S1()-I()()226-()5 S

Mrs . Rossi e Jucl

d 1394RobindaleDr . Fento n MO.6302 6

Jul y 6,200 9 J . Michae l Kellehe r Special Assistan t

t o th e Presiden t

an d Directo r o f Presidentia l Conespondenc e Th e Whit e Hous e ' 160 0 Pennsylvani aAve. , N W Washington , D C 2050 0 Dea r Mr . Kelleher : Re : Inqmr y t o th e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n regardm g Docke t DOT-OST-2009

- 012 6 I reques t tha t yo u submi t

my comment s t o th e U.S . Departmen t o f Transportatio n (DOT ) an dtha t yo u reques t

tha t th e DO T includ e my comment s i n it s revie w o f Docke t DOT

OST.2009-0126 . Docke t DOT-OST'2009-012 6 i s adisability discriminatio n complain t that was file d agains t si x ai r carrier s a t

th e Hartsfield-Jackso n Atlant aInternational Airport b y Bill y Williams , Dian aWoodbury , an dPatrici aL . Young . I believ e that

th e court decision s cite dbelo w ar e applicabl e t o th e ^^liams/Woodbury/Youn g complain t an dtha t th e DO T shoul dmak e it s decisio n i n accordanc e with thes e cour t decisions . PUBLI C ACCOMMODATION S CAIWO T B E BIFURCATE D Under Titl e i n o f

th e American s with Disabilitie s Ac t (ADA) , i n PG

A Tour , Inc . v . Martin , th e U.S . Suprem e Court hel dthat : Our conclusio n i s consisten t

with cas e la w i n th e analogou s contex t o f Tid e n o f th e Civi l Right s Ac t

o f 1964 . (citation s omitted ) In Danie l V . Paul , 39 5 U.S . 298,306 , 8 9 S.Ct . 1697,2 3 L.Ed.2 d31 8 (1969) , applyin g Titl e n t o th e Lak e Nixo n Clu b i n Littl e Rock , Arkansas , w e hel dtha t th e definitio n o f

a"plac e o f

exhibitio n o r

entertairunent " a s a publi c accommodation , covere dparticipant s "i n som e sport o r activity " a s wel l a s spectator s o r

listeners. " (emphasi s added) . 53 2 U.S . 681 . I n Danie l v . Paul , th e U.S . Suprem e Court hel dthat :SI()-IO()226-()5 K

Th e snac k bar' s statu s a s acovere destablislimen t automaticatl y bring s th e entire Lak e Niso n facilit

y withi n tli e ambi t

o f Titl e II . (emphasi s added) . 39 5 U.S . 305 ; Unite dState s v . Lansdown e Swi mClub , 71 3 F.Supp . 713 , 79 1 (E.D.Pa , 1989) . Se e sls o Marti n v . PG A Tour , Inc. , 98 4 F.Supp . 1320,1326-2 7 (D.Ore . 1998 ) (Th e operato r o f apubli c accommodatio n coul dnot "creat e privat e enclave s h i th e facility.. . an dthu s relegat e th e AD A t o hop-scotc h areas.") , afOrmed , 20 4 F,3 d994,99 7 (9th Cir . 2000) ; DO J amicu s curia e brie f mMarti n v . PG A Tour . Inc. , No . 98-3530 9 (9th Cir . 2000) ; PG A Tour , Inc . v . Martin , 53 2 U. S 661 , 670,12 1 S.Ct . 187 9 (2001) . Therefore , apubli c accommodatio n canno t hav e enclave s tiiat

ar e smokin g area s withi n th e publi c accommodatio n unde r Danie l v . Pau l an dPG

A Tour , Inc . v . Martin . SMOKIN G POLICIE S AN D SMOKIN G BAN S UNDE RTH E AD A Under Titl e H I o f th e ADA , i n PG

A Tow . Inc . v . Martin , th e U.S . Supreme Cour t hel d that : A s previousl y stated , th e AD A wa s enacte dt o eliminat e discriminatio n agains t "individuals " with disabilities , 4 2 U.S.C . § 12101(b)(1) , an dt o tha t en dTitl e II I o f

th e Ac t require s witiiou t

exceptio n tha t

any "policies , practices , o r

procedures " o f

apubli c accommodatio n b e reasonabl y modifie dfor

disable d'^individuals " a s necessar y t o affor dacces s uides s doin g s o woul dfundamentall y alte r wha t i s offered , (emphasi s added) . 53 2 U.S . 688 . Obviously , "require s withou t exception " include s smokin g policie s an d"a s necessary " include s smokin g bans . Furthermore , unde r

th e ADA , i n U.S . Airways , Inc . v . Barnett , th e U.S . Supreme Cour t hel dthat : A n ineffective "modification " o r "adjustment " wil l no t

accommodate a disable duidividual' s limitations , (emphasi s i n original) . 53 5 U.S . 400 . Therefore , i n accordanc e with PG A Tour , Inc . v . Marti n an dU.S . Airways , Inc . v. Barnett , th e DO T canno t

interpre t th e Ai r Carrie r Acces s Ac t

(ACAA ) o r

th e AD A a s exemptin g smokin g policie s an dsmokin g ban s unde r eithe r th e ACA A o r

th e ADA . DEFERENC E T O PUBLI C HEALT H OFFICIAL SSI()-1()0226-()5, S

hi Schoo l Boar dofNassa u Coimiy , Florid av . Arline , th e U.S . Suprem e Cour l hel dthat :

. . . court s normall y shoul ddefer t o th e reasonabl e judgment s o f publi c healt h officials . 48 0 U.S . 288 . In Bragdo n v . Abbott , th e U.S . Suprem e Cour t hel dthat : I n accessm g th e reasonablenes s o f petitioner' s actions , th e view s o f publi c health authorities , suc h a s th e U.S . Publi c Health Service , CDC , an dth e National Institute s o f

Health , ar e o f

special weigh t

an dauthority . 52 4 U.S . 650 . Therefore , i n accordanc e with Schoo l Boar dofNassa u County , Florid av . Arlin e an d Bragdo n v . Abbott , th e DO T shoul ddefer t o th e reasonabl e judgment s o f publi c healt

h official s with regardt o secon dhan dtobacc o smoke whe n interpretin g o r applyin g th e ACAA an dth e ADA .

EFFECT S O FDISABILITIE S O N OTHER S In Schoo l Boar dofNassa u County , Florid av . Arline . th e U.S . Suprem e Cour t hel dthat : Congress ' desur

e t o prohibi t

discriminatio n base do n th e effect s aperson' s handica p ma y hav e o n other s wa s eviden t fromth e inceptio n o f

th e [Rehabilitation ] Ac t

48 0 U.S . 28 2 n.9 . Therefore , under

Schoo l Boar dofNassa u Cotmty . Florid av . Arline , th e DO T carmot permi t th e breathin g disable dt o b e discriminate dagains t becaus e o f

th e effect s o f

thei r disabilitie s o n smoker s o r

ai r carrier s o r

^rpor t operator s imder

eithe r th e ACA A o r

th e ADA . ARCmTECTURA L BARRIER S REGULATION S The U.S . Supreme Cour

t interprete dth e AD A Titl e I I architectural barrie r regulation s i n Tennesse e v . Lane . Th e Supreme Cour

t hel dthat : Congres s require dth e State s t o tak e reasonabl e measure s t o remov e architectural an dothe r

barrier s t o accessibility . 4 2 USC . § 12131(2).. . A s Titl e U' s implementin g regulation s mak e clear , th e reasonabl e modificatio n requiremen t

can b e satisfie dmanumbe r o f ways . In th e cas e o f facilitie s buil t

o r altere dafte

r 1992 , th e regulation s requir e complianc eS1()-I()()226-()5 S

with specifi c arcliitectural slandaids . 2 8 C.F.R . § 35.15 1 (2003) . But i n th e cas e o f olde r facilities , for

whic h structwa l chang e i s likel y t o b e mor e difficuh , apubli c entit

y ca n compl y with Titl e I I b y adoptm g avariet y o f les s costl y measures , includin g relocatin g service s t o alternative , accessibl e site s an dassignin g aides t o assis t person s with disabilitie s i n accessin g services . § 35.150(b)(1) . Onl y i f thes e measure s ar e ineffectiv e i n achievm g accessibility i s th e publi c entity require dt o mak e reasonabl e structwa l changes . 54 1 U.S . 531-532 . Se e als o Kinne y v . Yerusalim , 81 2 F.Supp . 54 7 (E.D.Pa . 1993) , affirme d9 Fed.3 d106 7 (3r dCir . 1993) . Therefore , i n accordanc e wit h Tennesse e v . Lane , th e DO T canno t appl y 2 8 C.F.R . § 35.150 , o r any othe r architectura l barrier s regulation , t o smokin g policie s i n orde r t o exemp t smokin g policie s firomth e fimdamental alteratio n tes t require db y PG

A Tour , Inc . V . Martin , 53 2 U.S . 688 . MEANINGFU L ACCES S ] n Alexander

v . Choate , imder

Sectio n 50 4 o f

th e Rehabilitatio n ac t

o f 1973 , th e U.S . Supreme Court

hel dthat : Th e balanc e struc k

i n [Southeastern Communit y Colleg e v. ] Davi s requure s that an otherwis e qualifie dhandicappe dindividua l mus t b e provide dwith meaningfli l acces s t o th e benefi t tha t th e grante e offers . Th e benefi t itself , o f course , canno t

b e define di n away that

effectively denie s otherwis e qualifie dhandicappe d individual s th e meaningfii l acces s t o whic h ihe y ar e entitled . 46 9 U.S . a t 301 . Therefore , unde t

Alexande r

v . Choate , th e DO T camio t interpre t eithe r th e ACA A o r

th e AD A i n suc h amanne r

tha t th e breathin g disable dar e denie dmeaningfu l acces s t o airport s becaus e the y mxis t endur e secon dhan dtobacc o smoke, apubli c healt h hazard , i n order t o acces s th e airports . DISPARAT E TREATMENT/DISPARAT E IMPAC T DISCRIMINATIO N Th e U.S . Supreme Court

ha s hel dtha t

both disparat e treatmen t

an ddisparat e impac t claim s ar e cognizabl e unde r th e Rehabilitatio n Ac t

an dth e ADA . Alexande r

v . Choat e ( § 504 o f th e Rehabilitatio n Act) ; Raytheo n v . Hernande z (Titl e I o f th e ADA) ; Olmsteadv . L.C . by Zimrin g (Titl e D o f th e ADA) ; PG

A Tour , Inc . v . Marti n (Tid e mo f th e ADA) . I t i s well-settle db y publi c health authoritie s tha t secon dhan dtobacc o ha s adisparate impac t o n person s wit h breathin g disabilities . Therefore , i n accordanc e with . Alexande r v . Choate ; Raytheo n v . Hernandez ; Olmstea dv . L.C . by Zimring ; an dPG

A Tow ; Inc . v . Martin , th e DO T i s require dt o prohibi t secon dS1()-1()()226-()3 S

han dtobacc o smoke insid e airpor t facilities . I N CONCLUSIO N In Chevron , U.S.A. , Inc . v . Natura l Resource s Defens e Council , Inc. , th e U.S . Supreme Cour t ha s hel dthat : Th e judiciary i s th e final authority o n issue s o f statutor y constructio n an dmas

X rejec t administrativ e construction s whic h ar e contrar y t o clear congressional inten t 46 7 U.S . 84 3 n.9 . Therefore , th e DO T i s requke dt o rejec t al l administrativ e construction s tha t hav e hel d that smokin g policie s an dsmokin g ban s ar e excepte dfix>mth e ACA A an dth e ADA . Furthermore , i n PG

A Tour , Inc . v . Martin , th e U.S . Suprem e Cour t mterprete d4 2 U.S.C . § 12182(a) , th e general rul e prohibitin g discriminatio n imde r Tid e i n o f

th e ADA , a s i t pertain s t o gol f

competitions . Th e Supreme court

hel dthat : A s w e hav e noted , th e statut e contemplate s thre e inquiries : whethe r th e requeste dmodificatio n i s "reasonable, " whethe r i t i s ''necessary " for

th e disable dindividual , an dwhethe r i t woul d"fundamentall y alte r th e natur e o f th e competition. " 4 2 U.S.C . § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) . 53 2 U.S . 68 3 n.38 . Therefore , PG

A Tour , Inc . v . Marti n impose s upo n th e DO T th e requiremen t tha t th e DO T appl y th e thre e pron g tes t t o th e Williams/Woodbury/Youn g complamt regardin g secon dhan dtobacc o smoke . Firs t I s th e requeste dmodification , th e remova l o f secon dhan dtobacc o smoke , apubli c healt h hazard , reasonable? ; Second . I s th e requeste dmodification , th e remova l o f secon dhan dtobacc o smoke , a publi c health hazard , necessary? ; Third . Woul dmaldn g th e requeste dmodification , th e removal o f apubU c healt h hazar d fro mapubli c accommodation , b e afundamental alteration ? Obviously , i t

canno t b e sai dtha t

removin g apubli c health hazar dfiromapubli c accommodatio n i s unreasonabl e o r tha t removin g apubli c healt

h hazardfromapubli c accommodatio n i s unnecessary o r tha t removin g apubli c health hazardfi'omapubli c accommodatio n woul db e afimdamental alteration . Therefore , th e WilliarasAVoodbuiy/Youn g complain t shoul db e sustaine db y th e DOT .SI()-I()()226-()? S

RespectftiH y siibmitled ,

^ 'TKossie/udcli:. , 'S1()-1()()226-()3 S

TH E WHIT E HOUS E WASHINGTO N

Apri l 29,200 9 Rossi e Jud d 139 4 Robindal e Driv e Fenton , Missouri 6302 6 Dea r Rossie : Than k yo u for contactin g th e offic e o f

Presiden t Barac k Obama . Th e Presiden t appreciate s you r

takin g th e time t o voic e your concern s an dopinions . W e woul dlik e t o b e o f

assistanc e t o you ; however , you r correspondenc e doe s not stat e th e specifi c natur e o f you r concern . I f

yo u nee dhel p wit

h aFederal agency , pleas e provid e ou r offic e with abrief

, bu t detaile ddescriptio n o f

you r issue . Pleas e b e awar e that yo u can visi t

www.usa.go v o r

cal l 1-800-FEDINFO for informatio n abou t

governmen t

assistance . Again , than k

yo u for you r correspondence . Sincerely , 

## ^ . J^U L {UIJL L F . Michae l Kellehe r Special Assistan t

t o th e Presiden t

an d Directo r o f Presidential Correspondenc eSI()-I()()226-()5, S

US A HRSTCIA!; }

L l « U I . i i

•st^yS^ V 

# 4^ 1 

# v^F . o 

# S