Physical Barriers to Accessibility for 

Individuals with Disabilities

A Report of the 

Washington Advisory Committee to the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

March 2024
1 | Page

Advisory Committees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

By law, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has established an advisory committee in each of

the 50 states and the District of Columbia and several U.S. territories. The committees are 

composed of state citizens who serve without compensation. The committees advise the 

Commission of civil rights issues in their states that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction. 

More specifically, they are authorized to advise the Commission in writing of any knowledge or 

information they have of any alleged deprivation of voting rights and alleged discrimination based 

on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin, or in the administration of justice; 

advise the Commission on matters of their state’s concern in the preparation of Commission 

reports to the President and the Congress; receive reports, suggestions, and recommendations from 

individuals, public officials, and representatives of public and private organizations to committee 

inquiries; forward advice and recommendations to the Commission, as requested; and observe any 

open hearing or conference conducted by the Commission in their states. 
2 | Page

Washington Advisory Committee to the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

The Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights submits this 

briefing report regarding physical accessibility for individuals with disabilities. The Committee 

submits this report as part of its responsibility to study and report on civil-rights issues in the state. 

The contents of this report are primarily based on testimony the Committee heard during public 

meetings held via videoconference from February to June 2023. 

The report begins with a brief background of the issue to be considered by the Committee. It then 

identifies primary findings as they emerged from the testimony. Finally, the Committee conveys 

its recommendations for addressing the civil rights concerns identified in this report. This report

is intended to focus specifically on the failure of state and private entities to provide access to 

public and private spaces. While other important topics may have surfaced throughout the 

Committee’s inquiry, those matters that are outside the scope of this specific civil rights mandate 

are left for another discussion. This report and the recommendations included within it were 

adopted unanimously by the Committee on December 14, 2023.

Washington Advisory Committee to the 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights1

Alexes Harris, Chair

University of Washington, Seattle

Kimberly Ambrose

Univ. of Washington School of Law, Seattle

Tony Benegas

Benegas Engineering PS, West Richland

Luzviminda Carpenter

Seattle Girls' School, Seattle

David K. DeWolf

Gonzaga University, Spokane

Xyanthe Neider

Whatcom Community College, Bellingham

Conrad Reynoldson

Washington Civil & Disability Advocate, Seattle

John Safarli

Floyd, Pflueger & Ringer, Seattle

Eric Schnapper

Univ. of Washington School of Law, Seattle

1 Names, affiliations, and locations are listed for identification purposes only. 
3 | Page

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................4

Background ...............................................................................................................................6

Overview of Testimony ...........................................................................................................11

Findings...................................................................................................................................12

Recommendations...................................................................................................................20

Appendix .................................................................................................................................24

Appendix A – Panel Agendas, Minutes, and Presentation Slides................................................... 25

Appendix B – Hearing Transcripts................................................................................................. 27

Appendix C – Written Testimony ................................................................................................... 28
4 | Page

Executive Summary

The Washington Committee identified physical barriers to accessibility for people with 

disabilities as a critical issue for ensuring that the civil rights of all Washington citizens are 

protected. The leadership and advocacy of Committee member, Conrad Reynoldson, was 

instrumental in the Committee understanding how important this issue was in the state of 

Washington. 

The report highlights several prominent themes related to physical accessibility challenges in 

Washington state. Firstly, individuals with disabilities face significant obstacles, including 

incomplete sidewalks, a lack of curb cuts, and inaccessible transportation, leading to unsafe 

circumstances. This reveals discrepancies in ADA compliance despite the longstanding presence 

of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act. 

There is inconsistency across counties within the state, with varying levels of investment in 

accessibility. While urban centers benefit from concentrated resources, rural communities, 

particularly in the northern parts of the state, experience limited physical accessibility and 

express a need for more community resources. 

The report also emphasizes a lack of dedicated funding for ADA compliance, resulting in underinvestment, unfunded projects, and incomplete improvements. 

Lastly, enforcement challenges are highlighted, with a heavy reliance on individual lawsuits and 

complaints, imposing emotional burdens and financial stress on people with disabilities.

Communities historically disadvantaged are more likely to distrust government and are less 

likely to report accessibility issues. 

The Committee’s recommends full-state resource mapping. The enforcement system's 

complexity, involving multiple federal and state agencies, contributes to confusion and a 

burdensome complaint process, discouraging individuals from filing complaints. 

Limited public knowledge about ADA mandates and inadequate training for compliance further 

compound the challenges. Lastly, the Committee wants to highlight the importance of 

community engagement, particularly through Accessible Communities Advisory Committees 

(ACACs). Engaging individuals directly impacted the barriers to physical accessibility is the best 

way to improve access in Washington.

The Committee urges both federal and state government prioritize and enforce the 

groundbreaking Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Alexes Harris

Chair of the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
5 | Page

Summary of Findings

Finding I: Physical access continues to be a challenge for individuals with disabilities in 

Washington state. Even though the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act has 

been in existence for decades, localities are not fully complying with accessibility standards in 

public spaces. 

Finding II: Physical accessibility is not consistent throughout Washington state, as each distinct 

county has varying levels of investment in accessibility for individuals with disabilities. 

Finding III: There is a lack of dedicated funding to meet current ADA compliance standards; this 

lack of funding limits both improvements to existing infrastructure and new projects to expand 

access.

Finding IV: Enforcement of ADA compliance is largely dependent on individual lawsuits and 

individual complaints filed by affected individuals. 

Finding V: Because of the complaint-driven nature of the remedy process, authorities do not 

respond equitably to inadequate physical access. 

Finding VI: Multiple federal and state agencies issue regulations, provide technical assistance, 

and enforce different sections of the ADA. This siloed enforcement system leads to confusion as 

to which agency is responsible for enforcing compliance, and where complaints should be filed. 

Finding VII: Public knowledge is very limited regarding ADA mandates and requirements. In 

addition, many professionals responsible for compliance lack appropriate training resulting in 

continued confusion and inadequate compliance.

Finding VIII: Policymakers who emphasize community engagement are more likely to ensure 

equitable physical accessibility in Washington State. 
6 | Page

Background 

In Washington, 1,273,876 adults have a disability. This equates to 1 in 5 adults in the state.2 Of 

that population, 8% have a mobility-type disability, defined as serious difficulty walking or 

climbing stairs.3

More than 30 years after the passage of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 

progress has been made.

4 However, physical accessibility for individuals with disabilities 

remains a serious challenge. Many places of public accommodation are still not fully compliant 

with legal requirements.5 Sites of public accommodation include a wide range of locations that 

serve the public, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, pharmacies, doctor’s offices, libraries, etc.6

 

In a report released in 2021, the Disability Mobility Initiative found that across Washington state, 

people “from cities of all sizes and areas, both rural and urban, all reported facing fundamentally 

similar barriers because of gaps and barriers in our mobility networks.”7 When asked to name the 

biggest barrier to getting where you need to go in your community, the most frequent answer 

was the poor condition or absence of sidewalks, followed closely by problems with curb cuts, 

crosswalks, and intersections. Many communities have no sidewalks at all; existing sidewalks 

are often filled with cracks and bumps or are incomplete, ending suddenly with no warning or 

accessible cues, turning into gravel, and dumping people into the street.8

Where sidewalks do exist, curb cuts — the small ramps cut into sidewalks, typically at 

intersections to allow access to crosswalks — may be absent or may be too narrow or steep with 

large bumps or “lips” on the edge, out of compliance with current ADA standards.9 This 

interrupts the sidewalk network, creating hostile, dangerous conditions, and barriers.10

Infrequency, poor scheduling, and poor connections in public transportation make using transit 

onerous. As a result, disabled individuals will delay or even skip necessary trips like doctor 

2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Disability and Health Prevention, Disability Impacts Washington, 

2022, p. 1 https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/impacts/washington.html 3

 Ibid. 4 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq). 5 Hamberger, Suzanne. “Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Awareness Day.” Clincierge. 

https://www.clincierge.com/americans-with-disabilities-act-ada-awareness-day/ (accessed September 30, 2022); 28 

C.F.R. § 36.201–36.399 (2024). 6 Americans with Disability Act National Network, FAQs, What are Public Accommodations, 2023, 

https://adata.org/faq/what-are-publicaccommodations#:~:text=Places%20of%20public%20accommodation%20include,schools%2C%20and%20day%20

care%20centers; 42 U.S.C. § 12181; 28 C.F.R. § 36.104. 7 “Transportation Access for Everyone: Washington State,” Disability Rights Washington, accessed September 30, 

2022, https://www.disabilityrightswa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/DMI-Research-Paper-Final.pdf 8

 Ibid. 

9 Disability Rights Washington. “Reynoldson et all v. City of Seattle,” 2018. 

https://www.disabilityrightswa.org/cases/reynoldson-v-city-of-seattle/; 28 C.F.R. § 36.304. 10 Los Angeles Mayor, Willits V. City of LA Sidewalk Settlement Announced, 2015, p.1. 

https://www.lamayor.org/willits-v-city-la-sidewalk-settlement-announced 
7 | Page

visits; in addition, they are less likely to take the kind of discretionary trips that people with easy 

access to transportation may take for granted, like visiting friends or family, or having a night 

out. In many interviews performed by the Disability Mobility Initiative, people frequently cited 

the lack of weekend transportation service as a significant barrier, particularly in rural and 

outlying areas.11 People noted that not all errands, appointments, and other needs can be 

completed during the week, especially when the travel time required to complete an errand on 

limited transit schedules is considerable time, compared to what would be a quick trip by car.

12

In 2015 Disability Rights Washington filed a lawsuit, Reynoldson et al v. City of Seattle,

13 asking 

a federal court to help in ensuring that the City of Seattle makes its streets safe and accessible for 

people with mobility disabilities. In 2017, a settlement agreement was entered into, laying out a 

plan for Seattle to fulfill the promise of the ADA furthering equal access to people with 

disabilities who live, work, or travel to Seattle.14

The settlement requires the city to build or fix 1,250 curb ramps each year for the next 18 years. 

That’s 22,500 curb ramps total.15 The agreement also requires the city to improve how it accepts 

complaints about ramps from disabled residents. The city agrees to make “its best efforts” to 

investigate curb-ramp requests within 30 days and to fix them within 12 months.16

The Accessible Communities Act, which was passed in Washington State in 2010, supports 

communities in becoming more accessible to people with disabilities.17 The act supported the 

creation of Accessible Communities Advisory Committees (ACACs), which are county-based 

groups of citizens with a diverse range of disabilities and experiences18 who advise on disability 

11 “Transportation Access for Everyone: Washington State,” Disability Rights Washington, accessed September 30, 

2022, https://www.disabilityrightswa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/DMI-Research-Paper-Final.pdf 12 Ibid. 

13 The Committee wants to disclose that one of the members of the Committee, Conrad Reynoldson, was the named 

plaintiff in the litigation. While Reynoldson’s involvement in the litigation helped bring the issue of physical 

accessibility to the Committee’s attention, the Committee has no connection to the litigation or the following 

consent decree. Reynoldson et al v. City of Seattle, No. 2:15-cv-01608, 2015 WL 13633915 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 

2015). 

14 Disability Rights Washington. “Reynoldson et al v. City of Seattle,” 2018 https://www.disabilityrightswa.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/10/ReynoldsonConsentDecree.pdf; Reynoldson et al v. City of Seattle, No. 2:15-cv-01608, 

2017 WL 5890271 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 1, 2017).

15 David Gutman, “Settlement: Seattle to Rebuild Thousands of Sidewalk Curb Ramps Over Next 18 Years,” The

Seattle Times, July 17, 2017. Accessed September 30, 2022. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattlenews/transportation/settlement-seattle-to-build-thousands-of-sidewalk-curb-ramps-over-next-18-

years/?utm_content=buffer927e0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=owned_buffe

r_f_m. Reynoldson et al v. City of Seattle, No. 2:15-cv-01608, 2017 WL 5890271 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 1, 2017). 16 Ibid. 

17 “What Is a County Accessible Community Advisory Committee (ACAC).” Accessible Communities. Accessed 

December 2023. https://accessiblecommunities.wa.gov/inclusive-communities/accessible-community-advisorycommittees. Accessible Communities Act, SB 5902, 2010 Leg., 61st Sess. (Wash. 2010), 2010 Wash. Laws 215.

https://esdorchardstorage.blob.core.windows.net/esdwa/Default/ESDWAGOV/newsroom/GCDE/ACA%20act.pdf 18 Elizabeth Gordon, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, February 8, 2023. Transcript, p. 4 (hereafter Transcript I); Dave Reynolds, testimony, Briefing Before the 

Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 27, 2023. Transcript, p. 11 (hereafter 

Transcript III). Wash. Rev. Code §§ 36.01.301, 50.40.071 (2011).
8 | Page

accessibility issues. The goal of ACACs was to include individuals with disabilities at all levels 

of planning of facilities, activities, and services.19 

The Accessible Communities Act created a fund of money for projects in their communities that 

seek to improve access for people with disabilities.20 Funding for these projects comes in part 

from individual parking fines related to accessible parking spots.21 As of the time of the 

testimony heard by the committee, there are 14 ACACs in Washington State.22 Projects funded 

by the ACACs are carried out in conjunction with county and local businesses.23 

Federal Law

A number of federal laws prohibit discrimination in public institutions, including:

• Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits any state from 

denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”24 

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, sex, religion, or national origin, in places of public accommodation, including in 

institutions of public education.25 

• The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against individuals 

with disabilities in places of public accommodations, including public and private schools 

19 “What Is a County Accessible Community Advisory Committee (ACAC).” Accessible Communities. Accessed 

December 2023. https://accessiblecommunities.wa.gov/inclusive-communities/accessible-community-advisorycommittees, 

https://esdorchardstorage.blob.core.windows.net/esdwa/Default/ESDWAGOV/newsroom/GCDE/ACA%20act.pdf.

Accessible Communities Act, SB 5902, 2010 Leg., 61st Sess. (Wash. 2010), 2010 Wash. Laws 215. 20 “What Is a County Accessible Community Advisory Committee (ACAC).” Accessible Communities. Accessed 

December 2023. https://accessiblecommunities.wa.gov/inclusive-communities/accessible-community-advisorycommittees, 

https://esdorchardstorage.blob.core.windows.net/esdwa/Default/ESDWAGOV/newsroom/GCDE/ACA%20act.pdf. 

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.40.071 (2011).

21 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 23; Reynolds Testimony, Transcript III, p. 13, 

“What Is a County Accessible Community Advisory Committee (ACAC).” Accessible Communities. Accessed 

December 2023. https://accessiblecommunities.wa.gov/inclusive-communities/accessible-community-advisorycommittees, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5902, 2010, 

5902https://esdorchardstorage.blob.core.windows.net/esdwa/Default/ESDWAGOV/newsroom/GCDE/ACA%20act.

pdf. Wash. Rev. Code § 46.19.050 (2011). 22 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 4 23 Reynolds Testimony, Transcript III, p. 11-12. 24 “14th Amendment,” Cornell University Law Institute, accessed September 30, 2022, 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv; U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. 25 The United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Types of Educational Opportunities 

Discrimination, 2022, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., (hereinafter The U.S. Department of Justice, Types of Educational 

Opportunities Discrimination) https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-discrimination. Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), Pub. L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.)
9 | Page

and daycare centers.26 These ADA standards apply to new construction of places of 

public accommodation.27 

• The Uniform Act protects the public right of way. Public right of way includes trains, 

sidewalks, roads, and other paths of transportation, which must be made accessible to the 

public.28

• The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Rules dictate that public 

rights of way used by pedestrians that are constructed, leased, or built with funds from 

federal, state, and local governments must be accessible and usable to people with 

disabilities.29 

State Law

The Washington State Law Against Discrimination declares that “practices of discrimination 

against any of its inhabitants because of race, creed, color, national origin, families with children, 

sex, marital status, age, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use 

of a trained dog guide or service animal by a disabled person are a matter of state concern, that 

such discrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of its inhabitants but 

menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic state.”30 

The law also declares that “full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, 

or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement,” free 

from discrimination because of disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal, “is 

recognized as and declared to be a civil right,” enforceable by an administrative complaint or a 

civil action for damages.31

In buildings which serve as places of public accommodation, old buildings may be 

“grandfathered in,” meaning that the building would not need to meet current building 

accessibility requirements.32 Conversely, new construction or substantial remodel of an existing 

26 The United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Types of Educational Opportunities 

Discrimination, 2022, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., (hereinafter The U.S. Department of Justice, Types of Educational 

Opportunities Discrimination) https://www.justice.gov/crt/types-educational-opportunities-discrimination.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq). 27 U.S. Access Board, Guide to the ADA Accessibility Standards, 2010, https://www.accessboard.gov/ada/guides/chapter-2-new-construction/; Wash. Rev. Code § 36.401 (2010). 28 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Introduction to Right-of-Way 

Requirements and the Uniform Act, August 2012, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaidessentials/companionresources/06rowuniformact.pdf; Uniform Act, Pub. L. 91-646, 84 Stat. 1894 (codified as 42 

USC Ch. 61) (amended by the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-

17, 101 Stat. 246).

29 Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, 88 Fed. Reg. 53604 (Sept. 7, 2023) 

(codified at 36 C.F.R. § 1190) 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/08/2023-16149/accessibility-guidelines-for-pedestrianfacilities-in-the-public-right-of-way. 30 Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.010. 31 Wash. Rev. Code §§ 49.60.040(10), 49.60.30. 32 Washington State Human Rights Commission, Guide to Disability and Washington State Nondiscrimination Laws

(2012) at p. 14 https://www.hum.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/publications/Disability Q and A.pdf
10 | Page

building needs to meet current accessibility standards.33 Washington’s current accessibility 

standards in state building codes require that for any new construction, curb cuts must be built 

for roads which have sidewalks, paths, or other pedestrian pathways.34 Of course, new 

construction in Washington must also meet ADA accessibility guidelines.35 

The Washington Legislature “has enacted a broad definition of disability that increases 

protections for persons with medical, psychological, and other impairments. The Washington 

definition is different from the definition found in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – 

it is broader, covers more medical conditions, and is not restricted to a condition that 

substantially limits a major life activity. Temporary conditions, including pregnancy-related 

disabilities or people recovering from alcohol or drug addictions, can be included under the 

protections.”36 

In the state of Washington disability is defined as:37 

a) The presence of sensory, mental, or physical impairment that: 

(i) Is medically cognizable or diagnosable; or 

(ii) Exists as a record or history; or 

(iii) Is perceived to exist whether or not it exists in fact.

b) A disability exists whether it is temporary or permanent, common or uncommon, 

mitigated or unmitigated, or whether or not it limits the ability to work generally or work 

at a particular job or whether or not it limits any other activity within the scope of this 

chapter.

c) For purposes of this definition, “impairment” includes, but is not limited to:

(i) Any physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical 

loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: Neurological, 

musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory, including speech organs, 

cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitor-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, 

skin, and endocrine; or

(ii) Any mental, developmental, traumatic, or psychological disorder, including but 

not limited to cognitive limitation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental 

illness, and specific learning disabilities.

33 Washington State Human Rights Commission, Guide to Disability and Washington State Nondiscrimination Laws

(2012) at p. 14, https://www.hum.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/publications/Disability%20Q%20and%20A.pdf. 34 Wash. Rev. Code § 35.68.075. 35 Wash. Rev. Code § 36.401 (2010). 36 Washington State Human Rights Commission, Guide to Disability and Washington State Nondiscrimination Laws

(2012) at p. 2, https://www.hum.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/publications/Disability%20Q%20and%20A.pdf. 37 Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.050(7). 
11 | Page

Overview of Testimony

The Washington Advisory Committee is composed of Washington citizens who sought to 

explore the issue of physical accessibility in Washington for individuals with disabilities from an 

open-minded and neutral posture. During a series of online panels, the Committee heard from 

academic experts, community advocates, state government officials, and individuals directly 

affected by accessibility policies. The agendas, minutes, and presentation slides for these panels 

can be found in Appendix A. In addition, the Committee invited broad participation through 

written testimony. Written testimony was accepted until Friday, July 28, 2023, when the official 

record was closed. 

The Committee went to great lengths to solicit participation from stakeholders representing 

diverse perspectives. The Committee made many outreach attempts over several months to 

engage diverse perspectives, soliciting their participation at the public panels, through written 

testimony, and/or by joining a Committee meeting. 

The Committee heard many witnesses testify concerning unequal treatment and discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities other than those that involve mobility issues. However, 

despite its importance, this testimony was not under the scope of the current report, and thus does 

not appear in the findings below. 
12 | Page

Findings

The section below communicates the observations and conclusions of the Committee based on 

the testimony received in the course of its investigation. While the Committee has not 

independently verified each assertion and members are not experts on the topic at hand, a diverse 

and balanced selection of panelists was chosen to testify due to their professional experience, 

academic credentials, subject matter expertise, and/or firsthand experience with the relevant 

issues.

In keeping with its duty to inform the Commission of (1) matters related to discrimination or a 

denial of equal protection of the laws; and (2) matters of mutual concern in the preparation of 

reports of the Commission to the President and the Congress,38 the Washington Advisory 

Committee submits the following findings to the Commission. 

Finding I: Physical access continues to be a challenge for individuals with disabilities in 

Washington state.39 Even though the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities 

Act has been in existence for decades, localities are not fully complying with accessibility 

standards in public spaces.40

Transportation remains largely inaccessible to individuals with disabilities because of incomplete 

sidewalks, lack of curb cuts, and inaccessible train or bus systems.41 One part of an individual’s 

trip may be accessible, such as an accessible bus stop, while another is not, such as an 

inaccessible sidewalk.42 This often forces people with disabilities into unsafe circumstances, 

38 45 C.F.R. § 703.2 (2018). 39 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 3; Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 7; Anna Zivarts, testimony, Briefing 

Before the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, February 8, 2023. Transcript, p. 

11 (hereafter Transcript I); Katie Warden, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. 

Commission on Civil Rights, June 26, 2023. Transcript, p. 5 (hereafter Transcript II); Andrew Washburn, testimony, 

Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 26, 2023. 

Transcript, p. 8 (hereafter Transcript II); John Day, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee

to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 26, 2023. Transcript, p. 11 (hereafter Transcript II). 40 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 4; Tim Fox, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee to 

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, February 8, 2023. Transcript, p. 8 (hereafter Transcript I); Warden Testimony, 

Transcript II, p. 5; Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 8; Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 7; Jo Anne Simon, 

testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 27, 2023. 

Transcript, p. 5 (hereafter Transcript IV). Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-113, 97 Stat. 394, codified as 29 

U.S.C. § 701 et seq); Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 

12101 et seq).

41 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 15; Krystal Monteros, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory

Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 27, 2023. Transcript, p. 9 (hereafter Transcript III). 42 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 15; Elaine Stefanowicz, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory

Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 26, 2023. Transcript, p. 4 (hereafter Transcript II); Day

Testimony, Transcript II, p. 11; Monteros Testimony, Transcript III, p. 8. 
13 | Page

such as traveling in roads designed only for vehicle use.43 In addition, physical access in 

transportation is inconsistent between localities.44 

People with disabilities are four times more likely not to drive a car, and thus rely on accessible 

pedestrian infrastructure.45 However, infrastructure in Washington heavily favors cars, 

continuing to put people with disabilities in dangerous situations.46 

The Seattle Times estimates that 50% of sidewalks do not meet ADA standards.47 Approximately 

2% of sites of public accommodation in the United States are up to ADA standards. 48

Even when localities have attempted to meet ADA standards, they are often built to incorrect 

specifications and/or are not correctly maintained and can be dangerous for users.49 For example, 

when curb cuts are incorrectly built at the wrong angle, wheelchair users may be thrown out of 

their wheelchair and into traffic.50 Similarly, overgrowth of grass may make sidewalks 

unusable.51

ADA guidelines state that new public transportation vehicles and stations must be accessible; 

however, there is no requirement that old vehicles and stations implement accessibility 

requirements until the time that other renovations are made, leaving an old stock of inaccessible 

vehicles.52 

43 Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 11; Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 15 44 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 3; Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 4; Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 

5; Fox Testimony, Transcript I, p. 8; Fox Testimony, Transcript I, p. 9; Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 11-12;

Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 15; Stefanowicz Testimony, Transcript II, p. 4; Warden Testimony, Transcript 

II, p. 5; Day Testimony, Transcript II, p. 10-12, 16; Stefanowicz Testimony, Transcript II, p. 15; Himes Testimony, 

Transcript III, p. 4; Monteros Testimony, Transcript III, p. 7-9. 45 Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 10 46 Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 10-12. 2 47 David Kroman. “WA faces an epidemic of inaccessible sidewalks.” The Seattle Times. October 3, 2022 

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/wa-faces-an-epidemic-of-inaccessible-sidewalks/ 48 Allison Spector, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, February 8, 2023. Transcript, p. 6 (hereafter Transcript I); Conrad Reynoldson, testimony, Briefing Before the 

Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 27, 2023. Transcript, p. 9 (hereafter 

Transcript IV); Carri Becker, Private Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act Via Serial Litigation: 

Abusive or Commendable?, 17 HASTINGS WOMEN’S L.J. 93, 99 (2006).

49 Monteros Testimony, Transcript III, p. 9; Fox Testimony, Transcript I, p. 13; Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 5;

Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 15; Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 19 50 Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 11; Monteros Testimony, Transcript III, p. 9 51 Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 6; Fox Testimony, Transcript I, p. 8; Fox Testimony, Transcript I, p. 9; Fox

Testimony, Transcript I, p. 13; Fox Testimony, Transcript I, p. 14; Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 15; Monteros

Testimony, Transcript III, p. 8-9. 52 Day Testimony, Transcript II, p. 11; Washington State Human Rights Commission, Guide to Disability and 

Washington State Nondiscrimination Laws, 2012, 

https://www.hum.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/publications/Disability%20Q%20and%20A.pdf
14 | Page

Lack of independent physical accessibility in communities has rippling impacts on other forms 

of accessibility, such as access to employment, social community, goods and services, education, 

healthcare, and overall programmatic accessibility.53

Finding II: Physical accessibility is not consistent throughout Washington state, as each 

distinct county has varying levels of investment in accessibility for individuals with 

disabilities.54 

Many accessibility resources are concentrated in urban centers or in the southwestern part of 

Washington.55 Physical accessibility remains limited in rural communities, and community 

members from these areas express a desire for more community resources and supports in 

northern parts of Washington State.56 

Finding III: There is a lack of dedicated funding to meet current ADA compliance 

standards; this lack of funding limits both improvements to existing infrastructure and 

new projects to expand access. 57 

Many grant scoring mechanisms are not incentivized to award support to ADA-related 

projects.58 This leads to under-investment in physical access improvements, perpetuating the 

insufficient physical access infrastructure in Washington State for people with disabilities.59 

According to the representatives of the Washington municipalities who testified, specific federal 

ADA-related grants are not available to them.60 Thus, requests to comply with ADA standards 

are in competition with other infrastructure improvements for funding.61 Grant applications for 

53 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 4; Fox Testimony, Transcript I, p. 9; Fox Testimony, Transcript I, p. 14;

Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 15; Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 16; Stefanowicz Testimony, Transcript 

II, p. 4; Day Testimony, Transcript II, p. 10; Monteros Testimony, Transcript III, p. 8, 15; Simon Testimony, 

Transcript IV, p. 5; Leigh Spruce, Written Testimony submitted via email to the Washington Advisory Committee to 

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (hereafter cited as Spruce Written Testimony). 54 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 3 55 Harley Draven, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, February 8, 2023. Transcript, p. 25 (hereafter Transcript I). 56 Draven Testimony, Transcript I, p. 25; Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 18; Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 

3

57 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 5-7, 15. 58 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 6 59 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 6 60 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 5, 15; citing National Rural Transit Assistance Program, Funding Considerations, 

2021, https://www.nationalrtap.org/Toolkits/ADA-Toolkit/fundingconsiderations#:~:text=Although%20the%20Federal%20Transit%20Administration%20(FTA)%20does,also%20pr

ovide%20state%20funding%20for%20ADA%2Drelated%20expenses. 61 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 18
15 | Page

infrastructure projects often prioritize other city needs over physical accessibility projects.62

Funding for these grants typically comes from both federal and state governments.63 

As a result, many ADA-related projects remain unfunded and uncompleted.64 

Even in cases where grants are approved for ADA-related infrastructure projects, municipalities 

still need to supply a match of 20% of the grant amount.65 This can be a great financial stress to 

grantees.66 

Once a structure is already built, ADA-compliant modifications are expensive.67 Without 

specific grants for ADA-related projects, resulting in a lack of resources, municipalities adopt 

long timelines to update key infrastructure. This results in further delaying access for people with 

disabilities.68 Small businesses may be overwhelmed by the cost of ADA compliance.69 Many 

small businesses operate on tight profit margins, and the cost of ADA alterations may be 

devastating to their stability.70 There is a common perception that investment in physical 

accessibility and inclusion is complicated and too costly.71 

Finding IV: Enforcement of ADA compliance is largely dependent on individual lawsuits 

and individual complaints filed by affected individuals.72 

Witnesses testified that requiring individuals to file lawsuits or complaints imposes an undue 

emotional burden on people with disabilities.73 Due to the confusion of where to take complaints, 

individuals frequently called numerous agencies with little recourse, which can be frustrating and 

62 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 18. 63 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 5-6, 15, 18-19; citing National Rural Transit Assistance Program, Funding 

Considerations, 2021, https://www.nationalrtap.org/Toolkits/ADA-Toolkit/fundingconsiderations#:~:text=Although%20the%20Federal%20Transit%20Administration%20(FTA)%20does,also%20pr

ovide%20state%20funding%20for%20ADA%2Drelated%20expenses. 64 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 18; Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 17. 65 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 5; Austin Landis, “As the ADA turns 32, Biden admin, releases $343 million 

for accessible transit upgrades”, Spectrum News, July 26 2022, https://ny1.com/nyc/allboroughs/news/2022/07/25/biden-admin-releases-accessible-transit-funds; Fiscal Year 2024 Competitive Funding 

Opportunity: All Stations Accessibility Program, 88 Fed. Reg. 83587 (Nov. 30, 2023).

66 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 5, 19. 67 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 6; Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 18. 68 Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 6; Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 5. 69 Philip Stillman, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, June 27, 2023. Transcript, p. 11 (hereafter Transcript IV), Stephanie Grimoldby, “Chicago Small Businesses 

Targeted by ADA Lawyers Feel Cost of Compliance”, Forbes, April 11 2016,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2016/04/11/chicago-small-businesses-targeted-by-ada-lawyers-feelcost-of-compliance/?sh=3d93ed60774e. 70 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 12. 71 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 3; Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 11. 72 Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 8; Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 15. 73 Naomi Marteeny, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights, June 26, 2023. Transcript, p. 26-27 (hereafter Transcript II); Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 15. 
16 | Page

discouraging.74 The committee heard testimony of individuals working tirelessly to improve a 

point of access in their own lives for months, such as advocating for physically accessible 

sidewalks to access a bus.75 Since the onus of complaint is on individuals, people with 

disabilities calling for support or complaints are often in crisis situations, feeling their voices are 

not heard in previous attempts.76 

The dependence on complaints to enforce the ADA creates a lack of accountability or protection 

for people with disabilities.77 Some witnesses stated that complaint-driven law created incentives 

for over-litigation.78 

The ADA has a provision that permits the court to award attorney’s fees to the prevailing 

plaintiff; this means that where a place of public accommodation is found to violate the ADA, 

the owner is to pay the attorney’s fees of the person with a disability (the plaintiff).79 Due to the 

Buckhannon decision in 2001,80 the prevailing party must achieve a judicial imprimatur of 

success, such as an enforceable judgment on the merits or a consent decree; in other words, there 

must be a finding that the defendant was “out of compliance” before attorney’s fees can be 

awarded.

81 

In other states, “notice and cure” legislation has been proposed which requires that the place of 

public accommodation be given notice of non-compliance and a timeline to comply before a 

related lawsuit is filed.82 This can create a financial incentive for defendants to fix the complaint 

issue as quickly as possible before a judgment to avoid liability for attorney’s fees.83 Places of 

public accommodation out of compliance may more quickly become accessible due to the 

pressure to fix anything out of compliance.84 However, because it would avoid a judicial finding 

of non-compliance, such legislation would prevent the attorney representing the person with a 

disability from being paid.85 As a result, fewer attorneys would be willing to provide 

representation, unless they took the case pro bono.86 Due to this decrease in legal representation, 

74 Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 22; Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 26; Marteeny Testimony, 

Transcript II, p. 26 75 Monteros Testimony, Transcript III, p. 9 76 Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 15; Marteeny Testimony, Transcript II, p. 26; Monteros Testimony, 

Transcript III, p. 9 77 Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 10; Marteeny Testimony, Transcript II, p. 26 78 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 11; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15 79 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 12205); 

Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 8; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15. 80 Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001). 81 Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 8; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15 82 Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 8; https://www.nar.realtor/americans-with-disabilities-act-ada 83 Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 8; Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 17

https://www.nar.realtor/americans-with-disabilities-act-ada 84 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 19 85 Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 9; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15 86 Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 9; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15
17 | Page

fewer cases raising compliance issues will be brought, resulting in more limited enforcement of 

ADA provisions.87 

The current litigation-dependent system also rewards serial litigators who strategically file 

multiple complaints in order to make money from settlements.88 Some small businesses fear they 

will be unfairly targeted for litigation, limiting small business development.89 

Testimony included a description of California’s program of Certified Access Specialists 

(CASp), which allows small businesses to be inspected and certified as ADA-compliant, 

identifying compliance issues while offering protection from litigation. 90 

Finding V: Because of the complaint-driven nature of the remedy process, authorities do 

not respond equitably to issues of physical access. 

Due to the complaint-driven nature of the ADA and Washington state law, only individuals with 

resources and capacity are able to bring complaints and get relief from barriers to mobility.

91

Communities that have been historically disadvantaged or who distrust government are less 

likely to reach out to government officials regarding accessibility issues than more integrated 

counterparts.92 Thus, communities that complain more may not be the sites of the greatest 

need.93 An alternative approach would gather information regarding physical accessibility 

through full-state resource mapping, for example mapping out all curb cuts or lack thereof in 

Washington.94 

Most agencies do not have the capacity to investigate individual complaints.95 This makes 

litigation the main form of recourse for individuals, which is another barrier for many people 

with disabilities.96 The Committee heard alternative approaches, such as the proactive state 

87 Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 10 88 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 11; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15 89 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 12 https://instituteforlegalreform.com/blog/small-businesses-targeted-withada-lawsuits/ 90 Certified Access Specialist Program Best Practices Manual, State of California Department of General Services, 

Division of the State Architect, 2021,

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjbkf_fwqyAAxVTmIkEH

VIoAdkQFnoECCEQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dgs.ca.gov%2F-

%2Fmedia%2FDivisions%2FDSA%2FPublications%2Fcasp%2FCASp_Manual.pdf&usg=AOvVaw23OQw8RsW5

sPb_mN9cxIcS&opi=89978449. 91 Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 7; Marteeny Testimony, Transcript II, p. 26 92 Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 7 93 Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 7 94 Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 21 95 Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15; Day Testimony, Transcript II, p. 22 96 Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15; Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 9
18 | Page

legislation adopting ADA protections without the need for a complaint, as many entities focus 

more on state law than federal law compliance.97

Finding VI: Multiple federal and state agencies issue regulations, provide technical 

assistance, and enforce different sections of the ADA.98 This siloed enforcement system 

leads to confusion as to which agency is responsible for enforcing compliance, and where 

complaints should be filed.

99 

The ADA is very broad, and many different agencies have overlapping jurisdictions within the 

ADA.100 Due to this confusing landscape, many people with disabilities are uncertain where to 

take complaints of ADA violations.101 For example, an individual making a complaint regarding 

lack of accessibility on a public train may not know whether to take said complaint to the city, to 

the Washington Department of Transportation, Department of Justice, etc. 

Once a complaint has been successfully filed with an agency, it may or may not fall within the 

receiving agency’s jurisdiction.

102 If it is not, complaints may be referred out of the agency or 

marked as “closed” without additional action, leading to the common perception by the public 

that complaints are rarely addressed. 103 Agencies like the Washington Department of 

Transportation cannot investigate isolated incidents, again leading to the perception that 

complaints are not addressed.104 However, because the DOJ and other federal agencies hold a 

deep knowledge of ADA law; they are able to serve as “coordinating agencies” and connect 

complainants to the proper agency with relevant jurisdiction.105 

The complaint process itself is burdensome, and individuals prefer not to file their own 

complaint.106 Some fear retribution for a complaint or do not know what language to use.107 In 

97 Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 6; Mike Padden, testimony, Briefing Before the Washington Advisory

Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, June 27, 2023. Transcript, p. 7 (hereafter Transcript IV); Padden

Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 14 98 Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 9; Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 20; Day Testimony, Transcript II, p.

21; Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 22; Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 5 99 Marteeny Testimony, Transcript II, p. 27; Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 22; Washburn Testimony, 

Transcript II, p. 26 100 Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 20; Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 9; Day Testimony, Transcript II, 

p. 21; Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 22; Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 5. Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990, Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq). 101 Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 22; Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 26 102 Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 20; Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 23 103 Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 22; Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 23 104 Day Testimony, Transcript II, p. 22; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15 105 Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 20, 26; Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 5; Monteros Testimony, 

Transcript III, p. 17; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-336, 

104 Stat. 327 (codified as 42 U.S.C. § 12117).

106 Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 19; Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 15; Marteeny Testimony, 

Transcript II, p. 26 107 Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 19; Marteeny Testimony, Transcript II, p. 26 
19 | Page

addition, geographic areas triggering the greatest number of complaints may not be areas with 

highest amount of need, because complainants vary in the capacity to make complaints due to 

socio-economic status, language access, etc.108 

Unless there is a pattern associated with unequal treatment of individuals with disabilities, 

monitoring agencies will not have enough information to do an investigation.109 Due to limited 

resources for investigation, agencies may choose cases with the highest amount of perceived 

impact.110

Finding VII: Public knowledge is very limited regarding ADA mandates and 

requirements.

111 In addition, many professionals responsible for compliance lack 

appropriate training resulting in continued confusion and inadequate compliance.

112

Resources to assist communities in creating accessibility plans are not easy to locate and difficult 

to understand.113 While larger cities may obtain adequate educational resources and may have a 

dedicated staff, smaller communities who lack dedicated resources will find ADA compliance

more challenging.

114 The Department of Justice’s technical assistance materials are commonly 

accessed.

115 

Many small businesses or municipalities have the best intentions to provide ADA accessible 

facilities; however, they are often uncertain what compliance entails.116 Small businesses rely on 

public ADA information that can be subject to interpretation and can lead to confusion.117 Small 

business owners may struggle to understand the intricacies of compliance, leading to inadvertent 

108 Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 21; Marteeny Testimony, Transcript II, p. 26 109 Day Testimony, Transcript II, p. 22; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15 110 Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 18; Day Testimony, Transcript II, p. 23 111 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 5-6; Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 7, 20; Warden Testimony, Transcript 

II, p. 6; Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 8 112 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 2-5, 15; Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 12; Gordon Testimony, 

Transcript I, p. 5-6, 16; Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 6-7, 17, 20; Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 18;

Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 5-6, 15; Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 7-10, 20; Day Testimony, 

Transcript II, p. 11-12; Monteros Testimony, Transcript III, p. 15; Reynolds Testimony, Transcript III, p. 16; Simon

Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 4; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 5; Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 11-13. 113 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 11; Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 5; Washburn Testimony, Transcript 

II, p. 8; Warden Testimony, Transcript II, p. 6 114 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 6 115 Washburn Testimony, Transcript II, p. 9; U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section 

(accessed Feb. 9, 2024) https://www.justice.gov/crt/disability-rights-section. 116 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 11 117 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 11, Stephanie Grimoldby, “Chicago Small Businesses Targeted by ADA 

Lawyers Feel Cost of Compliance”, Forbes, April 11 2016, 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2016/04/11/chicago-small-businesses-targeted-by-ada-lawyers-feelcost-of-compliance/?sh=3d93ed60774e, Rob Gould et.al., “An ADA Knowledge Translation Center Research 

Brief’, Americans with Disabilities Act National Network, 2019, https://adata.org/research_brief/research-briefsmall-business-and-ada 117 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 12 https://adata.org/research_brief/research-brief-small-business-and-ada 
20 | Page

violations, or wasted resources.

118 Communities often lack the resources and capacity to send 

inspectors out to ensure that the construction meets ADA requirements, making it difficult to 

confirm legal compliance.119 In situations of new construction within communities that have an 

ACAC, plans from small businesses may be submitted for review to some ACACs to ensure that 

new construction is ADA compliant.120 Of course, this is only in communities that have 

established ACACs.

Finding VIII: Policymakers who emphasize community engagement are more likely to 

ensure equitable physical accessibility in Washington State. 121 

A model of community engaged design, Accessible Communities Advisory Committees 

(ACACs), have been implemented successfully in some counties in Washington.122 These 

ACACs fund ADA-related projects in their communities, can advise on new construction, and 

include people with disabilities in essential city planning. 123 While ACAC-funded projects may 

be small, such as the funding of a beach wheelchair in Fort Worden, ACACs promote greater 

physical access in Washington communities.124 

The Committee identified increased community engagement as a crucial part of future 

accessibility development.125 

Recommendations

Among their duties, advisory committees of the Commission are authorized to advise the Agency 

(1) concerning matters related to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under 

the Constitution and the effect of the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to 

equal protection of the laws;126 and (2) upon matters of mutual concern in the preparation of 

118 Stillman Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 12 119 Anna Zivarts, Written Testimony submitted via email to the Washington Advisory Committee to the U.S.

Commission on Civil Rights (hereafter cited as Zivarts Written Testimony).

120 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 4; Reynolds Testimony, Transcript III, p. 11 121 Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 6; Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 21; Monteros Testimony, Transcript III, 

p. 17 122 Accessible Communities, County Advisory Committees, https://accessiblecommunities.wa.gov/county-advisorycommittees

123 Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 4; Reynolds Testimony, Transcript III, p. 11. 124 The Leader, “Beach wheelchair is latest gain in accessibility”, 2023, https://www.ptleader.com/stories/beachwheelchair-is-latest-gain-in-accessibility,19966 125 Spector Testimony, Transcript I, p. 7; Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 21; Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 

4; Monteros Testimony, Transcript III, p. 17 126 45 C.F.R. § 703.2(b).
21 | Page

reports of the Commission to the President and the Congress.127 In keeping with these 

responsibilities, and in consideration of the oral and written testimony received on this topic, the 

Washington Advisory Committee submits the following recommendations to the Commission:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights should send this report and issue a formal request to 

Congress and the President to pass legislation that:

1. Ear-marks funds specifically for ADA-related projects within the government’s 

operations budget. 

2. Create federal grants that are specifically designated for ADA projects of accessibility for 

public transportation improvement in each state.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights should send this report and issue a formal request to the 

Department of Justice and Department of Transportation:

1. The Department of Justice should be transparent with its data involving ADA compliance 

complaints. The public should be able to see the status of their complaints, whether the 

complaint is resolved or not, and to what agency the complaint is transferred.

2. The Department of Transportation and Department of Justice should offer ADA-only 

grants so that ADA is not in competition with other important infrastructure 

improvements for all grants.128 Grants should mandate compliance training and clear and 

measurable timelines for becoming ADA complaint.

3. In addition to ADA-specific grants, other infrastructure grants issued by the Department 

of Transportation should update the block grant scoring systems so that issues involving 

physical accessibility are scored higher.129

4. All agencies with jurisdiction over the ADA should work together to develop more clear 

processes for ADA compliance. Investments should be made in making the current 

complaint avenues easier to navigate and more accountable to the public.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights should send this report and issue a formal request to the 

Washington State Legislature and Washington Governor to pass legislation:

A. The Washington State Governor’s Committee on Disability Issues and Employment 

should create a subcommittee that is responsible for and solely dedicated to ADA 

compliance for physical accessibility.

127 45 C.F.R. § 703.2(c). 128 Ibid. 129 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 18.
22 | Page

B. Washington state should create the position of Chief Disability Officer who is dedicated 

to increasing and enforcing statewide ADA compliance.130 This person should have 

authority over:

a. Providing educational resources and guidance to local jurisdictions;

b. Holding these jurisdictions accountable when they are not making appropriate 

investments in improving their ADA compliance.

c. Guiding complainants throughout the complaint process. This may include “case 

managers” that assist complainants follow their cases or similar oversight.

C. Washington State legislature should start a full audit of the accessibility of Washington 

public transportation to collect information on accessibility of all public rights of way. 

This could be a mapping of all transportation systems and pedestrians right of way in the 

state, rather than relying on complaints to ensure equity.131 

D. Washington State can offer certification for Certified Access Specialists as molded after 

California. Small businesses can apply for funding to pay for the CASC to look over 

plans for ADA accessibility requirements before undergoing any new construction.132

E. Washington State should adopt the “Vision Zero” strategy to eliminate pedestrian traffic 

fatalities.133 

F. Ensure that larger localities within Washington have a designated staff position for 

coordinating and ensuring ADA compliance.

G. Invest additional funding to: 

a. Focus on rural communities that require high levels of ADA accessibility 

investments.134

b. Create an accessibility fund for businesses to become compliant.135

c. Update older public transportation vehicles that cannot be made accessible and 

replace with new accessible ones

d. Mandate inspections to ensure the proper changes have been made to remove 

responsibility from citizens to report complaints of inaccessibility. 

130 Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 4. 131 Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p.21 132 Reynoldson Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 16. 133 Himes Testimony, Transcript III, p. 4. 134 Harley Testimony, Transcript I, p.25; Zivarts Testimony, Transcript I, p. 18; Gordon Testimony, Transcript I, p. 

3

135 Simon Testimony, Transcript IV, p. 15.
23 | Page

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights should send this report and issue a formal request to local 

government and municipalities to:

1. All municipalities should develop County Accessible Community Advisory Committee 

(ACACs). 

2. Apply for any grants that allow them to improve their ADA compliance with regards to 

physical accessibility.

3. Access all resources from the federal and state government including technical guidance, 

training, and additional funds.
24 | Page

Appendix

A. Panel Agendas, Minutes, and Presentation Slides

B. Hearing Transcripts

C. Written Testimony
25 | Page

Appendix A – Panel Agendas, Minutes, and Presentation Slides

Meeting Minutes & Presentation Slides can be accessed at:

https://securisync.intermedia.net/us2/s/folder?public_share=409J0xbKeIQ2vuMJBvQond0011ef

58&id=L1dBL1BoeXNpY2FsIEFjY2Vzc2libGl0eQ%3D%3D

Panel 1 Agenda 

Wednesday, February 8th at 3:00pm PST

I. Welcome & Opening Remarks

II. Panelist Remarks

a. Elizabeth Gordon, Executive Director at The Governor’s Committee on Disability

and Employment 

b. Allison Spector, ADA External Compliance Coordinator for WSDOT

c. Tim Fox, Partner at Fox & Robertson, an impact civil rights firm

d. Anna Zivarts, Director of Disability Mobility Initiative Program, Disability Rights 

Washington

III. Q & A 

IV. Public Comment

V. Adjournment 

Panel 2 Agenda 

Monday, June 26th at 12:00pm PST

VI. Welcome & Opening Remarks

VII. Panelist Remarks

a. Elaine Stefanowicz, Program Coordinator, County Accessible Community 

Advisory Committee

b. Katie Warden, JD, PhD, Director, Northwest ADA Center

c. Andrew Washburn, Civil Rights Program Specialist, Department of Justice, Civil 

Rights Division

d. John Day, Program Manager for Policy and Guidance, Federal Transit 

Administration, Office of Civil Rights

VIII. Q & A 

IX. Public Comment

X. Adjournment 
26 | Page

Panel 3 Agenda 

Tuesday, June 27th at 10:00am PST

I. Welcome & Opening Remarks 

II. Panelist Remarks

a. Gail Himes, ADA Coordinator, City of Tacoma

b. Krystal Monteros, Chair, Tacoma Area Commission on Disabilities

c. Dave Reynolds, Access 4 All Spokane

III. Q & A

IV. Public Comment 

V. Adjournment

Panel 4 Agenda 

Tuesday, June 27th at 2:00pm PST

I. Welcome & Opening Remarks

II. Panelist Remarks

a. Senator Mike Padden, Washington State Senate

b. Assemblymember Jo Anne Simon, New York State Assembly

c. Conrad Reynoldson, Attorney, Vice President and Founder, Washington Civil & 

Disability Advocate

d. Philip Stillman, Attorney, Stillman & Associates

III. Q & A

IV. Public Comment

V. Adjournment
27 | Page

Appendix B – Hearing Transcripts

February 8, 2023, Online Panel Transcript (AKA Transcript I)

June 26, 2023, Online Panel Transcript (AKA Transcript II) 

June 27, 2023, Online Panel Transcript (AKA Transcript III) 

June 27, 2023, Online Panel Transcript (AKA Transcript IV) 

Documents found at: 

https://securisync.intermedia.net/us2/s/folder?public_share=409J0xbKeIQ2vuMJBvQond0011ef

58&id=L1dBL1BoeXNpY2FsIEFjY2Vzc2libGl0eQ%3D%3D
28 | Page

Appendix C – Written Testimony

All written testimony can be found at:

https://securisync.intermedia.net/us2/s/folder?public_share=409J0xbKeIQ2vuMJBvQond0011ef

58&id=L1dBL1BoeXNpY2FsIEFjY2Vzc2libGl0eS9Xcml0dGVuIFRlc3RpbW9ueQ%3D%3D 

Testimony submitted by: 

Leigh Spruce

Jayson Todd Morris

Anna Zivarts