6/16/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN 161992 TO: Sonny Dean - Director of General Services FROM: LAI' William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: June 8, 1992 SUBJECT: Courthouse Project Design - Clerk's Station and the Americans With Disabilities Act BACKGROUND: At our meeting last Friday morning with Judge Vocelle, I was informed that the entire courthouse has been designed to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act. Architect Musgraves' letter of February 24, 1992' indicated that Commissioner Wheeler and Judge Vocelle would rather ` build:: , one courtroom per the mock-up and the other courtrooms per the.;,;trad tional (plus 7 -inch) clerk and reporter stations without built in ramps." The architects requested written direction prior to any change in their design documents (obviously to protect themselves from any potential liability for non-compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, if any) THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT: The decision on design as set out above involves two competing principles of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The first is the full integration of the disabled into society's workplace, public accommodations, etc. The second is accomplishing that integration without "undue hardship". Undue hardship means significant difficulty or expense relative to the operation of a public entity's program. (II -4.3200 Reasonable Accommodation, Department of Justice Technical Assistance Manual.) Local governments could not qualify for an undue hardship based on expense. However, a local government may qualify for the undue hardship exception based on significant difficulty relative to the operation of the public entity's program, in this case the operation of the courtroom. The Circuit Court judges found difficulty in the exchange of documents., exhibits, etc. between the clerk and the bench with the mock-up trial courtroom. This, even though the mock-up notched the Judge's bench to facilitate the reach required to exchange paperwork and incorporated balusters in the Judge's screen to facilitate eye contact. The Circuit Judges felt that, as designed, the exchange between the Judge and the Clerk was unnecessarily awkward and disruptive to the effective functioning of the court. The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board is the group responsible for developing minimum guidelines and requirements under the regulations promulgated by the Attorney General to implement Title II's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of a disability by a public entity. The regulations for Title II dealing with state and local government construction are required to be consistent with the Americans With Disabilities Act and the regulations under Part 41 of Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations. (ADA, Section 204(b)) Other provisions of the Act in Title III, dealing with public accommodations and new construction, do provide some guidance. However, Title III does not give a "safe -harbor" definition of undue burden. 24