reinforced education and engineering by making it a motor vehicle 

violation to drive or ride without your seat belt fastened. The education message 

became “Click It or Ticket.” 

All three elements are important. To effect significant changes in behavior, an education 

strategy such as a public information campaign must be combined with engineering and 

enforcement. 

Situation Analysis 

The situation analysis conducted for planning a prototype ADA public information 

campaign focused on understanding the external environment that exists with the publics 

or audiences for messages related to implementation of the ADA. In conducting this 

analysis, information was obtained from a variety of data sources to identify major issues 

related to the following: 

• public awareness of the ADA (both knowledge and perceptions); 

• knowledge/information gaps; 

• communication media used for the ADA and other topics; 

• information-related implementation challenges; 

• differences in perspectives across stakeholder groups; and 

• stakeholder suggestions for communication media and messages. 

Data sources for the situation analysis include stakeholder dialogues, focus groups held 

with small businesses, and a review of other research on the communication environment 

for messages about ADA implementation. Findings from these sources are summarized in 

Figures 1 and 2. 

E-6 
Stakeholder Dialogues 

Stakeholders addressed these public awareness and public relations topics: Sources of 

Information, Gaps in Awareness, and Key Message Concepts. Participants were asked to 

discuss the following questions: 

• What sources of information on the ADA do you and your colleagues use? 

• What gaps in awareness and knowledge of the ADA exist among people who hold 

positions similar to yours? 

• What sources do you use to find information about other topics related to your 

business? 

• Ideally, where would you go for information about the ADA? 

• What are the key messages that would be most effective in capturing the attention of 

your target group? 

• What are the key messages that would most effectively increase ADA awareness 

among your peers? Think of yourself as developing a billboard or television 

commercial targeted at people in jobs like yours. What would the headline be? 

Awareness of the ADA 

Most of the stakeholders are generally familiar with the ADA, and most have a basic 

grasp of what it requires, but the specific knowledge they have depends on who they are. 

Large private businesses and government agencies, for example, tend to have internal 

resources that provide them with considerable and detailed knowledge about the ADA’s 

access and employment requirements, while small business representatives are likely to 

be knowledgeable about the existence of the law but quite unsure about the details of how 

to implement it. People with disabilities also varied widely in their understanding of the 

specifics of the law. 

ADA Knowledge Gaps 

Significant differences among stakeholder groups are key to identifying gaps in 

knowledge of the ADA. People with disabilities are not necessarily familiar with the 

ADA. For example, there is a lack of information on the part of people with mental 

illness or substance abuse as to whether the ADA applies to them. Other knowledge gaps 

include these: 

• Businesses of all sizes feel that they have insufficient information to help them achieve 

compliance, but smaller businesses feel this lack much more strongly than larger 

businesses. 

• Small businesses are especially likely to have many misconceptions about the ADA, 

such as the notion that small businesses, because of their size, are not required to 

E-7 
follow public access or employment requirements of the ADA, or that they are 

somehow “grandfathered” and thus do not need to comply with the ADA. 

• A number of participants in all the stakeholder dialogues indicated that, although a lot 

of information is available, it is not detailed enough for their needs. Small businesses 

in particular expressed a need for detailed, customized material, although they agreed 

that it would be difficult to provide the information they needed except through very 

targeted sources. 

For more detail on specific knowledge gaps, see Figure 1. 

Sources of Information About the ADA 

Stakeholders identified communication media and other information sources they used to 

learn about the ADA and get information in general. Numerous information sources were 

identified, including: peers and personal communications (most frequently mentioned); 

government Web sites; other online services (search engines, online news, blogs, Google 

alerts, etc.); newspapers and magazines; and, especially in rural areas, public libraries, 

which also offer computer access. 

Businesses reported that they use the following information sources in particular: 

• Networking, peer-to-peer communications 

• Trade associations; for example, the Society for Human Resource Management 

(SHRM) 

• Trade publications, magazines, newspapers 

• Internal company sources (HR department general counsels/attorneys) 

• Industry-specific newsletters (online, e-mail, and print) 

• Employer workshops and trainings 

• Department of Justice (DOJ), ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) 

• Organizations such as the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) and the Disability and 

Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs) (for questions about resources, 

where to find tools and equipment, etc.) 

• Community identification of problems and issues 

Recommended Communication Channels for the ADA 

Primary communication channels that participants in the stakeholder dialogues 

recommended using for the ADA were quite varied, which is not surprising, given that 

the primary information channel for information about ADA implementation depends on 

what information needs to be communicated, what the specific message is, and to whom 

it is directed. However, there was general agreement that personal communication is 

E-8 
generally more effective than mass media or print material. Most of the stakeholders said 

they relied heavily on interpersonal, peer-to-peer contacts and networks: “It’s important 

to have resources to draw from, but you need to look for people.” 

The discussions of recommended communication channels for messages about 

implementation of the ADA usually led to discussions of overall communication 

strategies that did not rely on a single medium or channel. Across all the stakeholder 

dialogues, recommendations of communication strategies for the general population 

included these: 

• National media campaign in partnership with a celebrity spokesperson (Robert David 

Hall, Michael J. Fox, John Hockenberry, BD character in Doonesbury, etc.) 

• Media recognition of best practices; promotion of companies that do the right thing 

• Product advertising (store mannequins, catalogs, etc.) using models with disabilities 

• Partnerships (e.g., with disabled veterans organizations) 

• Partnerships with private sector (e.g., Verizon and SBC have approached the disability 

community to see how they can work together) 

• Extreme home makeover TV show for universal access 

• Public service signage similar to “This highway brought to you by the ADA” 

• Public service announcement at the beginning of a video or DVD 

• Seal of approval decal similar to that used by AAA; decals that say, “We welcome 

service animals” 

In particular, participants recommended using emerging technologies, including the 

following: 

• Cell phone ads 

• Podcasts 

• Internet ads 

• Standard symbols for online maps that indicate which of the nearby businesses on the 

map are accessible (in partnership with Web sites that provide maps and directions, 

such as MapQuest and Yahoo) 

• Mobile GPS systems. Some companies advertise on the GPS systems in cars (such as 

OnStar) so that when you are getting directions, they tell you about nearby businesses. 

It might be possible to include information on nearby businesses that indicates whether 

or not they are accessible. 

E-9 
Business participants suggested a number of business- and industry-related 

communication channels, including these: 

• Business networks 

• Trade publications, articles in trade magazines 

• Trade groups, including some not commonly thought of (e.g., Stadium Managers 

Association, International Association for Assembly Managers) 

• Professional associations, student associations (the California Bar Association requires 

that lawyers take a continuing education course on bias) 

• Business associations (local, not industry-specific) 

A number of suggestions emerged for “specialty” strategies or informational materials 

that target specific subpopulations, such as these: 

• Magazine articles aimed at teens and youth 

• Wedding magazines 

• “The Golden Rules for PWDs” video and other videos—send them out to HR offices 

and HR conventions; make them available on the Web so they can be downloaded 

• An easy-to-read book on universal design principles that nonarchitects could 

understand and follow 

• Fact sheet on how to hire an architect 

• Boilerplate language for leases, contracts, and so on (as part of a toolkit for 

businesses) 

• Emergency planning materials 

• Teacher training 

• National disability curriculum for use in general education 

Focus Groups with Business Owners 

In an effort to obtain additional information on stakeholder awareness of the ADA—and 

to assess the appeal and effectiveness of messages developed for previous information 

campaigns—two stakeholder dialogue groups (focus groups) were held with local 

business owners in Hilo, Hawaii. Participants in these groups were small business owners 

as defined under the requirements of the Title III Public Accommodations section of the 

ADA. 

This focus group research was essential to the strategic planning of the Easy Access 

prototype campaign. Public information campaigns are most effective if they use 

messages tailored to the existing knowledge, motivations, and behaviors of a specific 

target population. Campaigns that lack a clear target audience must take into account 

E-10 
large differences in what people know, how they feel, and how they behave; such 

campaigns often lack focus and clarity. When a public information campaign tries to 

speak to everyone at once, it is not likely that it will communicate effectively to anyone. 

The stated purpose of these focus groups was to obtain input on (1) what stakeholders 

know—and do not know—about the ADA; (2) how business owners get information 

about the ADA and related topics; and (3) stakeholder reactions to messages about the 

ADA. A Topic Guide was designed to guide the discussion and probe for participants’ 

opinions regarding videos, print materials, and slogans intended to improve awareness 

and understanding of the ADA. Focus group participants discussed questions that 

included these: 

• How knowledgeable do you think you are about the ADA? 

• Where would you go to look for more information about the ADA? 

• What is the hardest thing about understanding or implementing the ADA? 

• For each information piece reviewed: 

o What seemed to be the main message of this piece? 

o What did you like about this? Why? 

o What did you not like about this? Why? 

o Which methods of disseminating this would best reach the community of 

small business owners/operators? 

• For each slogan reviewed: 

o Which of these gets across the most important message? 

o What do you like about this slogan? Why? 

o What don’t you like about this slogan? Why? 

Knowledge of the ADA 

All the small businesspeople in the focus groups were familiar with the ADA to some 

extent, citing knowledge of the recent refitting of a school to comply with the ADA (with 

the addition of ramps and repainting of yellow zones) and the need to modify a 

downtown business doorway that was not wide enough. A construction company owner 

had experience with building plans that included wheelchair access, and other 

participants reported having learned about the ADA through their work situations (as a 

teacher or pharmacy worker) or personal experiences (in the community technology 

center, for example). 

E-11 
Sources of Information about the ADA 

Focus group participants used a variety of sources for information about the ADA, 

especially downtown associations, Rotary and other service clubs, chambers of 

commerce, newsletters from industry associations, and local small business associations 

(although one person felt that a local 500-member small business organization was not as 

informative about the ADA as it could be). Several reported relying on contractors and 

architects with whom they worked for information about the requirements of the ADA. 

Other information sources cited were online sources, the county information phone line, 

and Federal Government listings in the phone book. 

ADA Knowledge Gaps 

Participants reported difficulties with understanding or implementing the ADA owing to 

a lack of information about “how it is enforced” or a lack of clarity about the law’s 

requirements (who is required to comply, what happens if there is a change of ownership 

of the business, etc.). One person reported being confused by seeing “lots of empty 

handicapped parking stalls.” Several said they simply didn’t know where to get 

information. 

Reaction to Messages about the ADA 

The focus groups also provided the opportunity to test information materials about the 

ADA from previous campaigns by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and get participants’ 

reactions to the different types of media, messages, and slogans. Participants’ reactions 

included the following: 

Myths and Facts 

Participants were given a few minutes to look over a 11⁄2-page excerpt from DOJ’s Myths 

and Facts. The message of this printed piece was understood by participants as follows: 

• The ADA is intended to benefit people with disabilities rather than punish businesses. 

• The ADA is willing to work with business owners. 

• The ADA is common sense. If you own a business, make it open to everyone. 

• The ADA is easy to comply with and is “not the big bad wolf.” 

• “There are not a lot of teeth in the ADA.” 

What they liked about the piece was that it “cleared up misconceptions” and dispelled 

common myths in plain language and with a sense of humor. They disliked that it seemed 

wordy and would be difficult for English language learners to read (although one person 

thought it was “easy to skim”). They suggested revising the format of the piece to include 

bold headings and color, to make it more “flashy.” They thought it would be a good piece 

E-12 
for a business association to distribute. Other suggestions were to promote it on the radio, 

as a news report, or to include it on a Web site. 

Ten Small Business Mistakes 

Participants viewed segments from this DOJ video and reported the following as the 

messages they understood or took away from the piece: 

• It is not “overbearing” to comply with the ADA. 

• Tax incentives are available. 

• You could miss out on a lot of business if you don’t comply. 

What they liked about the piece was that it was visually stimulating, informative, and 

used plain language. They also liked that it included images of real people with 

disabilities struggling with barriers: “That could be me.” They disliked the headshots of 

people talking, and thought it went on a little too long. They suggested using the video to 

do a workshop about the ADA. 

ADA Accessibility Checklist 

Participants were asked to look quickly at this piece, and were asked questions without 

being allowed time for reading it. What they liked about the piece was the amount of 

detail on specific measures that could be taken to achieve ADA accessibility. They also 

liked that it said right up front that checking off the items on the checklist was “not the 

be-all and end-all.” They disliked how long it was (“Divide it into sections”) and thought 

that some of the language (e.g., “stable”) was vague. They thought it could be 

disseminated by having a local business association give it to all members and to new 

members as they join. 

Small Business Guide 

Participants were asked to look quickly at this piece, and were asked questions without 

being allowed time for reading it. They liked that they were shown ideas for building 

design; for example, pictures of what different entrances look like and what 

would/wouldn’t work. They disliked that it was too long and too much to read. 

Slogans 

The facilitator explained that a slogan can be a useful public relations tool, giving the 

example of “Click it or ticket” (the seat belt campaign, with which all participants were 

familiar). Participants looked at several slogans from past ADA information campaigns 

and discussed what they liked and disliked about each. They noted that none of the 

slogans included a direct reference to ADA, which they considered to be a negative. 

Other opinions about the slogans reviewed included these: 

E-13 
• “Enable the Disabled”: Some participants felt this could be seen as insulting, and one 

thought that the word “enable” was not right because it suggested the negative 

connotations of “enabling.” 

• “Accessibility is an open door for everyone”: This was considered to be inoffensive, 

but too long and “not too catchy.” An alternative might be “Open door for everyone,” 

or the local slogan, “The ADA—We all need it.” 

• “Bridging the Gap Leaves No One Behind”: Both “bridging the gap” and “leaves no 

one behind” are clichés, and the latter reminded people of “No Child Left Behind,” 

which has a negative connotation, especially for teachers. 

• “Open Doors Open Lives”: This reminded some participants of preschool literacy 

programs. Suggested alternatives to improve the syntax were “Opening Doors Will 

Open Lives” or “Opening Doors Opens Lives.” 

• “Accessibility – It’s Just Good Business”: This was considered straightforward, 

simple, and familiar, although somewhat clichéd. One person suggested substituting, 

“It’s Just Good Sense”; another, who liked the phrase, “It’s Just Good Business” 

suggested adding “Cents” to that phrase. 

Other ADA-related Information 

The participants took a brief look at strategies and materials from other countries 

regarding disability rights, to see if any were relevant to developing the prototype for the 

ADA public information campaign. These included— 

• OUCH Web site. The Web site (www.bbc.co.uk/ouch/) is sponsored by the British 

Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) for people with disabilities; it contains multiple 

opportunities for sharing information, including podcasts, a monthly online talk show, 

a blog, a message board, an e-newsletter, and downloadable articles and other 

documents. 

• The Gateway Web site. Gateway is the Web site (www.gateway-uk.org) of a group in 

the UK that is working to give people with visual disabilities better access to library 

and information services. Intended to serve as a one-stop resource, the Web site 

provides information on all accessible library services available and how they can be 

accessed, as well as information from libraries on how they have improved their 

services to meet the needs of people with visual disabilities. Gateway has a helpdesk, 

reachable by phone or e-mail, that serves as a single contact point for library staff and 

people with visual disabilities. 

• The Disability Debate. The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) is an independent 

statutory body in the United Kingdom that is responsible for tackling disability 

discrimination. To “put disability equality at the heart of public policy” and to create a 

new agenda for government and the community, the DRC sponsors the Disability 

Debate on a dedicated Web site (www.disabilitydebate.org), The debate encourages 

public input, online polls, forums, and other public discourse on the need for disability 

equality and on the DRC’s 10 priorities for change. On January 30, 2006, the DRC 

E-14 
launched a £1.2M national poster, press, radio, and online campaign: “Are We Taking 

the Dis?” The campaign aimed to show how society’s “low expectations culture” 

condemns many people with disabilities or long-term health conditions to poverty, 

unfair treatment, and marginalization. 

Conclusions 

The following conclusions are based on focus groups that evaluated the knowledge, 

motivational, and behavioral issues related to ADA implementation among small 

business owners. These research findings are supplemented by a review of previous 

efforts to seek compliance with the ADA. 

• Most small business owners are aware of the ADA, but few have an in-depth 

understanding of how to comply with it, and few know where to go for step-by-step 

help to make their businesses more accessible. 

• Some businesses are unaware that the law applies to them. 

• Few are aware of the business opportunities that compliance provides. 

• Fear of compliance expenses and government litigation probably result from 

insufficient or incorrect knowledge. 

• Detailed knowledge of how to comply is not enough; you need to be motivated as 

well. 

• Many small business owners may lack motivation to seek more detailed information 

on the ADA. 

• Past efforts (e.g., in San Francisco and Chicago) to bring about change in ADA 

compliance behavior were not successful, perhaps because they focused on education 

without the benefit of engineering and enforcement, or because they didn’t adequately 

sell the smart business and easy access messages. Or perhaps the messages were not 

sold from a variety of different perspectives. The prototype involves different types of 

players delivering the messages in different voices, including the voices of small 

business owners themselves. 

• The sheer number of U.S. businesses makes forced compliance difficult. 

• The law itself insists on persuasion and negotiation before litigation. 

Assessment of Previous ADA Public Information Campaigns: 

Implications for a Prototype Campaign 

The third formative research activity was to review strategies government agencies and 

other entities have used in the past to educate the public about the ADA, in order to 

identify effective approaches and potential pitfalls in developing a public information 

campaign for improving the implementation of the ADA. Figures 3 and 4 summarize the 

strategies analyzed and assess their strengths and weaknesses. The examination included 

E-15 
specific materials used to educate the public about the ADA; descriptions and 

assessments of these materials are presented in Figures 5 and 6. 

Figures 2, 4, and 6 include a preliminary assessment of the implications of the different 

analyses conducted in developing a prototype public information campaign to improve 

awareness and knowledge of the ADA. The following section presents the most 

important of these implications for each of the key components of the conceptual 

framework. 

Campaign Goals 

A state-of-the-art public information campaign must identify the overall goal (or goals) 

that it seeks to accomplish. Findings relevant to establishing the goal of this campaign 

include these: 

• Information about the ADA is available, but the people who need it may not know 

how to obtain or use it. A goal of the campaign is to increase awareness of and/or 

disseminate existing materials. 

• A number of participants in the stakeholder dialogues indicated that although a lot of 

information is available, it is not detailed enough or specifically tailored to their needs. 

Another goal may be to create more useful and usable information for specific target 

populations. 

• The increased visibility of people with disabilities, accessible buildings, curb cuts, and 

so on in recent years has contributed to changes in awareness and attitude, and an 

attitudinal foundation exists (although it is not large) on which to build. A goal might 

be to build on the current general awareness that people with disabilities are a part of 

the community and enjoy many of the same activities as everyone else. 

Defining the Target of the Campaign 

Defining a target population focuses the campaign (like a laser) and facilitates decisions 

about which media to use when communicating the message. Because the ADA includes 

many different provisions that affect many different entities and aspects of daily life, 

defining the target of this campaign also involves identifying a specific topic focus as 

well as a target population. On the basis of the issues raised and strategies identified for 

addressing them, and mindful of the advantages of defining specific target populations, 

the project team has identified implementation of Title III by small businesses as an 

appropriate focus for developing a prototype public information campaign. Title III lends 

itself to this purpose—architectural barriers and guidelines for removing them have been 

well defined; public accommodations can benefit from expanding their customer base to 

include the disability community; and, because public accommodations are visible to the 

community at large, their increased efforts to create access increase disability awareness 

among the general population. Targeting small businesses not only addresses covered 

entities identified as being in need of better access to good information but also offers the 

E-16 
opportunity to achieve greater access to public accommodations in small towns and rural 

areas, as well as in the cities that are served by both large and small businesses. 

The small business community will be the primary target population for the campaign; 

however, it may not be the only target. For example, business owners voiced frustration 

about relying on architects and the building permit process to ensure that construction 

and remodeling efforts are in compliance; in some cases, architects and planning 

department staff are not fully knowledgeable about the relevant regulations and building 

codes. This suggests that architects and those who review blueprints and building permits 

might be a secondary target audience. People with disabilities might be another important 

secondary audience, as their understanding of the business community’s obligations can 

be important to support effective implementation in their own communities. 

Setting Objectives 

The way to tell that a public information campaign has accomplished its overall goal (or 

goals) is by establishing measurable objectives, preferably ones that specify a change 

over the course of the campaign. While it may not be feasible to collect data to measure 

effectiveness as part of the prototype campaign, it is important to recommend measures 

that might be included in a scale-up of the campaign for full implementation. 

Defining Messages 

The formative research elicited existing awareness and knowledge of the populations that 

are the focus of the campaign, provided suggestions for message design, and helped 

develop communication strategies that will resonate with the target populations. 

Important themes that emerged as potential messages for the campaign include these: 

• With businesses, emphasize the benefits of compliance with the ADA, such as 

increased customer base and positive customer experience for everyone, not just for 

people with disabilities. 

• The theme of universality is not only important, it is a winning strategy— everyone 

benefits from implementation of the ADA, not just people with disabilities. 

• Personalize the message and bring it home so the audience can identify with it. 

• Look for ways to minimize “us vs. them” and emphasize that the ADA provides 

opportunities for everyone. 

Based on the summary message points above, the following message strategies were 

developed. In campaign communication products, messages regarding ADA compliance 

were developed from the small business owner’s viewpoint and from what the research 

says about the important knowledge, motivational, and behavioral issues. For example, 

research findings from stakeholder dialogues and focus groups showed that messages 

E-17 
such as “people with disabilities are a significant market” and “ADA compliance really 

isn’t that hard” are attractive and compelling. 

Research also suggested that using a combination of carrots and sticks—with more 

emphasis on the carrot than the stick—can be effective. Carrots include the business 

revenues and positive public image small business owners can enjoy if they make the 

effort to improve access for people with disabilities. The campaign can tell small 

businesses that providing access is not necessarily expensive and can have a very big 

payoff for them. The prototype campaign can also use the stick of informing the small 

business owner about the risks of not complying with the ADA, including litigation, 

boycotts, and poor public image. 

The Message: “Access Is Good Business” 

As with any other marketing effort, the best way to sell an idea is to focus on the benefits. 

For selling ADA compliance to small business, this is a relatively easy job, as the 

benefits are many. For example— 

• Making a small business accessible increases the number of customers who can use 

the business and increases gross sales and profits. Providing access for customers with 

disabilities can mean a significant market increase. People with disabilities are a very 

large market: They are at least 20 percent of all potential customers; this percentage 

will climb to 25 percent by 2020. Americans with disabilities have a collective annual 

income of $1 trillion and $175 billion in discretionary spending power. 

• Making a business accessible creates a competitive advantage over other businesses 

that do not have access, because it creates opportunity for customers and because it 

makes the business a good citizen in the local community. 

• People with disabilities are likely to become loyal repeat customers of a business that 

welcomes them and makes it easy for them to do business. This is ideal for small 

businesses that offer personalized service. 

• People with disabilities are likely to offer endorsements to people they know (and 

perhaps, through message boards and blogs, even to people they don’t know) and 

bring in more customers through a “ripple effect.” Word-of-mouth endorsement from 

satisfied customers is the single most powerful marketing tool in any business. 

The Message: “It’s Easier Than You Think” 

Small business owners may have fears and prejudices that result from lack of knowledge, 

especially with regard to the cost of providing access to their businesses. They may not 

know that the ADA takes business costs into account, requiring only that businesses 

make readily achievable changes that they can accomplish without much difficulty or 

expense. They may not realize that small businesses may stretch their limited resources 

by phasing changes in over a period of years rather than attempting to make them all at 

E-18 
once. Many also are unaware of tax incentives that help small businesses cover the 

expenses associated with compliance. 

• The Easy Access campaign tells small business owners that resources devoted to 

compliance are an investment in increasing their customer base, just like other types of 

marketing investments they make. 

• Small businesses may fear litigation if they start down the path toward increasing 

access but don’t get it just right. The Easy Access campaign tells small business 

owners that litigation is the instrument of last resort, after all persuasion and 

negotiation fails, and that most complaints are resolved through negotiation. 

The Message: “It’s the Law” 

With an emphasis on carrot rather than stick strategies, the Easy Access campaign 

includes “It’s the Law” as a secondary theme rather than making it a central message. 

The small business community must realize that the law does apply to them, even if they 

are not currently aware of customers with disabilities seeking to access their products and 

services. 

Branding 

A number of themes are emerging from the research that suggest a role for branding in 

this prototype campaign. For example— 

• Frequent mention of the fact that the target audience doesn’t know how to find the 

information they need or how to determine which information is accurate suggests 

branding as a way to label or identify current, accurate information that the audience 

can rely on to steer them toward compliance and greater access. 

• A strong theme emerged regarding the value of embedding ADA information in the 

information the audience already receives about related topics. One possible strategy is 

to include some form of branding (such as a marginal logo) that flags ADA-related 

information enclosed in materials such as business license or tax information, OSHA 

compliance materials, applications for building permits, and so on. 

• The idea of a seal of approval for promoting accessible services/businesses lends itself 

to branding as a way of supporting increased public awareness and widespread 

acceptance of the symbol. 

Media-Audience Mix 

One of the most important considerations in identifying the most appropriate media for a 

specific audience is taking into account the sources the audience already turns to for 

similar or related information. Using existing information channels is one of the most 

efficient means for disseminating information, and one of the most effective. For 

example, small businesses often look to their neighborhood business associations for 

E-19 
information on legal issues and ideas for reaching specific market segments. Providing a 

PowerPoint presentation to neighborhood associations and civic clubs might be a good 

match of media with audience. 

Matching media to the audience also involves assessing the quantity and level of detail to 

be disseminated. Small business respondents indicated an interest in two different needs: 

(1) very focused small bites of information about where information can be found and 

(2) detailed information about specific requirements. The latter would obviously be best 

delivered using a different medium and communication channel than the former. 

Emerging Communication Technologies 

Participants in the stakeholder dialogues recommended using a range of different types of 

emerging technologies to take full advantage of current trends in information flow. The 

following are some of the suggested technologies: 

• Cell phone ads 

• Podcasts 

• Internet ads 

• In partnership with Web sites that provide maps and directions, such as MapQuest and 

Yahoo, standard symbols that indicate which of the nearby businesses on the map are 

accessible. 

• Mobile GPS systems. Some companies advertise on the GPS systems in cars (such as 

OnStar), so when you get directions, they tell you about nearby businesses. It might be 

possible to have additional information on the businesses that indicates whether or not 

they are accessible. 

Timing 

The sequencing and timing of program components is key to the successful execution of 

a public information campaign. When the formative data has been gathered, the next step 

is to take that information and develop specific goals and objectives for the campaign. 

The time frame for developing the prototype campaign did not allow for full 

implementation or testing the effectiveness of the campaign, but those steps are described 

in the prototype, including suggestions for who might implement the campaign and how 

long it might take to launch. 

Globalization 

The impact of globalization on increasing cultural and ethnic diversity is one U.S. trend 

that needs to be addressed directly in the development of the campaign. It is probably 

most practical to design the prototype to reach broad multicultural audiences rather than 

E-20 
being segmented to reach different cultural groups. Even when designing a cross-cultural 

campaign, there are a number of important considerations, including these: 

• Use of clear language that is not too heavily laden with slang, idioms, or other 

language that is difficult for non-native English speakers to understand or difficult to 

translate. 

• Use of multicultural images rather than showing only middle-class white Americans. 

• Use of bilingual or translated materials to reach audiences of English language 

learners. 

• Focusing the message on concepts that are universally accepted and understood, and 

avoiding cultural bias or culture-specific concepts. 

E-21 
E-22 

Figure 1. Situation Analysis: Stakeholder Knowledge of the ADA 

Data Source 

Stakeholders 

Involved Knowledge of ADA 

Gaps in Information/ 

Awareness 

Implications f

C

Stakeholder Dialogue Feb. 10, 2006 (Sacramento, CA) 

Disability community 

All were very familiar with issues related to the ADA 

Participants did not have significant knowledge gaps themselves, but felt that other stakeholders lacked adequate knowledge or were completely unaware 

• The increased visib

disabilities, accessetc., have increaseattitudes – build on 

• Don’t assume that 

necessarily familia

• Identify ways to in

other issues related 

Stakeholder Dialogue April 7, 2006 (Washington, DC) 

Disability community 

All were very familiar with issues related to the ADA 

Participants did not have significant knowledge gaps themselves, but felt that some PWDs (e.g., people with psychiatric disabilities) are unaware of the ADA or unaware that it applies to them 

• Critical to build br

community 

• Counteract negativ

PWPDs 

• Educate public ent

issues” and their liPWDs 

• Promote coordinat

and nongovernmeninformation 

• Highlight the univ

• Promote disability 

disability 

Stakeholder Dialogue Feb. 21–22, 2006 (San Francisco) 

Title III Large businesses, business associations, and Title II entities 

All were familiar with issues related to Title III of the ADA 

Operational information that relates to the ADA is entirely missing from internal sources such company intranets 

• Few people know 

information that is it a focus of the caawareness of existdisseminate existin

• Business commun

information rather must seek out 

Stakeholder Dialogue 

Title III All were familiar with 

“the basics” of Title III 

Businesses have insufficient information 

Information about hADA topics relevant 
E-23 

Figure 1. Situation Analysis: Stakeholder Knowledge of the ADA 

Data Source 

Stakeholders 

Involved Knowledge of ADA 

Gaps in Information/ 

Awareness 

Implications f

C

Feb. 23–24, 2006 (San Francisco) 

Small businesses, business associations 

to achieve compliance or to determine whether or not they’re in compliance 

be very useful 

Stakeholder Dialogue May 2–3, 2006 (Chicago) 

Title III Large businesses, business associations, and Title II entities 

All were familiar with “the basics” of Title III 

• Business owners 

don’t know what they must do 

• Businesses don’t 

know when they’ve done enough 

• Need clearer guide

perhaps industry-sclearly what is req

• Tell businesses an

get the business of 

• Offer newsletter/m

associations 

Stakeholder Dialogue May 4–5, 2006 (Chicago) 

Title III Small businesses, business associations 

All were familiar with “the basics” of Title III 

• Businesses don’t 

know if they’re in compliance or not 

• Confusion exists 

about difference compliance requirements (ADA, state building codes, ANSII standards, ADAAG requirements, standards for new vs. older buildings, etc.) 

• Small businesses run 

by immigrants need information and education about ADA and civil rights of PWDs 

• PWDs either don’t 

• Need to get people 

is more than a builenabling PWDs to business 

• Message should co

group itself (e.g., bfrom the outside 

• Reach out to peopl

takes into account information 

• Emphasize that PW

• Frame ADA messa

in general, not just PWDs 
E-24 

Figure 1. Situation Analysis: Stakeholder Knowledge of the ADA 

Data Source 

Stakeholders 

Involved Knowledge of ADA 

Gaps in Information/ 

Awareness 

Implications f

C

know the ADA exists or assume it covers everything 

• Architects don’t know 

about universal design 

• Lots of information 

and resources out there, but “it’s not getting out on the street” 

Stakeholder Dialogue April 4–5, 2006 (Washington, DC) 

Transportation Public and private providers, transportation associations 

All were extremely familiar with the ADA and how it related to their services and programs 

Paratransit requirements are still unclear to some providers 

• Focus on universa

not on “handicapp

• The public (especi

should understand different obligationGreyhound does nas Amtrak) 

Stakeholder Dialogue May 8, 2006 (Washington, DC) 

Title IV Telecommunications 

• Companies covered 

by Title IV mandates are well acquainted with their obligations 

• Outreach to the deaf 

and hard of hearing has generally been successful 

• Most people associate 

the ADA with accessible buildings, not accessible telecommunications 

• Deaf-blind individuals 

are largely unaware of relay services and their function 

• Most of the general 

public—and even most people with speech disabilities— do not know that STS 

• Nearly every relay 

person, so although hard of hearing hathere is a need to sthe hearing commu

• Many states have b

these are inconsistneed to pool resou

• Lots of informatio

all over the place – information about 
E-25 

Figure 1. Situation Analysis: Stakeholder Knowledge of the ADA 

Data Source 

Stakeholders 

Involved Knowledge of ADA 

Gaps in Information/ 

Awareness 

Implications f

C

relay services exist 

• Information needed 

about how to file a complaint (e.g., coaching or a template) 

Stakeholder Dialogue April 18–19, 2006 (San Francisco) 

Title I Employers 

All were familiar with the basics of Title I 

• Need to know how to 

carry out the law with their employees: “We have all the information about what needs to be done, we just need help in how to do it” 

• Lack of information 

about “how to respond” due to lack of infrastructure (e.g., no legal or HR department) 

• Most employers w

with disabilities, baddressed, for exam

• Cost of ADA comp

employers worry mmaking a change thADA compliance) 

• Risk of “going too 

that far with all oth

• If employers feel t

something in retur

• Communicate that 

part of a flexible wPWDs 

Stakeholder Dialogue May 16–17, 2006 (Houston) 

Title I Employers 

All were familiar with the basics of Title I Employers felt that the ADA was just one of the many laws they must deal with 

• Employers and 

employees are not motivated to learn about the ADA 

• Employers have 

limited familiarity with the range of accommodations 

• PWDs don’t know 

enough about the law to advocate 

• Provide informatio

human resources m

• Emphasize both “h

bottom line; show employees with dibottom line 

• Normalize the dep

areas of life and th(e.g., TV shows) 

• Use alternative for

chambers of comm
E-26 

Figure 1. Situation Analysis: Stakeholder Knowledge of the ADA 

Data Source 

Stakeholders 

Involved Knowledge of ADA 

Gaps in Information/ 

Awareness 

Implications f

C

effectively for themselves 

• False information 

abounds (e.g., “You can’t fire an employee with a disability”) 

• Disability awareness 

courses needed in colleges and business schools 

offices, etc.) 

• Partner with job bo

etc.) to provide infabout potential em

Focus Groups November 5 and November 10, 2005 (Hilo, Hawaii) 

Small businesses All were moderately 

familiar with the ADA Specific points noted: Buildings should be physically accessible (recent refitting of a school to comply with the ADA was cited) Aware of accessible parking spaces in town 

• What responsibilities 

they have if they have no current customers with disabilities 

• Where to get 

information 

• How ADA is enforced 

• The fact that the ADA 

is more than architectural barriers 

• Business tenant vs. 

landlord responsibilities 

• Disability etiquette: 

When is it okay to offer to help a customer who has a disability? 

• Emphasize the me

disabilities are a hu

• Businesses need to 

o ADA applies 

currently servor not 

o Businesses ar

whether they 

o ADA is about 

Focus Groups November 15, 2005 (Reno, NV) 

State Judges All were familiar with 

the ADA and with relevant state laws 

No need for specific knowledge of ADA unless a case is brought 

ADA/disability righarea of law; hence, tdetailed information 
Figure 1. Situation Analysis: Stakeholder Knowledge of the ADA 

Data Source 

Stakeholders 

Involved Knowledge of ADA 

Gaps in Information/ 

Awareness 

Implications f

C

Specific points noted: All were very familiar with issues related to accessibility of courts Associated ADA with physical accessibility and disability rights 

before them; none had yet seen a case based on state law 

(primarily attorneys ADA/disability righ

E-27 
E-28 

Figure 2. Situation Analysis: Media and Messages for ADA Public Information Campaign 

Data Source People Involved 

Information 

Sources 

Recommended 

Primary 

Communication 

Channels for the ADA Ideas for Publ

Stakeholder Dialogue Feb. 10, 2006 (Sacramento, CA) 

Disability community 

• Personal 

communication 

• Government Web 

sites 

• Online news, blogs, 

Internet search engines, other Web resources 

• Libraries – critical 

source of information and computer access, especially in rural areas 

• Trade publications, 

magazines, newsletters 

• Employer 

workshops and trainings 

• National media 

campaign/celebrity spokesperson 

• Magazine articles 

aimed at teens and youth 

• Articles in trade 

magazines 

• Educational programs 

and teacher training (e.g., national disability curriculum) 

• Disability awareness 

month 

• Web 

mechanism/search engine to organize ADA- and disabilityrelated search terms 

• Emphasize unive

benefits of acceshave disabilities 

• Get past the “us v

emphasize comm

• Establish partner

organizations sucorganizations, tea

• Dispel myths tha

developmental di

• Ally ADA with r

environment (“If green”) 

• Show that people 

forms; do producwith disabilities 

• Target youth, usi

messaging, podcacell phone ads 

• Highlight model 

campaigns 

• Access is good b

Stakeholder Dialogue April 7, 2006 (Washington, DC) 

Disability community 

• Sources at work 

• Blogs (e.g., Ragged 

Edge, Sam Bagenstos) 

• Google alerts • DBTACs 

• Web sites and blogs • Disability history 

month 

• Educational programs 

(e.g., include disability awareness in 

• Focus on univers

good for everyon

• Any entity that h

post what they do on the Web 

• Need for pride in 
E-29 

Figure 2. Situation Analysis: Media and Messages for ADA Public Information Campaign 

Data Source People Involved 

Information 

Sources 

Recommended 

Primary 

Communication 

Channels for the ADA Ideas for Publ

diversity curriculums) but don’t allow it 

stereotypes 

• Send message to 

critical 

Stakeholder Dialogue Feb. 21–22, 2006 (San Francisco) 

Title III Large businesses, business associations, and Title II entities 

• DOJ, ADAAG, etc. • Company HR and 

legal departments 

• Attorneys’ sources 

(e.g., law review articles) 

• Community 

identification of problems/issues 

• Existing business 

networks 

• Trade groups, trade 

publications 

• Books/articles for 

laypeople (e.g., universal design for non-architects) 

• Celebrity 

spokesperson 

• Focus on custom

• Stay away from “

Providing Oppor

• Make sure to use 

• Include diverse im

wheelchairs) 

• Blogs and podca• Seal of approval 

services/business

Stakeholder Dialogue Feb. 23–24, 2006 (San Francisco) 

Title III Small businesses, business associations 

Trade associations Small business 

information resources (e.g., U.S. SBA and other government agencies) 

Add information oinformation resourprovide informatiorelevant to small bu

Stakeholder Dialogue May 2–3, 2006 (Chicago) 

Title III Large businesses, business associations, and Title II entities 

• Access Board • BNA pieces • Westlaw, Lexis, bar 

associations 

• Trade associations 

• Mainstream media 

• Informal peer 

networks 

• Trade associations 

• Mainstream media 

• Informal peer 

networks 

• Zagat restaurant 

Orleans Zagat adrestaurants showfrom people with 

• “You [businesses

table by not servi

• Accommodation

• Accommodation

anybody 

• PWDs spend mo
E-30 

Figure 2. Situation Analysis: Media and Messages for ADA Public Information Campaign 

Data Source People Involved 

Information 

Sources 

Recommended 

Primary 

Communication 

Channels for the ADA Ideas for Publ

• Everybody is tem

• Disability is a hu

• We’re not all the 

another 

• Accommodate, d

• “I’d like to buy th

• Access is good b

• “Ramp up your p

Stakeholder Dialogue May 4–5, 2006 (Chicago) 

Title III Small businesses, business associations 

• Trade associations 

• Mainstream press 

• No single 

authoritative source of accurate information about multiple aspects of ADA compliance 

• Much of the 

material on ADA is text-based only; not useful for people with cognitive disabilities 

• Go to everyday places 

where people go (churches, etc.) 

• Communicate with 

faith-based organizations that think they are exempt from the ADA 

• Blogs and Internet 

• Q&A for small 

businesses on a safe Internet site 

• Radio is still a viable 

way to get messages out 

• “Access is a civil 

• Branding messag

similar to the “wh(having a credit c

• Aim accessibility 

furry animals as m

• Portray a small b

portable ramp, anvarious mobility back, and numerostreet are doing t

Stakeholder Dialogue April 4–5, 2006 (Washington, DC) 

Transportation Public and private providers, transportation associations 

• Industry-specific 

materials 

• Professional 

meetings and conferences 

• Providers’ Web sites 

• Magazine/newsletter 

ads for seniors and PWDs 

• Incorporate the id

and outreach; get 

• Have DOT provi

regulations that ctransportation 
E-31 

Figure 2. Situation Analysis: Media and Messages for ADA Public Information Campaign 

Data Source People Involved 

Information 

Sources 

Recommended 

Primary 

Communication 

Channels for the ADA Ideas for Publ

Stakeholder Dialogue May 8, 2006 (Washington, DC) 

Title IV Telecommunications 

• FCC Web site, 

ADA.gov Web site (Department of Justice) 

• Internet, including 

online support groups, blogs, Google 

• Print media, 

magazines, newspapers, brochures 

• Deaf clubs • National Exchange 

Carriers Administration 

• ADA Information 

Centers 

• State relay business 

partnership programs 

• Word of mouth 

• Federal Register • PUCs • Helen Keller 

National Center, American Association of the Deaf-Blind 

• TV ads, PSAs 

• Captioned television • Radio talk shows • Information 

clearinghouses 

• Shopping center 

kiosks 

• Billboards 

• Social/religious 

groups, senior centers, services (e.g., when you register to vote or get a driver’s license) 

• Web banners 

• Public transportation 

ads 

• Readers’ Digest 

articles 

• Trade publication 

articles 

• Workshops on the 

ADA 

• Distribution of 

information by state equipment distribution programs 

• Chambers of 

commerce 

• Bathroom door ads 

• ADA/Title IV is 

disabilities 

• Message to busin

broaden your ma

• A specific nation

FCC that includeFCC did for V-ch

• Celebrity spokesp

• Relay promotes i

safety 

• It is a matter of f

equal telephone a

• Before and after 

Watchers ads) 

• Technology can h• Providing commu

communities addbrings consumers does 

• Job opportunities 

taxpayers 

• Use snappy catch 

know your N11 n411, 711 relay acthat grandma doeanymore?” 

• Messages can als

the gift of getting 

• People who are d
E-32 

Figure 2. Situation Analysis: Media and Messages for ADA Public Information Campaign 

Data Source People Involved 

Information 

Sources 

Recommended 

Primary 

Communication 

Channels for the ADA Ideas for Publ

• TV, radio, PSAs • Public 

transportation ads 

• Direct mail (from, 

e.g., telephone companies) 

• Coloring books for 

children 

• Telephone bill inserts 

call 

Stakeholder Dialogue April 18–19, 2006 (San Francisco) 

Title I Employers 

• Society for Human 

Resource Management (SHRM) 

• JAN (questions 

about resources, where to find tools, equipment, accommodations, etc.) 

• Personal interactions 

• Bus ads, bumper 

stickers, billboards, posters, etc. 

• “The Golden Rules for 

PWDs” video: 

• Send out to HR 

offices, conventions for HR administrators, etc. 

• Make available on 

Web so it can be downloaded 

• TV and newspaper ads • Educational programs 

for high school students (e.g., EEOC Youth at Work program) 

• Promote universa

business friendly friendly to everyoworkplace benefi

• Promote message 

• Portray people w

uniforms of vario

• Develop/promote 

• Create a symbol 

symbol to identifpeople of all abil

• Use Internet in cr• Put PSAs on wire

• Airline magazine 

• News stories 

• Ads, brochures, b

conferences 

• Leverage other fu

Stakeholder Dialogue May 16–17, 2006 (Houston) 

Title I Employers 

• Professional 

publications 

• Accreditation 

newsletters 

• Normalized media and 

popular entertainment portrayals of PWDs (i.e., job and social 

• “ADA-tude” 

• “It’s what I can d• TV ad campaign 

everyday jobs, en
E-33 

Figure 2. Situation Analysis: Media and Messages for ADA Public Information Campaign 

Data Source People Involved 

Information 

Sources 

Recommended 

Primary 

Communication 

Channels for the ADA Ideas for Publ

• DBTACs • Internet, including 

ADA.gov Web site 

• Peer networking • Legal and HR 

information sources 

interactions with PWDs as colleagues and friends) 

• E-mail 

• Trade shows and 

exhibits 

• Trainings, 

presentations 

• Broadcast media 

• Small businesses need 

SCORE or SBA to work with them 

• The best way to get 

messages to legal and HR people is through continuing education 

• Team up with critical 

political or business forces and produce joint communications 

million PWDs wimage of the enti

• Bracelets, other t

• Get big company 

logo on their pro

• Send “nuggets” o

(e.g., weekly tip them the leads, thetc. 

• Create a media g

sources to turn to link comes up 

• Get home repair 

remodels 

• PWDs as employ

successful; PWDemployees; PWD

• “The disabled job 

able” 

• Market tax incen

• Advertise on Mo

• Publicity for goo

implementation/c

• Accommodation

• Show what woul

away from the wmany people aroupeople start disappeople to continu
E-34 

Figure 2. Situation Analysis: Media and Messages for ADA Public Information Campaign 

Data Source People Involved 

Information 

Sources 

Recommended 

Primary 

Communication 

Channels for the ADA Ideas for Publ

• Create an inform

employers on insADA; Market a mCross/Blue Shielexclude any of yo

Focus Groups November 5 and November 10, 2005 (Hilo, Hawaii) 

Small businesses • Architects and 

contractors 

• Customers with 

disabilities 

• Local business 

associations 

• Online resources 

• County/Federal 

Government listings in phone book 

• Architects and 

contractors 

• Use visuals/graph

ramps, doorways

• Keep written mat

• TV commercial w

message 

• Provide specifics 

Checklist) 

• Provide mail inse

business associat

• Create download

Focus Groups November 15, 2005 (Reno, NV) 

State judges Administrative office 

for accommodations for courtrooms 

Westlaw’s research tab on the ADA 

• Develop formal t

judges who need ADA/disability r
E-35 

Figure 3. Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach Strategy 

Implemented/ 

Conducted By 

Target 

Audience 

Focus 

(Aspect of 

ADA) Purpose 

D

Ou

A

Department of Justice ADA Technical Assistance Programs 

• ADA Speakers Bureau 

• ADA Information Line 

• ADA Technical Assistance CDROM 

• ADA Online Course • ADA Materials Available Online • ADA Mediation Program 

DOJ ADA TA Program (ADA Mediation Program now operates under a contract with the Key Bridge Foundation) 

General public, particularly employers and the business community 

All aspects, especially employment 

Provide TA on ADA requirements, DOJ regulations, and architectural design standards 

Increacomplwith DregulaADA requir

ADA & IT Technical Assistance Centers 10 regional centers provide TA to PWDs and people with ADA responsibilities. Mandate also includes “public awareness,” addressed via online information resources for the media. Also known as DBTACS (Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers) ADA Document Portal 

Funded by U.S. ED’s National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) 

• Business 

community 

• State/local 

governments 

• Disability 

community 

• The media 

• Employment 

of PWDs 

• Public 

services 

• Public 

accommodations 

• Communications 

• Provide TA, 

education and training, materials dissemination, referral networks, and training 

ImproaccessPWD
E-36 

Figure 3. Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach Strategy 

Implemented/ 

Conducted By 

Target 

Audience 

Focus 

(Aspect of 

ADA) Purpose 

D

Ou

A

www.adaportal.org DisabilityInfo.gov Federal interagency collaborative effort to build a one-stop interagency Web portal and comprehensive online resource to provide people with disabilities with the information they need 

Coordinated by U.S. DOL Office of Disability Employm

ent 

Policy (ODEP) 

• PWDs and 

their fa

milies 

• Employers 

• Service 

providers 

• Other 

community memb

ers 

All aspects of ADA 

One-stop resource to provide PWDs with information on all subjects 

Improopporfor PWareas 

Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network (EARN) National toll-free telephone and electronic in

formation re

ferral 

service. Service becam

e available 

to the public March 2001. 

Service of ODEP 

• Employers Employm

ent of 

PW

Ds 

• Help 

employers locate and recruit qualified workers with disabilities 

• Provide TA 

on general disability employm

entrelated issues 

EmploPW

D

Job Accommodation Network (JAN) Comprehensive information source providing infor

mation and practical 

ideas on job accommodations, selfemploym

ent, small business 

opportunities, ADA compliance, 

Free service of ODEP 

• Employers 

• Employm

ent 

providers 

• People with 

disabilities, their fa

mily 

memb

ers 

• Other 

Employm

ent of 

PW

Ds 

Facilitate the employm

ent 

and retention of workers with disabilities 

Emploincludemploand smbusineownerPW

D
E-37 

Figure 3. Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach Strategy 

Implemented/ 

Conducted By 

Target 

Audience 

Focus 

(Aspect of 

ADA) Purpose 

D

Ou

A

and related subjects. Founded in 1983; providing ADA information to employers since it went into effect (1992) 

interested parties 

DOL Women’s Bureau (WB) Collaboration 

with ODEP 

Women with disabilities who are interested in selfemployment 

Employment of PWDs 

Facilitate the selfemployment of women with disabilities 

Womedisabiobtain emplo

Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) Vendor outreach sessions (at least two procurements) Training targeted for veterans with disabilities in the new small business procurement initiatives ------------------------------------------ 

DOL Businesses 

owned by PWDs Veterans with disabilities (both serviceand nonserviceconnected) ------------------- 

Employment of PWDs 

Facilitate the employment of people with disabilities 

Businownerveteradisabiobtain emplo

Olmstead Project Jointly conducted by Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU) project and Brain Injury Association, Inc. (BIA) 

Joint ED, HHS, and DOL project In FFY 2000 and 2001, EDOSERS offices (NIDRR, RSA, 

Selected crossdisability leaders and advocates to be trained to work with state staff to develop, implement, and 

Olmstead decision 

Promote grassroots advocacy by training a core group of cross-disability leaders to help states implement 

Trainegrassradvocprovidwith Ttheir sfor codirect
E-38 

Figure 3. Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach Strategy 

Implemented/ 

Conducted By 

Target 

Audience 

Focus 

(Aspect of 

ADA) Purpose 

D

Ou

A

and OSEP) pooled funding to support this project 

evaluate their comprehensive state plans 

Olmstead comm

based for pesignifdisabi

Regional Rehabilitation Continuing Education Programs (RCEPs): University of Arkansas San Diego State University Training includes learning objectives to ensure that rehabilitation professionals and community organizations have a working knowledge of the Olmstead decision and its applicability to the VR process. 

Funded by RSA Rehabilitation Training Program 

• VR and IL 

professionals 

• Community 

organizations 

Olmstead decision 

Develop training on Olmstead implementation for VR and IL professionals and community organizations 

• Incr

capaVR & Cservpoteconsand coorothe

• Incr

staff recopoteconsneedoffeinterstrat

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) TA to states in undertaking efforts to develop plans for community integration, as outlined in Olmstead. 

U.S. ED Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 

• States 

• Disability and 

aging communities 

Olmstead decision 

Help states implement Olmstead 

Increaaccess consudirecthome/ty-bas
E-39 

Figure 3. Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach Strategy 

Implemented/ 

Conducted By 

Target 

Audience 

Focus 

(Aspect of 

ADA) Purpose 

D

Ou

A

servicpeoplsignifdisabi

Center for an Accessible Society A communications clearinghouse that provides journalists with credible information and quotable sources on national disability policy and independent living issues 

Funded by NIDRR from October 1999 through May 2004 

Journalists Disability and 

independent living issues 

Provide disability issues information for journalists 

Focus attentidisabiIL issu

HHS Fact Sheets for Consumers HHS National 

Mental Health Information Center 

PWDs Access to 

services and to protection and advocacy 

Provide information on rights to people with MI 

Improservicpeopl

HHS Technical Assistance to States HHS-CMS has created a repository of Promising Practices in Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) to highlight state efforts that enable people of any age who have a disability or long-term illness to live in the most integrated community setting appropriate to their individual support requirements and preferences, exercise meaningful choices, and obtain quality services. 

HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

• States 

• Disability and 

aging communities 

Olmstead decision 

• Maximize use 

of existing Medicaid authority to promote community participation and employment for PWDs 

• Strengthen 

community long-term supports for implementing 

Increaopporfor PWenjoy commlivingcommparticand premplo
Figure 3. Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach Strategy 

Implemented/ 

Conducted By 

Target 

Audience 

Focus 

(Aspect of 

ADA) Purpose 

D

Ou

A

Olmstead 

Assistive Technology (AT) Act projects The AT Act of 1998 provides grants to states to provide information, training, awareness, TA, and m

aterials r

elated to the 

benefits, availability, and uses of assistive technology. The 56 AT Act projects have been operational since 1989. 

Administered by NIDRR 

PW

Ds, their 

fa

milies, and 

representatives 

Independence of individuals with disabilities 

Increase access to and provision of AT services and devices 

Improindepof PW

E-40 
E-41 

Figure 4. Assessment of Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach 

Strategy Strengths 

Weaknesses/ Information 

Gaps 

Implications 

Department of Justice ADA Technical Assistance Programs 

• ADA Speakers Bureau provides 

expert speakers at national/regional conferences and training sessions 

• All materials provided free 

• Documents on the CD-ROM are 

provided in a variety of formats, to enable people with disabilities and others to gain easy access, translate materials to Braille, or use screen readers 

• The CD-ROM is designed for use on 

computers without high-speed Internet access 

• Online course is divided into 10 

lesson modules to fit into a busy schedule 

Vast amount of material on Web site might seem overwhelming 

• Make material

formats for maPWDs. 

• Remember tha

speed Internet of common so

• Take advantag

training sessio

ADA and IT Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACS) 

• Each DBTAC works closely with 

local businesses, and with government, rehabilitation, disability, and other professional networks to provide ADA information and assistance 

• Useful media kit 

Provides materials upon request; not proactive 

Encourage collabusinesses, and wrehabilitation, diprofessional netwinformation and 

DisabilityInfo.gov One-stop center for resources on all 

issues relevant to PWDs 

Vast amount of material on Web site might seem overwhelming 

Make sure that Wdeal of informatthat links, cross-and easy to use. 

Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network (EARN) 

• Prominently advertises the message 

“What EARN Can Do for You” 

• Connects employers looking for 

Job seekers have no direct access or interface, must go through an employment 

Don’t make actireceived too comconsuming. 
E-42 

Figure 4. Assessment of Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach 

Strategy Strengths 

Weaknesses/ Information 

Gaps 

Implications 

quality employees with skilled job candidates 

service provider. It may be necessary for a job seeker to go through several steps to find a provider who receives postings from EARN employers or to have his/her current provider become part of EARN. 

Job Accommodation Network (JAN) 

• Good print materials, e.g., “Practical 

Guides” for employers and employees on reasonable accommodation under the ADA 

• SOAR (Searchable Online 

Accommodation Resource) for exploring workplace accommodation options by moving through a 5-step process that includes FAQs and links to additional information 

• JAN Presentation Library provides 

training resources for JAN users 

• Long-standing excellent reputation, 

well-known in the field 

No significant weaknesses • Web sites mus

• Ideally, Web s

features. 

• Take advantag

reputation, and entities in the fsites, solicit te

DOL Women’s Bureau (WB) 

Comprehensive, detailed Web site with many topics of interest 

Recent changes to the Web site have made it difficult to find previously bookmarked materials on employment of women with disabilities 

• Web sites mus

• Careful, profes

sites is importamaterials or ch

Office of Small Business Programs (OSBP) Vendor outreach sessions 

Detailed, specialized information No significant weaknesses Information sou

audiences can be than those for th
E-43 

Figure 4. Assessment of Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach 

Strategy Strengths 

Weaknesses/ Information 

Gaps 

Implications 

(at least two procurements) Training targeted for veterans with disabilities in the new small business procurement initiatives -------------------------------- Olmstead Project • Collaboration across relevant 

agencies 

• Cross-disability focus 

• Provides how-to information on 

developing, implementing, and evaluating state plans 

• Meets important need for ADA 

information 

No significant weaknesses • Importance of 

needs. 

• Value of provi

• Having a cross

overall campaithere may be cthat focus on ju

Regional Rehabilitation Continuing Education Programs (RCEPs) 

Comprehensive training for VR and IL professionals 

No significant weaknesses Information sou

audiences can be than those for th

Office for Civil Rights (OCR) 

Large, comprehensive, central location for ADA information 

No significant weaknesses Make sure that W

deal of informatthat links, cross-and easy to use. 

Center for an Accessible Society 

• Good coverage of topics 

• Links to Expert Sources • Enough detail for journalists to 

understand issues in depth yet does not overwhelm them with more than they need 

Outdated material, broken links due to end of funding 

• Web links or o

Sources is a gr

• Important to p

of detail providfor the intende

• Might be usefu

sites or other ifully accessibl
E-44 

Figure 4. Assessment of Strategies Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Information/Outreach 

Strategy Strengths 

Weaknesses/ Information 

Gaps 

Implications 

information on accessible. 

HHS Fact Sheets for Consumers 

Know Your Rights materials are clear, concise, and up to date 

No significant weaknesses Make sure resou

so they always r

HHS Technical Assistance to States 

• Promising Practices Reports are brief 

(usually 2–3 pages) 

• Reports are focused on discrete 

components of home- and community-based service systems, such as person-centered planning, eligibility systems, or personal assistance services 

• Reports are intended to disseminate 

timely information on program and policy innovation 

No significant weaknesses According to CM

intended to stimchanges, spark claunching pad foprogram innovatan information c

Assistive Technology (AT) Act projects 

Detailed, specialized information No significant weaknesses Information sou

audiences can be than those for th
E-45 

Figure 5. Materials Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Material 

Developed/ 

Disseminated By 

Target 

Audience 

Aspect of ADA 

Focused On Purpose 

Desi

Outcome 

ADA Technical Assistance CD-ROM Department of Justice ADA Technical Assistance Programs 

DOJ ADA TA Programs 

General public, particularly employers and the business community 

All titles Provide TA on ADA 

requirements, DOJ regulations, and architectural design standards 

Increased compliancDOJ reguand ADA requireme

ADA Checklist for Barrier Removal Department of Justice ADA Technical Assistance Programs 

Adaptive Environments Center; DOJ ADA TA Programs 

Business community 

Title III Provide TA on 

making existing facilities accessible 

Improved accessibilpublic accommo

Myths and Facts about the Americans with Disabilities Act Department of Justice ADA Technical Assistance Programs 

DOJ ADA TA Programs 

• Business 

community 

• State and local 

governments 

All titles • Increase 

understanding of the ADA 

• Dispel some 

common misconceptions about the ADA’s requirements and implementation 

Covered emake increfforts to 
E-46 

Figure 5. Materials Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Material 

Developed/ 

Disseminated By 

Target 

Audience 

Aspect of ADA 

Focused On Purpose 

Desi

Outcome 

ADA Guide for Small Businesses Small Business Administration and Department of Justice 

DOJ ADA TA Programs 

Small businesses Title III • Help small business 

achieve compliance 

• Small b

take an role in etheir owcomplia

• Improve

accessibpublic accomm

Ten Small Business Mistakes Department of Justice ADA Technical Assistance Programs 

DOJ ADA TA Programs 

Small businesses Titles I and III • Increase 

understanding of the ADA 

• Dispel some 

common misconceptions about the ADA’s requirements and implementation 

Covered emake increfforts to 

ADA Tax Incentive Packet for Businesses U.S. Attorney General’s Office 

DOJ Business 

community 

Title III Increase awareness of 

tax incentives for increasing accessibility 

Covered emake increfforts to 
E-47 

Figure 5. Materials Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Material 

Developed/ 

Disseminated By 

Target 

Audience 

Aspect of ADA 

Focused On Purpose 

Desi

Outcome 

Reaching Out to Customers with Disabilities Department of Justice ADA Technical Assistance Programs 

DOJ ADA TA Programs 

Business community 

Title III • Help businesses 

increase their PWD customer base 

• Increase awareness 

of PWDs as a valued customer base. 

Increased from custwith disab

Expanding Your Market: Customers with Disabilities Mean Business Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice 

DOJ, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section 

Business community 

Title III Increase awareness of 

PWDs as customer base 

Increased among buin attracticustomers disabilitie

Media Kit ADA & IT Technical Assistance Centers (DBTACs) 

Funded by U.S. ED’s National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) 

The media General • Provide content for 

reporters 

• Provide insights 

about positive ways to present PWDs in the media 

Publish postories abPWDs anADA 
E-48 

Figure 5. Materials Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Material 

Developed/ 

Disseminated By 

Target 

Audience 

Aspect of ADA 

Focused On Purpose 

Desi

Outcome 

Employer Newsletter Employer Assistance and Recruiting Network (EARN) 

Service of U.S. DOL Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) 

Employers Employment of 

PWDs 

• Help employers 

locate and recruit qualified workers with disabilities 

• Provide TA on 

general disability employment-related issues 

• Increase 

knowledemploymissues 

• Keep re

and coninformahandy 

E-News Job Accommodation Network (JAN) 

Free service of ODEP 

• Employers 

• Employment 

service providers 

Employment of PWDs 

Facilitate the employment and retention of workers with disabilities 

• Increase 

knowledaccommissues 

• Keep 

informahandy 

Your Rights Under the Americans with Disabilities Act Office for Civil Rights (OCR), HHS 

HHS Fact Sheets for Consumers, OCR 

PWDs Access to 

services, and to protection and advocacy 

Provide information on the ADA’s protection of civil rights 

Increased awareness rights amopeople widisabilitie
E-49 

Figure 5. Materials Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Material 

Developed/ 

Disseminated By 

Target 

Audience 

Aspect of ADA 

Focused On Purpose 

Desi

Outcome 

Accessibility and Businesses and Service Providers Web page DisabilityInfo.gov 

Federal interagency collaborative effort to build a one-stop interagency Web portal and comprehensive online resource 

• PWDs and 

their families 

• Employers 

• Service 

providers 

• Other 

community members 

Civil rights, education, employment, housing, health, income support, technology, transportation, and community life 

Increase awareness of ADA access issues and provide implementation information to Title III entities. 

Increase apublic accommoand servic

Access Currents U.S. Access Board 

The Access Board is an independent federal agency devoted to accessibility for people with disabilities. 

• Attorneys 

• Advocates • Others 

involved in implementing the ADA 

Is very broad and addresses all titles. Focuses mostly on the legal aspects of compliance 

Disseminate up-todate information on compliance issues 

Increase complianc

Providing Quality Services to Customers with Disabilities DOL Office of Disability Employment Policy 

ODEP • Businesses that 

provide public accommodatio ns 

• Direct 

customer service staff 

Title III (although some of the tips are transferable to contact with PWDs in other contexts) 

• Increase 

understanding of how to effectively interact with customers with disabilities 

• Increase awareness 

of the size of the customer base 

• Increase 

to publiaccomm

• Improve 

of servicPWD 
E-50 

Figure 5. Materials Used to Educate the Public About the ADA 

Material 

Developed/ 

Disseminated By 

Target 

Audience 

Aspect of ADA 

Focused On Purpose 

Desi

Outcome 

Myths and Facts DOL Office of Disability Policy 

ODEP Employers Title I • Increase 

understanding of the ADA 

• Dispel some 

common misconceptions about the ADA’s requirements and implementation 

Reduce discriminthe workp

Public Accommodation Awareness Web site Wheel Me On 

Wheel Me On is a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting greater access for people with disabilities. 

PWDs and their families 

Public accommodations 

Increase awareness of Title III issues and encourage increased access 

Encouragto patroniaccessible and advocincreased 
1

 Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to 

program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & 

Broom, G. M. (2006). Effective public relations (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. 

2

 Valente, T. W. (2001). “Evaluating communication campaigns.” In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin 

(Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; Valente, T. W. 

(2002). Evaluating health promotion programs. NY: Oxford University Press. 

3

 Flora, J. A. (2001). “The Stanford community studies: Campaigns to reduce cardiovascular 

disease.” In Rice & Atkin (2001); Snyder, L. B. (2001). “How effective are mediated health 

campaigns?” In Rice & Atkin (2001); Broom & Dozier (1990); Cutlip, Center, & Broom (2006); 

Grunig & Hunt (1984). 

4

 Evans, M. K., & Stroll, H. (2006). Marketing challenge: Playing the name game. Retrieved 

April 26, 2006, from www.marketingprofs.com/6/stroll108.asp; Kitchin, T. (2006). The value 

chain: From building brand to building integrity. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from 

www.marketingprofs.com/login/signup.asp?source=/5/kitchin1.asp. 

5

 Paisley, W. J. (2001). “Public communication campaigns: The American experience.” In Rice 

& Atkin (2001). 

6

 Dullea, K. (2006). The real gold goes to the bold. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from 

www.marketingprofs.com/6/dullea1.asp 

7

 Carey, J. W. (2005). Historical pragmatism & the Internet. New Media & Society, 7, 443–456. 

8

 Wikipedia. (2006). “Podcasting.” Retrieved May 1, 2006, from 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podcasting. 

9

 Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing Web usability. Indianapolis: New Riders Publishing. 

Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of usability testing: How to plan, design, and conduct effectiveness 

tests. NY: John Wiley. 

E-51 
E-52 
Appendix F – Summary of ADA Implementation Recommendations 

by Targeted Audience 

I. Employment (Title I) 

Recommendations for Congress 

• Congress must enact legislation that reverses the Supreme Court decision narrowing the 

definition of disability so individuals with disabilities who were intended to be covered by the 

law are again eligible to use it to challenge discrimination. 

Recommendations for Educational Institutions and Accreditation 

Organizations 

• As a requirement for accreditation of programs that prepare students for careers in 

management and business, organizations such as the Association to Advance Collegiate 

Schools of Business should include course content or courses that explore the principle of 

workplace flexibility—and why it is beneficial to employers and employees alike—and that 

introduce the concept of reasonable accommodation for people with disabilities as a template 

for workplace flexibility. 

• Workplace Flexibility 2010—an initiative of Georgetown University Law Center that 

supports the development of a comprehensive national policy on workplace flexibility at the 

federal, state, and local levels—should increase attention to the concerns facing workers with 

disabilities. 

• Accreditation bodies such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business 

should require as a condition for accreditation that a disability curriculum module be 

incorporated in professional training programs related to business administration, leadership, 

and management. The module should contain elements on the requirements of Title I of the 

ADA, disability awareness, and the inclusion of people with disabilities in discussions of 

workplace diversity. 

Recommendations for Federal Agencies 

• The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should develop partnerships with public 

agencies such as employment development departments; Department of Labor One-Stop 

Career Centers; state departments of rehabilitation; and national, state, and local disability 

organizations to develop training modules and deliver targeted training to job seekers and 

employees with disabilities. Modules should be developed that recognize and respond to the 

specific and unique needs of subgroups of people with disabilities, such as youth, workers 

seeking entry-level employment, reentering workers, older workers, and individuals who are 

changing careers. Training should enable people with disabilities to understand their ADA 

employment rights and should promote skills and methods whereby they can use this 

F-1 
information to advocate for themselves successfully during all aspects of the job search, as 

well as in the workplace. Training should be offered as an ongoing service of the 

collaborating agencies and organizations. 

• The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) of DOL should collaborate with leaders 

in the field of mentoring—such as the National Mentoring Partnership and Netmentors—to 

identify methods to ensure that youth with disabilities are fully included and accommodated in 

all mentoring programs, and that mentoring program staff receive appropriate ADA training 

and information to ensure that they have the capacity to meet the needs of youth with 

disabilities. 

• The EEOC, DOL, SBA, and other federal agencies concerned with employment of people 

with disabilities should acknowledge the substantial need for ADA training by employers at 

all levels and should join forces to create a campaign that responds to this need. Such an 

initiative must have adequate financial resources and the commitment of key federal agency, 

business, and industry leaders; associations; and trade unions. The goal would be to foster 

commitment to a systematic, nationwide, annual ADA and disability awareness training for 

boards of directors, management and human resources staff, union stewards and 

representatives, and others involved in the hiring and retention of workers. The initiative 

could be launched in concert with an existing public awareness campaign focused on 

promoting workplace diversity that includes employees with disabilities. 

The initiative should develop training modules that 

o are targeted to specific industries (for example, health care, hospitality, 

manufacturing); 

o contain a complete package of substantive ADA information and materials, 

handouts, and multimedia resources; 

o contain materials and recommendations for presenting updates throughout the 

year that can be delivered by e-mail, Web site referral, and newsletters, and that 

can be integrated with other ongoing training provided by the employer or union; 

o are easily obtained from a Web site; and 

o are available in alternative formats. 

• The SBA should establish partnerships with disability organizations and institutions of higher 

education to develop and add an ADA Title I training course to its roster of free online 

courses for small businesses. The SBA should sponsor local and regional ADA Title I 

trainings as an ongoing element of its national training seminars for small businesses. 

• The SBA should identify methods to ensure that participants in the SCORE project—retired 

executives who advise small businesses—possess adequate knowledge of the employment 

provisions of the ADA, and incorporate this knowledge and information when they consult 

with small business owners and executives. 

• The DOL Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) should identify methods to 

promote the message that people with disabilities represent a significant pool of available 

labor that can be drawn upon to fill jobs when there are labor shortages. 

F-2 
• ODEP should consider new ways to expand advertising and promotion of the services of the 

Job Accommodation Network (JAN) and to educate employers about the availability of the 

service. ODEP should ensure that funding for JAN meets the demand for its services. 

• The Government Accountability Office (GAO) should update its 2002 tax credit study (which 

was based on 1999 business tax returns) to determine whether businesses have increased their 

use of the tax credits and other incentives related to hiring individuals with disabilities. On the 

basis of the study results, the IRS—in consultation with relevant federal agencies, businesses, 

and disability community representatives—should make recommendations to NCD and 

Congress for changes in the tax credit system, which could include increasing the credits as an 

incentive to improve employment opportunities for people with disabilities. 

• The IRS and other federal agencies concerned with implementation of the ADA should launch 

an educational campaign that informs businesses about the financial incentives and tax credits 

associated with hiring individuals with disabilities. This information should be widely 

disseminated in tax filing information and through other channels to small and large business 

networks, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, local and regional chambers, online sources, 

unions, and disability organizations. 

• The EEOC should step up its efforts to ensure that business partners in the Youth at Work 

program proactively identify, reach out to, and include youth with disabilities in all their 

activities. 

• The EEOC, DOL, SBA, and other federal agencies concerned with employment of people 

with disabilities; business trade and membership organizations such as regional chambers of 

commerce and the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM); and disability 

organizations should collaborate to develop and disseminate model policies for establishing 

entity-wide funding mechanisms that can be used by divisions, departments, and cost centers 

to pay for accommodations. These models should include provisions for compensating 

managers for the time they spend identifying and acquiring accommodations, so that time 

allocations for these tasks can be calculated accurately and factored into long-range financial 

planning. The models should promote the principle that providing accommodations is a 

standard and ordinary cost of doing business. 

• The EEOC, SBA, DOL, SSA, IRS, and other federal agencies concerned with enforcement of 

the ADA and employment of people with disabilities should collaborate with large Internet 

job boards such as Monster, HotJobs, and others of similar size and scope on methods to 

increase awareness of the ADA by employers and methods to encourage increased outreach 

to and hiring of people with disabilities. Areas for collaboration could include the following: 

o Development of an online column featuring information of interest to employers 

and job seekers alike (e.g., examples of effective accommodation, hiring and tax 

incentives, Ticket to Work). 

o Adding informational resources for employers and job seekers alike, such as the 

Job Accommodation Network, location and function of the One-Stop Career 

Centers, and Frequently Asked Questions about ADA rights and responsibilities. 

F-3 
• EEOC, DOL, and other federal agencies concerned with implementation of the ADA and 

employment of people with disabilities should foster methods whereby employers such as 

those who participate in business leadership networks and organizations such as SHRM and 

the National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB) can engage in peer-to-peer 

discussions about ADA implementation. The goal is for business leaders themselves to 

demonstrate that the ADA can be implemented in a meaningful way and to illustrate by 

example the beneficial outcomes of implementation, which will serve as a model for others. 

• EEOC, DOL, and other relevant federal agencies concerned with employment of people with 

disabilities should explore the feasibility of establishing a national alternative dispute 

resolution program, possibly in connection with existing private mediation services, that 

would help employers and people with disabilities resolve workplace disputes related to ADA 

rights and responsibilities. Financing could be secured from a combination of public funding 

and private subscription fees from businesses. 

• The federal agencies charged with improving employment opportunities for people with 

disabilities should convene a working group of agency leaders, disability leaders, insurance 

company representatives, and others to develop strategies to address the impact on working 

people with disabilities of decreasing benefits from employer-sponsored health care insurance. 

Subjects for discussion should include the increasing prevalence of benefit caps on durable 

medical equipment and restrictions on mental health services and prescription drugs. 

Recommended Research Topics for ADA Federal Enforcement Agencies 

• Key federal agencies charged with a role in enforcement of the ADA (for example, EEOC and 

the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, and Education) should establish a 

center of excellence either within the agency or through a qualified contractor. Each center’s 

mission would be to conduct research and collect information about effective methods of 

ADA implementation related to the agency’s sphere of concern, rigorously evaluate those 

methods to determine their quantifiable impact on people with disabilities, and report and 

widely disseminate results that will serve as models. 

Specifically, the centers established to evaluate Title I implementation practices should build 

collaborative relationships with businesses, which could include providing technical 

assistance and other incentives to help them develop methods to collect relevant data, for 

example, on the effectiveness of procedures for requesting job accommodations, the number 

and type of requests, and outcomes. (The EEOC’s employment best practices research with 

nine state governments is an example of the type of initial work that is needed.) 

Recommendations for Government and Business Organizations, Associations, 

and Unions 

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, state and local chambers, fraternal organizations such as 

Rotary International and Lions Clubs, and national trade and membership associations such as 

the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) should proactively disseminate 

information to their members and partners about the ADA and employment generally. These 

F-4 
organizations should specifically announce, promote, and disseminate training modules 

developed in response to the annual ADA training initiative previously discussed. 

• Trade union leaders should proactively disseminate information to representatives and 

stewards about the ADA and employment, and should specifically announce, promote, and 

disseminate training modules developed in response to the annual ADA training initiative 

previously discussed. Unions should be encouraged to promote training at worksites where 

they represent workers in order to build capacity to solve problems and prevent them from 

escalating. 

• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, regional and local chambers, and national trade and 

membership associations such as SHRM should proactively include people with disabilities in 

all informational and promotional materials, including podcasts, listservs, and other relevant 

online discussions of topics with broad interest to the business community. 

• The National Conference of State Legislators should work with national disability 

organizations and employers to develop and adopt a position that urges members to propose 

state legislation that would require anyone who either receives a promotion or accepts a job 

requiring supervision of others to undergo mandatory training on the ADA, just as certain 

states currently require such training on sexual harassment. (Supra note 3.) 

Recommendations for City and County Governments 

• When businesses apply for a new license, or renewal of an existing business license, they 

should receive basic information about the ADA and where to obtain additional information. 

• Cities and counties should consider placing funds collected from fines when people park 

illegally in spaces designated for drivers with disabilities in an accommodation pool. 

Recommendation for Disability Advocacy Groups 

• Disability advocacy groups should educate state legislators about the impact on working 

people with disabilities of private health insurance coverage limitations and should advocate 

for legal and policy reforms at the state level that prohibit coverage caps for durable medical 

equipment and other necessary services. 

II. Public and Private Transportation (Title II and III) 

Recommendations for Congress 

• Congress should provide additional resources for enforcement of the ADA transportation 

provisions. Additional staff to conduct complaint investigations, additional funds for ADA 

compliance reviews, and funding for a complaint reporting mechanism could have a real 

impact on implementation. 

F-5 
Recommendations for Federal Agencies 

• The Department of Transportation should work with the Department of Education to include 

training on riding public transportation as a component in Individualized Education Programs 

(IEPs) of students with disabilities. Vocational rehabilitation clients should also receive 

training on public transportation skills. 

• DOT should distribute periodic announcements that the ADA allows paratransit providers to 

exceed the regulation limit of 50 percent of capacity to be dedicated to their subscription 

service, if the demand is present, as long as there are no capacity constraints on the service. 

• The Access Board should consider whether visual announcements should be required when 

audible announcements are present on buses, in trains, and on train platforms. 

• Federal Transit Administration rules for the New Freedom Initiative should not preclude 

voucher and volunteer driver programs, which have been effective in bringing additional 

transportation to rural areas. 

Recommendation for States 

• When an over-the-road vehicle is licensed, the licensing agency should include information 

with the license that explains the ADA requirements for that type of vehicle. 

Recommendations for Transit Agencies and Operators 

• ADA Transportation providers should harness the power of their riders with disabilities to 

report information about ADA implementation and compliance problems with drivers, 

equipment, and service through brochures and posters giving riders information on their rights 

and how to reach the provider’s ADA compliance office. 

• Transit agencies should include ADA training for boards, managers, and politicians as well as 

frontline staff who are delivering service. 

• As a condition of the program, contracts between transit agencies and taxis that participate in 

an ADA paratransit service using a voucher system or other arrangement must include 

mandatory training on the ADA for the taxi service provider. 

• Transit agencies should provide strong oversight of drivers and other staff responsible for stop 

announcements. 

• Transit agencies should use progressive discipline in cases of operator failure to announce 

required stops. 

• Transit agencies should initiate secret rider programs to assess compliance with the ADA stop 

announcement provisions. 

• Transit agencies should acquire equipment such as lapel and sleeve microphones to help 

drivers announce stops. 

F-6 
• To improve securement of mobility equipment in transit vehicles, transit agencies should 

institute voluntary programs to install securement straps, if needed, on riders’ wheelchairs and 

to mark the wheelchairs’ best securement points. 

• Transit agencies should encourage use of the fixed-route service by offering incentives such 

as free or reduced-fare rides on the fixed-route system, discounts to local venues for fixedroute riders, and symbolic awards such as tickets and dinner passes for former paratransit 

riders who are now using the fixed-route service. 

• Paratransit programs should investigate whether offering same-day taxi voucher rides in 

combination with next-day service leads to reduced costs. 

• Transit agencies should equalize the salary and benefits of their fixed-route and paratransit 

drivers as much as possible, and provide them with the same or similar training components. 

If possible, operators should have experience driving in both systems rather than only one. 

• Transit agencies should recognize and compensate their paratransit managers at a level equal 

with other management positions in the agencies. 

• Transit agencies should award contracts according to best value, not necessarily the lowest 

bid. 

• Transit operators should communicate information on elevator outages using a variety of 

accessible methods. Examples include a centralized phone system to report out-of-service 

elevators, signage at each station to provide information on elevator service throughout the 

system, system-wide announcements made over a public address system when an elevator 

goes into or out of service, and sending an e-mail to a list of interested riders if a particular 

elevator is out of service. 

Recommendations for Independent Transportation Research 

• Document the extensive unmet needs of people with disabilities for transportation. 

• Document the social and financial benefits of an accessible, integrated society. For example, 

when transportation and other services are not available, institutionalization can be the result, 

at a high cost to the individual and society. 

• Document the hidden costs to people with disabilities of the lack of transportation or of 

transportation systems that are not in compliance with the ADA. 

• Research best practices in paratransit contracting. 

• Research the reasons companies purchase wheelchair-accessible taxis. Are there specific 

incentives that motivate the purchase? 

• Document the link between stable transit agency personnel and the quality of transit service. 

F-7 
III. Public Accommodations (Title III) 

Recommendations for Federal Agencies 

• The Department of Justice should devote substantially more resources and time to investigate 

Title III complaints, especially those regarding small businesses, in light of widespread 

noncompliance by these covered entities. 

• Key federal agencies and private community development organizations should convene an 

experts meeting to explore methods for using various sources of community development 

funding—such as the community investment tax, small business administration loans, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster relief funding, and community 

development block grants—to help bring about ADA compliance changes. This could be 

accomplished by requiring ADA compliance as a term and condition of funding, which would 

be supported with some financial help from the funding agency toward achieving the required 

accessibility features and by dedicating specific amounts of money from development funds 

to accomplish high-priority barrier-removal projects in the target communities. 

• Decision makers from key federal agencies charged with implementing the ADA should 

convene to explore methods to advance the principles of universal design beyond what is 

currently being supported by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research 

(NIDRR). 

• The U.S. Small Business Administration should establish partnerships with disability 

organizations and institutions of higher education to develop and add an ADA Title III 

training course to its roster of free online courses for small businesses. The SBA should also 

be urged to sponsor local and regional ADA Title III training as an ongoing element of its 

national training seminars for small businesses. 

• The SBA should identify methods to ensure that participants in the SCORE project—retired 

executives who advise small businesses—are provided with information about the Title III 

public accommodation provisions of the ADA, and incorporate this knowledge and 

information when they consult with small business owners and executives. 

• The SBA, in collaboration with participating lenders, should require ADA compliance as a 

term and condition of eligibility for small business loans. In concert with this requirement, the 

SBA should provide additional low-interest loan assistance to businesses to help them provide 

the required accessibility features. 

• The federal agencies that have ADA implementation and enforcement roles should join in a 

collaborative effort to fund a substantial nationwide ADA training initiative for people with 

disabilities. Training should accomplish the following: 

o Increase ADA awareness in low-income communities. 

o Raise awareness among people from diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. 

o Develop advocacy capacity among youth. 

o Increase awareness of the ADA’s potential to increase independence and 

community participation among seniors. 

F-8 
o Promote leadership development. 

o Target specific areas in which ADA implementation has lagged behind (for 

example, health care and small businesses). 

• Each key federal agency charged with a role in enforcement of the ADA (for example, the 

Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services, Education, Labor, and Transportation) 

should establish a center of excellence, either within the agency or through a qualified 

contractor. Each center’s mission would be to conduct research and collect information about 

effective methods of ADA implementation related to the agency’s sphere of concern, 

rigorously evaluate the methods to determine their quantifiable impact on people with 

disabilities, support activities that will enhance covered entities’ capacity to collect and report 

data on implementation activities that have the potential to become best practice models, and 

report and widely disseminate results. 

o NCD should undertake a robust, independent qualitative and quantitative research 

project that identifies ADA implementation issues related to health care 

institutions and providers, and should make recommendations for reform. 

o ADA federal enforcement and allied agencies (for example, DOJ, the Access 

Board, NIDRR) should join forces to commission research (e.g., focus groups, 

surveys, interviews) designed to elicit structured responses from a variety of Title 

III entities about the extent to which specific technical assistance and 

informational materials currently available from DOJ and others provide the ADA 

implementation guidance these entities seek. The research should include specific 

recommendations for content, formats, and distribution mechanisms that would 

meet the needs of these entities. 

• DOJ and the Access Board should convene a work group composed of businesses, 

representatives from the disability community, disability law experts, city building officials, 

architects, and others with related knowledge and expertise to evaluate whether the federal 

interpretive guidance currently available on methods to comply with the readily achievable 

barrier-removal provisions of Title III provides sufficient information and detail to covered 

entities, and to determine whether the material should be revised or expanded. If the work 

group determines that new material should be created or the existing material revised, it 

should submit a detailed recommendation to that effect to DOJ and the Access Board. 

• Federal agencies charged with ADA implementation or ensuring full community participation 

for people with disabilities (for example, DOJ, the Access Board, NIDRR, HHS) should form 

a consortium to generate funding to commission research on the following general themes: 

o Identify obstacles and barriers to implementation of the ADA’s provisions related 

to programmatic access (for example, modification of policies and practices, 

provision of materials and information in alternative formats, and provision of 

auxiliary aids and services) by representative Title III entities such as social 

service organizations and health care providers, and recommend solutions. 

o Understand the extent to which the programmatic access needs of people with 

disabilities (for example, modification of policies and practices, provision of 

materials and information in alternative formats, and provision of auxiliary aids 

and services) are being met to enable them to enjoy or benefit from the programs 

F-9 
and services offered by selected Title III entities such as social service 

organizations and health care providers, and recommend solutions. 

• The IRS should allow federal tax credits available for architectural barrier removal to be used 

to make existing Web sites accessible. 

Recommendation for Collaboration Among Businesses, the Disability 

Community, and Government Organizations and Associations 

• Disability community, government, and other leaders and experts in accessibility should 

partner with the following key organizations to identify legislative, regulatory, and other 

methods to embed ADA information, incentives, and, where appropriate, penalties in 

interactions they have with Title III covered entities: 

o National Association of State Fire Marshals: Marshals tend to be responsible for 

fire safety code adoption and enforcement, fire and arson investigation, fire 

incident data reporting and analysis, public education, and advising governors and 

state legislatures on fire protection. Methods should be identified and 

implemented that empower fire marshals, when they conduct routine fire and 

safety inspections, to inspect businesses and facilities for ADA-related accessible 

exits and paths of travel, evacuation plans, and any other ADA oversight that is 

relevant to fire safety for people with disabilities, and to inform the business about 

any problems. 

o City health departments: Department staff enforce laws and regulations that 

protect health and ensure safety. Methods should be identified and implemented 

that would empower health department officials to determine whether sanitary 

facilities also meet ADA accessibility requirements when they conduct routine 

inspections of businesses and facilities, and inform the entity about any identified 

problems. 

o Mortgage and construction lenders: If mortgage and construction lenders conduct 

plan reviews or undertake other compliance oversight as a routine part of 

processing a loan application for entities that would be covered by Title III, 

methods should be identified and implemented that would require lenders to 

require compliance with all applicable ADA requirements as a condition of loan 

approval for businesses and other covered entities. Lenders who do not otherwise 

conduct plan reviews or undertake other compliance oversight should provide 

information to prospective Title III borrowers about the ADA. State mortgage 

lender associations should adopt model policies on ADA compliance oversight 

and information dissemination that could help guide the practices of member 

lenders. 

o Associations of city and county government: Associations of city and county 

government—such as the League of Cities, National Association of Cities, and 

National Association of Counties—should provide leadership on the 

recommended initiatives related to state and local government by convening 

meetings with key experts, developing model policies, supporting any required 

legislative or regulatory initiatives, and disseminating information to members. 

F-10 
Recommendations for Business Organizations and Associations 

• Leading business associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Council of Better 

Business Bureaus, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and the National 

Restaurant Association should explore initiating a new ADA education project with their 

members. This would involve notifying members about the ADA through mailings; providing 

information on their respective Web sites and at conferences and regional and national 

meetings; and informing them that the organization can distribute ADA implementation 

materials published by DOJ and other federal agencies upon request. 

• The Small Business Council of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce should endorse and support 

the dissemination of information related to ADA implementation to Chamber members, and 

should identify the most effective ways the Council and the Chamber can engage in member 

education that comports with its mission and capacity. 

• To explore the feasibility of creating a certification or seal of approval program that would 

indicate that a business has met its ADA barrier-removal obligations for existing buildings 

and facilities, the Council of Better Business Bureaus should convene a working group of 

stakeholder representatives, such as neighborhood business networks, individual small 

businesses, and representatives from the disability community. The Council should invite 

representatives from DOJ and the Access Board, as well as architects and other technical and 

policy experts familiar with barrier-removal issues in existing facilities, to serve as advisors. 

The group should be charged with determining the need, benefit to stakeholders, and 

feasibility of such a program. If it is determined that the concept should go forward, the group 

should recommend possible mechanisms for testing one or more program ideas in several 

pilot studies that include methods for evaluating outcomes. The following questions could 

serve as a starting point: 

o What is the purpose of the program (for example, promoting customer service, 

attracting customers with disabilities, avoiding liability)? 

o What are the criteria for participation? 

o What is the process for determining whether a business is eligible to participate? 

o Who would administer the program? 

o What are the qualifications of those who determine eligibility? 

o What is the frequency and process for renewal? 

o What is the cost of the program, and who pays? 

Recommendations for State and Local Government 

• When businesses apply for a new license, or renewal of an existing business license, they 

should receive information about complying with the ADA and where to obtain additional 

information. 

F-11 
• When health care professionals apply for a new license, or renewal of an existing business 

license, they should receive specific information about complying with provisions of the ADA 

that relate to health professionals. 

• Cities should make incentives available to small and medium-sized businesses that want to 

remove architectural barriers in existing buildings and facilities by expediting the building 

permitting and approval process when the purpose of the project is solely to achieve 

accessibility. Locales routinely provide various incentives to businesses as methods to attract 

them to a particular neighborhood or prevent them from leaving; thus, precedent exists for 

expediting the permit and approval process. 

• States should consider creating a credentialed access specialist program for expediting the 

permit and approval process, as Texas has done and California is in the process of doing. The 

program must have rigorous qualification and training standards, and methods to conduct 

ongoing evaluation of specialist knowledge and expertise. Specialists should be required to 

review and approve construction drawings when building permits are required, and should be 

trained to conduct site inspections and to advise businesses about barriers that can easily be 

removed. 

• When a business seeks a permit to undertake a general renovation, the request should trigger 

an ADA compliance review so the owner will know which, if any, aspects of ADA 

accessibility are required. For example, the City of Chicago requires every business to pay a 

fee for an accessibility review each time an application is made for a building permit. 

• Entities that contract for services (e.g., states and cities) should require that entities with 

which they contract have accessible Web sites as a requirement to receive contracts. 

Recommendations for Professional Building Code, Architecture, and Related 

Organizations 

The Building Officials and Code Administrators International Inc. (BOCA), known as the 

International Code Council (ICC), should amend ICC International Codes to bar the addition of 

non-barrier-removal items by building officials when an entity seeks a permit solely for the 

purpose of removing an architectural barrier that prevents the full enjoyment and participation of 

individuals with disabilities. California has embedded such a requirement in the state access 

code, which serves as a model and a precedent. 

• As a condition of ongoing licensing, everyone involved in design, construction, engineering, 

landscape architecture, architecture, and city planning should be required to take universal 

design courses that include explanations of access codes and standards, and these courses 

should be offered through continuing education programs. Sponsorship should be provided by 

state and national trade and member organizations such as the ICC and the American Institute 

of Architects (AIA). 

• The AIA should establish a task force empowered to make recommendations about activities 

the AIA should undertake to promote universal design, and ensure that members and others 

become educated on the subject, and have access to appropriate and effective resources. 

F-12 
• The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), American Society of Landscape 

Architects (ASLA), National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD), and other 

accreditation bodies should require that schools they accredit teach a required course on 

universal design that includes a component that focuses on accessibility codes and guidelines. 

A model for this requirement is the current trend toward requiring environmentally friendly 

(“green”) architecture courses as a condition of accreditation. 

Recommendations for Disability Community, Government, and Business 

Partnerships 

• Local partnerships made up of community disability groups and various business associations 

should regularly recognize entities that have been especially successful at achieving 

architectural and programmatic access by publishing information about them on industry and 

community Web sites and in print publications, and by honoring them at public events 

attended by their peers. 

• Key organizations concerned with ensuring that civil rights for individuals with disabilities 

are protected (for example, DOJ, American Diabetes Association, The ARC, National 

Disability Rights Network, and mental health consumer organizations) should collaborate 

with certain businesses (e.g., theaters, stadiums, performance centers, amusement parks) to 

create training and informational materials that provide practical, realistic information and 

guidance for businesses and entities, dispel stereotypes, and recommend policies the entities 

should adopt to guide their conduct if a bona fide safety risk arises. Policy guidelines must 

acknowledge that standards for behavior and conduct will differ according to the context and 

the situation, but a process must be set forth for determining whether a risk exists and whether 

an accommodation can be provided that will mitigate the risk. 

Recommendations for Franchises 

• Organizations such as the American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (AAFD), a 

national nonprofit trade association that defines and promotes quality in franchising practices, 

and the International Franchise Association (IFA), which works to increase the knowledge 

and professional standards of the franchising community, should work with the disability 

community, DOJ, and representative businesses— 

o To include ADA implementation obligations in the Fair Franchising Standards 

created by AAFD and the Franchise Association Code of Ethics, which is 

intended to establish a framework for the implementation of best practices in the 

IFA’s relationship with its members. The Fair Franchising Standards provide the 

basis for objective accreditation of franchising companies seeking the 

endorsement of and membership in AAFD. The Fair Franchising Seal is conferred 

by AAFD on franchisors who demonstrate that they meet certain standards. 

o To ensure that all franchisors require that franchisees with whom they contract 

meet all applicable ADA implementation obligations. These should be spelled out 

to the extent possible, and any necessary technical assistance or informational 

materials—including facility plans that include ADA access features—should be 

made available when the contract is finalized. 

F-13 
o To ensure that the annual monitoring carried out by the franchisor includes a 

review of ADA obligations to verify that the facility is fulfilling its architectural 

accessibility requirements and that it is capable of meeting the needs of customers 

with communication, alternative format, and other needs. 

o To ensure that a business owner who sells a franchise or chain company be 

required to show in the sales contract that the facility meets all applicable ADA 

accessibility requirements. 

Recommendations for Professional Medical Organizations 

• The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Liaison Committee on 

Medical Education (LCME) should require that, in order to gain accreditation, medical 

schools increase disability knowledge and programmatic access awareness among prospective 

health care professionals by incorporating disability and ADA implementation issues and 

methods into curricula. The AAMC works to ensure that the structure, content, and conduct of 

medical education meet the highest standards, and accreditation by the LCME is required for 

schools to receive federal grants for medical education and to participate in federal loan 

programs. 

• The Institute of Medicine of the National Academies should call for the AAMC and the 

LCME to require that disability knowledge and ADA programmatic access awareness be 

included in curricula for prospective health care professionals as a qualification for 

accreditation. 

Recommendations for Entities That Register Internet Domain Names 

• Entities that register domain names should provide Web access information to applicants and 

a link to World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) information about Web site accessibility. 

• Entities that register domain names should require assurances that Web sites that plan to sell 

goods and services online will be accessible as a condition of acquiring the domain. 

Recommendations for Accreditation Programs and Industry Associations 

• Accreditation programs and industry associations (for example, the American Association of 

Museums) should require Web accessibility as a criterion for membership. 

• Accreditation organizations should require educational institutions that offer information 

technology programs to include disability and Web site accessibility courses as mandatory 

curriculum requirements. 

Recommendations for Nonpartisan, Independent Research Bodies 

• An independent insurance research body should commission or undertake a study to 

determine whether it is feasible for the insurance industry to offer reduced premiums for 

F-14 
certain products (for example, property insurance, business interruption, and liability) as a 

method of rewarding ADA implementation. Such research should determine how the strategy 

to offer reduced premiums can be implemented and whether such action is permitted under 

current state legislative and regulatory schemes or if amendments would be required to state 

insurance laws and regulations, and should make recommendations for achieving this 

requirement. Research results should be widely disseminated through industry publications, 

on the Internet, and to DOJ. 

• A nonpartisan real estate research body should commission or undertake research on selected 

state laws and regulations governing the sale of commercial property to determine to what 

extent they would permit a requirement that those who are selling commercial property 

disclose all known areas of ADA noncompliance, and should make recommendations for 

achieving this requirement. Research results should be widely disseminated through industry 

publications, on the Internet, and to DOJ. 

IV. Telecommunications (Title IV) 

Recommendation for Congress and the Federal Communications Commission 

• Congress and the FCC should consider regulatory or legislative actions that include Internetbased providers in the categories of companies that must contribute to state and interstate 

relay support to ensure the viability of relay funding and to distribute costs fairly among all 

subscribers of communication services. 

• The introduction of new technologies has expanded both the need and the role of equipment 

distribution programs. Now, along with relay users, other people with disabilities often need 

specialized equipment to obtain access to technology and telecommunications. Because this 

means that more people are competing for limited state funds, new funding sources need to be 

identified. Disability advocates are interested in making universal service funding available to 

subsidize the cost of the expensive specialized customer premises equipment (SCPE) that is 

needed by people with disabilities to access broadband technologies. Such “broadband bucks” 

would allow these people to select the accessible equipment they need to accommodate their 

specific disabilities. 

• Congress should amend the Communications Act or the FCC should initiate a rule change 

regarding its provisions governing universal access. As people with disabilities migrate from 

the public switched telephone network to Internet-based text and video communications, state 

utility regulators should allow universal service subsidies that are used to defray the high costs 

of telephone service for low-income people—such as subsidies available under the Lifeline 

program (which provides a monthly discount for telephone service) or the Link-Up program 

(which provides a discount for initial telephone connection charges)—to help defray the costs 

of broadband service. 

F-15 
Recommendations for Federal Agencies 

• The FCC should accelerate approval for new relay technologies and should establish clear 

guidelines to govern new technologies when they are approved. 

• Rather than deal with new technologies on a piecemeal basis, the FCC should look at the big 

picture and chart a forward-looking course for telecommunications relay services (TRS) over 

the next 5–10 years that considers new mainstream technologies and that drives decisions that 

responds to these innovations. The communication technology that relay users now need and 

want is melding with the technology desired by mainstream consumers, such as 

videoconferencing, VoIP services, and enhanced multimedia that provides text and video. It is 

important to get on the technology bandwagon to ensure that people with disabilities become 

players in the development of mainstream technologies. 

• The FCC should supplement the current TRS complaint procedure, which requires consumers 

to first bring complaints to the states and then—only after 180 days—to the FCC, with new 

procedures for Internet-based calls. This would be consistent with the FCC’s new certification 

process for Internet-based and video relay service (VRS) providers. 

• The FCC should develop a reliable and consistent funding methodology to ensure the stability 

of VRS, as well as all other types of TRS. The funding mechanism currently used by the FCC 

for interstate relay services—especially VRS—has been in a state of flux since 2003. 

• Additional oversight of Internet-based relay services is needed, either through a new structure 

at the FCC or through a new federal-level advisory body that can monitor Internet relay 

activity and provide regular feedback to the FCC on the need for revisions to the agency’s 

relay standards. 

• Greater efforts need to be made to prosecute individuals who misuse Internet relay services. In 

the nonrelay context, when fraud is committed by telephone, law enforcement officials can 

obtain subpoenas that allow them to secure the telephone records of the alleged perpetrators. 

The same can be done here. At the same time, because the communication assistants (CAs) in 

these situations are mere conduits for relay conversations, care must be taken not to break the 

transparency of relay calls. The FCC currently has an open rulemaking proceeding to explore 

the most effective ways of curbing Internet relay misuse. 

• Technical solutions are needed to automate the identification of the location of someone 

initiating an Internet-based relay call. This will help deter abuse, facilitate calls to 911, and 

permit accurate billing. The FCC should track these technical developments so they can be 

implemented as this function becomes available. 

• An FCC rule change may be needed to require connections for outgoing and incoming relay 

calls that are automated to the same extent as those for conventional voice telephone calls. 

The technology for automatic connections through all relay modalities already exists but is not 

mandated by the FCC. 

• The FCC has an open proceeding to determine how VRS and Internet text-based providers 

can best handle incoming emergency calls. At the same time, the Department of 

Transportation has been designated the point agency for the development and testing of nextgeneration technology for 911. The two agencies should coordinate with one another to ensure 

F-16 
that relay providers are able to accept and swiftly connect incoming calls with appropriate 

public safety answering points. 

• An FCC rule change would be needed to enable all relay users to automatically and 

simultaneously be connected to both the relay service and the party they are trying to reach at 

the time they dial that party, so they do not need to dial the relay service first. Not having to 

first dial a relay number before reaching the desired party would save time and resources for 

both the caller and the relay service 

• The FCC should clarify that all relay calls must be handled and are eligible for compensation 

from the Interstate TRS Fund, even when more than one type of relay service is needed to 

complete the call. 

• Petitions requesting the FCC to mandate captioned telephone relay service and approve an 

Internet version of this service (filed on October 31, 2005) should be granted, because a far 

greater number of individuals will be able to receive functionally equivalent telephone 

services. Internet-based captioned telephone relay services also would eliminate the need for 

separate captioned telephone equipment, because users simply would be able to install 

software on their computers to access these services. 

• The FCC should approve a global database for proxy numbers. Each Internet-based relay 

customer should be given a single number that can be used to receive Internet-based calls 

through all relay providers. Such a universal approach to numbering—by which the assigned 

number would be neutral with respect to both the provider and the equipment the customer 

uses—is commonplace for conventional telephone users. Although telephone subscribers have 

different local exchange companies that provide their service and telephone wiring, the 

telephone number that each person is assigned is used to receive calls through any telephone 

company. Universal numbering is especially important in emergencies such as hurricanes, 

where consumers cannot rely on a single provider to receive incoming calls. The FCC 

currently has an open rulemaking proceeding to address the need for a global database of 

proxy numbers that can be used to connect hearing individuals to their dynamic IP or VRS 

calling destinations. 

• The FCC should issue standards to ensure standard interpreter qualifications across providers. 

One way of evaluating is to use qualified interpreters and deaf relay consumers to assess the 

ability of video relay interpreters to effectively facilitate communication. While some, if not 

most, VRS providers already require compliance with minimum certification standards or test 

interpreters to assess the effectiveness of their signing, voice presentation, finger spelling, and 

so on, FCC standards are needed to ensure consistency across providers. VRS stakeholders 

also report that it would be helpful for them to be able to receive some type of feedback 

during calls (for example, through captions) that would let them know what the interpreters 

are voicing, to build trust in the interpreter’s ability. 

• The FCC should establish a mechanism whereby consumers can contact an Internet-based 

relay provider when they have a complaint about that provider or wish to report relay misuse. 

One way of enabling consumers to identify the provider on any given relay call is to assign 

each provider a series of unique numbers for each of its CAs. For example, Sprint could be 

given the 1000 series of numbers, Verizon the 2000 series, MCI the 3000 series, and so on. 

That way, the employer of every CA could be easily identified by the enforcing agency. 

F-17 
• DOJ, the Access Board, and agencies concerned with digital and communication security 

should amend the Title II and Title III/ADAAG guidelines to address the problem of the use 

of firewalls for security, which can inadvertently block VRS calls. Businesses and 

government agencies need to have an accessibility guideline that requires them to make video 

communications possible when they use firewalls. If there is an ADAAG guideline on this 

matter, technology will be designed to fix this dilemma. In the meantime, employers should 

obtain a separate broadband line that can be opened for VRS users. 

Recommendations for Telecommunications Carriers 

• The telecommunications companies could establish a national nonprofit organization to 

advance the use of speech-to-speech (STS) relay. (One such organization, Speech 

Communication Assistance by Telephone, Inc. (SCAT), provides general education and 

training in assistive technology for people with disabilities.) 

• Vendors should videophone equipment in public areas frequently visited by people who are 

deaf, such as in dormitories and activity rooms in residential schools for the deaf, vocational 

rehabilitation offices, and community service centers for the deaf (such as the California 

Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf). At the latter sites, people who are deaf or hard of 

hearing also can make arrangements to acquire telecommunications equipment through state 

distribution programs. At all the locations, people who cannot afford the high-speed 

connectivity needed for direct access to videophones can follow up on business related to the 

services provided at these locations, seek advocacy services related to ADA-related 

complaints, or use the phones for other purposes. 

• State relay administrators and relay service providers should instruct communications 

assistants (CAs) to be more patient with deaf-blind callers, who, because they use refreshable 

Braille, often read more slowly than other relay users. In addition, CAs should be permitted to 

instruct call recipients about the caller’s needs and the fact that the call may take a bit longer 

to complete. Technologies that may enable tactile communication over the Internet through 

robots are being explored and could facilitate access in the future for people who are deafblind. 

Recommendation for State Equipment Distribution Programs 

• State equipment distribution programs need to take a harder look at the needs of the 

consumers they serve. These programs should reevaluate the scope of their offerings in light 

of new computer, electronic, and Internet-based technologies, and should allow consumers to 

trade in their equipment sooner. One state that has already made some of these changes is 

Missouri; in 2000, it began distributing adaptive computer equipment for access to the 

Internet and e-mail. Finally, state programs should coordinate with one another to ensure that 

they are consistent and uniform in providing the best options for relay consumers. 

F-18 
Recommendations for State Relay Administrators and State Relay Service 

Providers 

• The underutilization of speech-to-speech (STS) relay services can be reversed by identifying 

and training potential STS users. Training of this type, which typically takes three hours in the 

person’s home, must be done on a one-on-one basis. 

• States should release information about STS call volume so consumers can determine where 

outreach is needed. In the past, some states have been reluctant to give out this information; 

for example, in a 2006 call volume study, only 26 states provided this information. 

• State relay administrators, state relay service providers, and other telecommunications 

providers should educate businesses about how and where to report Internet relay misuse. 

This can be done in part through programs such as Maryland’s relay partner program, which 

educates businesses about the functions and purposes of relay services. 

• State relay administrators, state relay service providers, and other telecommunications carriers 

should identify and implement methods to educate the general public and, in particular, 

business establishments about the purpose and function of relay services to put an end to the 

resistance coming from the business community. 

V. Disability Community 

Recommendations for Federal Agencies 

• Federal agencies that have ADA implementation and enforcement roles should join in a 

collaborative effort to fund a substantial nationwide ADA training initiative for people with 

disabilities. 

• DOJ should step up its enforcement efforts in rural communities. Using Project Civic Access 

as a model, DOJ should initiate compliance activities in selected small towns and rural areas 

that are tailored to the needs and stated goals of the disability communities in these areas. 

• Federal agencies charged with ADA implementation and enforcement should create a rural 

monitoring and enforcement project in collaboration with regional DBTACs, protection and 

advocacy organizations, local disability organizations, individual leaders with disabilities, and 

civic and community leaders. The goal would be to identify and test effective methods for 

achieving ADA implementation in small towns and rural areas that could be publicized and 

replicated. 

Recommendation for Collaboration Between Government Agencies and 

Disability Community Organizations 

• Key agencies and organizations concerned with disability policy (for example, DOJ, the 

National Disability Rights Network, mental health consumer organizations) should create 

training and informational materials that provide practical, realistic information and guidance 

for specific public safety entities (e.g., police, sheriffs, firefighters), and that dispel 

F-19 
stereotypes. The key organizations should recommend policies the entities should adopt that 

would guide their conduct in situations involving individuals with disabilities, especially 

psychiatric disabilities. Policy guidelines must acknowledge that standards for behavior and 

conduct differ according to the context and the situation, but a process must be set forth to 

determine whether a risk exists and whether an accommodation can be provided that will 

mitigate the risk. 

Recommendation for Joint Projects Between Regional ADA & IT Technical 

Assistance Centers and State Protection and Advocacy Organizations 

• Regional ADA & IT Technical Assistance Centers and state Protection and Advocacy 

organizations should develop a model project by collaborating with disability organizations 

and individuals with disabilities from selected small towns and rural areas to develop an 

education and information campaign that promotes public awareness and accessibility. One 

key strategy would be to distribute targeted ADA materials to the public—for example, 

libraries, job training centers, hiring programs, and unions—and include ADA information 

with all business transactions and local business tax invoices involving licensing, building and 

occupancy permits, business permits, and inspections. (See related recommendations for 

urban areas in the section on Title III.) 

VI. Culturally Diverse Community 

Recommendations for Federal Agencies and Departments 

• The Department of Justice should dedicate additional resources for developing culturally 

competent information materials on the ADA and should support development of culturally 

competent outreach activities. 

• The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research should establish a program 

similar to the regional ADA and IT Centers but focused on culturally competent outreach and 

technical assistance to culturally diverse communities. The goal of these new centers would 

be to enhance culturally diverse covered entities’ capacity to implement the ADA. With 

support from and collaboration with local community leaders and organizations, the centers 

would conduct outreach and provide technical assistance, information, and training to small 

businesses and organizations in their project area. 

Recommendations for Collaboration Between the Disability and Culturally 

Diverse Communities, including Businesses 

• Disability advocates associated with local independent living centers and other disability 

organizations should research and initiate contact with leaders in the community and discuss 

local needs from both perspectives. 

• Disability advocates, with the assistance of local leaders, should contact local chambers of 

commerce, merchant associations, and social service clubs in their communities and build 

partnerships for outreach and education. 

F-20 
• In conducting outreach to culturally diverse communities, disability advocates and 

organizations should use popular local media outlets that target those communities. 

Recommendation for Collaboration Between Federal Agencies and Private 

Community Development Organizations 

• Key federal agencies and private community development organizations should convene an 

experts meeting to explore methods for using various sources of community development 

funding—such as the community investment tax, Small Business Administration loans, 

Federal Emergency Management Agency disaster relief funding, and community development 

block grants—to help bring about ADA compliance changes. This could be accomplished by 

requiring ADA compliance as a term and condition of funding, which would be supported 

with some financial help from the funding agency toward achieving the required accessibility 

features and by dedicating specific amounts of money from development funds to accomplish 

high-priority barrier-removal projects in the target communities. 

Recommendation for Collaboration Among Disability Groups, Businesses, 

and Elected Officials 

• Local partnerships made up of community disability groups, local business associations, and 

elected officials should regularly recognize entities that have been especially successful at 

achieving architectural and programmatic access by publishing information about them on 

community Web sites and in publications, and by honoring them at public events attended by 

their peers. 

Recommendations for Disability Community Organizations and Advocates 

• The leaders of local independent living centers and other disability organizations should seek 

out leaders in culturally diverse neighborhoods to hold discussions on ADA implementation 

and to understand the needs of citizens and businesses. The objective is to raise awareness 

about important cultural traditions that may affect perceptions of disability, to inform leaders 

about the benefits of the ADA, and to build partnerships that provide mutual benefit for the 

disability and culturally diverse communities. The goals are for local leaders to demonstrate 

that the ADA can be implemented in a meaningful way in their communities, to promote 

implementation, and to serve as a model for others. 

• Local independent living centers and other disability organizations should seek out individuals 

from culturally diverse backgrounds to mentor people with disabilities. 

• For ADA implementation to remain a priority in the community, disability advocates must 

make regular informational visits to state and regional public office holders, especially 

caucuses dedicated to specific diverse communities. 

F-21 
VII. Legal and Enforcement Tools—Class Actions and Settlements 

Recommendations for Title III Stakeholders 

• The accessibility requirements of civil rights law must be publicly broadcast, acknowledged, 

and respected at the same level as other applicable regulations and laws, and equally 

acknowledged as a make-or-break issue in running a business. When business and industry 

associations work together to foster the idea that the law is unfair and lobby for legislative 

change that will weaken the private right of action overall, they are not doing their 

constituents any favors and certainly are harming the prospect for achieving voluntary Title III 

compliance. 

• Title III compliance cannot depend only on voluntary compliance from those few business 

owners who are motivated by a personal familiarity with disability or the determination to do 

the right thing legally and ethically, regardless of the cost. Nor can compliance depend only 

on litigation and the minority of people with disabilities who are willing and able to bring 

lawsuits. If private litigation remains virtually the only means of external enforcement 

motivating business compliance with Title III, it will likely continue to bear the brunt of 

public backlash and industry lobbying. Widespread Title III compliance cannot be achieved 

without business and public outreach, a visible and efficient administrative enforcement 

procedure, the wide availability of qualified accessibility expertise, and economic incentives 

such as tax and other credits. 

Legal and Enforcement Tools—Private Right of Action 

Recommendations for Congress 

• Congress must enact legislation that effects a statutory repair of Buckhannon’s condition of a 

“judicially sanctioned” change in the parties’ relationship for the recovery of attorney fees 

under Title III, so that attorney fee-shifting rules will apply if a Title III plaintiff or would-be 

plaintiff has been the catalyst for a public accommodation’s coming into compliance with its 

Title III obligations. 

• Congress must make compensatory damages available under Title III. 

• Congress must establish a statutory minimum damages amount for the denial of access rights 

under Title III. 

Legal and Enforcement Tools—Class Actions and Settlements 

Recommendations for Legal Advocates 

• Continue monitoring for abuse, but also explore any possibility for strengthening the current 

system by creating at least the possibility of recovering attorney fees for raising reasonable 

objections to national and regional class action settlements. 

F-22 
• Encourage education of and intervention by DOJ and state attorney generals in states where 

citizens with disabilities would be adversely affected by these settlements. This option is 

especially reasonable to explore given the new Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) provisions 

requiring notice to “appropriate” state officials with the settlement of federal class actions. 

• Consider ways to link the CAFA notice provisions to state and federal officials to actual 

notice to cross-disability groups with a legal component and to Protection and Advocacy 

agencies in all affected states 

• Educate the judiciary on the need for vigilance concerning national ADA class settlements 

that would allow public accommodations to avoid or water down ADAAG requirements and 

bind an overly broad class of people with disabilities to a settlement that gives many of them 

inadequate or no relief 

• Disseminate information about the structured negotiation approach and its possibilities for 

avoiding the inefficiencies of initiating and sustaining a litigious approach to enforcing Title 

III against corporate defendants that operate multiple public accommodations. 

F-23 
F-24 
Appendix G – Mission of the National Council on Disability 

Overview and Purpose 

The National Council on Disability (NCD) is an independent federal agency with 15 members 

appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The purpose 

of NCD is to promote policies, programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal 

opportunity for all individuals with disabilities regardless of the nature or significance of the 

disability and to empower individuals with disabilities to achieve economic self-sufficiency, 

independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society. 

Specific Duties 

The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the following: 

• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, policies, programs, practices, and 

procedures concerning individuals with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal 

departments and agencies, including programs established or assisted under the Rehabilitation 

Act of 1973, as amended, or under the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of 

Rights Act, as well as all statutes and regulations pertaining to federal programs that assist 

such individuals with disabilities, to assess the effectiveness of such policies, programs, 

practices, procedures, statutes, and regulations in meeting the needs of individuals with 

disabilities. 

• Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis, new and emerging disability policy issues 

affecting individuals with disabilities in the Federal Government, at the state and local 

government levels, and in the private sector, including the need for and coordination of adult 

services, access to personal assistance services, school reform efforts and the impact of such 

efforts on individuals with disabilities, access to health care, and policies that act as 

disincentives for individuals to seek and retain employment. 

• Making recommendations to the President, Congress, the Secretary of Education, the director 

of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and other officials of 

federal agencies about ways to better promote equal opportunity, economic self-sufficiency, 

independent living, and inclusion and integration into all aspects of society for Americans 

with disabilities. 

• Providing Congress, on a continuing basis, with advice, recommendations, legislative 

proposals, and any additional information that NCD or Congress deems appropriate. 

• Gathering information about the implementation, effectiveness, and impact of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.). 

• Advising the President, Congress, the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration, the assistant secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 

within the Department of Education, and the director of the National Institute on Disability 

G-1 
and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the programs to be carried out under the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. 

• Providing advice to the commissioner of the Rehabilitation Services Administration with 

respect to the policies and conduct of the administration. 

• Making recommendations to the director of the National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research on ways to improve research, service, administration, and the 

collection, dissemination, and implementation of research findings affecting people with 

disabilities. 

• Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities of the Interagency Disability 

Coordinating Council and reviewing the recommendations of this council for legislative and 

administrative changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with NCD’s 

purpose of promoting the full integration, independence, and productivity of individuals 

with disabilities. 

• Preparing and submitting to the President and Congress an annual report titled National 

Disability Policy: A Progress Report. 

International 

In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the U.S. government’s official 

contact point for disability issues. Specifically, NCD interacts with the special rapporteur of the 

United Nations Commission for Social Development on disability matters. 

Consumers Served and Current Activities 

Although many government agencies deal with issues and programs affecting people with 

disabilities, NCD is the only federal agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making 

recommendations on issues of public policy that affect people with disabilities regardless of age, 

disability type, perceived employment potential, economic need, specific functional ability, 

veteran status, or other individual circumstance. NCD recognizes its unique opportunity to 

facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment opportunities for people 

with disabilities by ensuring an informed and coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of 

people with disabilities and eliminating barriers to their active participation in community and 

family life. 

NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy in America. In fact, NCD originally 

proposed what eventually became ADA. NCD’s present list of key issues includes improving 

personal assistance services, promoting health care reform, including students with disabilities in 

high-quality programs in typical neighborhood schools, promoting equal employment and 

community housing opportunities, monitoring the implementation of ADA, improving assistive 

technology, and ensuring that people with disabilities who are members of diverse cultures fully 

participate in society. 

G-2 
Statutory History 

NCD was established in 1978 as an advisory board within the Department of Education (P.L. 95­

602). The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (P.L. 98-221) transformed NCD into an 

independent agency. 

G-3 
G-4