6/16/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN 16 ��J moK 86 FM,JE 6P_4 would interfere with a door opening into the courtroom from the secured Prisoners' area, thereby requiring a redesign and considerable loss of usable space. The regulations which the county is required to comply with under Title II of the Act require reasonable accommodation to known limitations of individuals unless such accommodations would work an undue hardship on the operation of its program. (28 C.F.R. 41.53.) The regulations further require that new construction be readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. (28 C.F.R. 41.58. ) "The House Committee report states that the term 'readily accessible and usable by' does not mean that, in the case of redundant, identical components, each and every such component must be made accessible. For example, not all parking spaces, aisles, and water fountains must be accessible. Rather, only a reasonable number of such facilities must be altered, depending on such factors as their use, location, total number. Where the facilities do not serve identical functions, however, each facility must be accessible." (Americans with Disabilities Act, Federal Publications, Inc., Course Manual, p 173.) Employee facilities are not considered to have a primary function in public accommodations as would travel areas, drinking fountains, restrooms, meeting areas, offices, etc. (28 C.F.R. Section 37.403.) The regulations require reasonable modification when necessary to afford facilities to individuals with disabilities, unless modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the services and facilities. CONCLUSION: It is clear that the Americans With Disabilities Act is fertile F ,.ground for litigation and that there are a number of words peppered throughout.': he Act and the regulations which are susceptible of differing interpretations those "bold" words in this memo) . However, appears a clear intent there a (e.g., intent that individuals with disabilities be fully integrated into all aspects of society, and that employers, public entities, and providers of public services ensure that integration by making their facilities accessible to the maximum extent feasible without an undue hardship on the effective' functioning of their operations and delivery of their services and programs. The courthouse as designed is in full compliance with the ADA, however the Circuit Judges, in running through a mock trial in the mock-up courtroom, have found a functional problem in placing the clerk's station seven inches lower at ground level. They have proposed, as a compromise which would afford a reasonable accommodation to any wheelchair bound clerks that may be hired in the future, that one Circuit Court courtroom and one County Court courtroom, i.e., a courtroom on each the second and third floor, be made wheelchair accessible (ground level) . The remainder of the courtrooms would be constructed in a manner which the Circuit Judges feel is more accommodating to the effective operation of the courtroom. There would be Potential for further accommodation of the handicapped as additional courtrooms are added in the future in the space currently projected for the State's Attorneys and Public Defenders. The decision the County Commission faces is whether to direct the architect to incorporate the request and proposal of the Circuit Judges into the design of the courthouse. Such a directive would increase potential exposure from a future litigant (i.e., a handicapped clerk employee), but increase the efficiency of operation within the courtroom. The proposal, by the Circuit Court Judges would make approximately 30% of the courtrooms clerk's stations wheelchair accessible, and would accommodate wheelchair bound clerks until the third wheelchair bound clerk was hired. At that time the county would be in the position of making the necessary modifications to the clerk's stations to accommodate the access needs of that individual with a disability • The costs of such modification may vary with individual circumstances and are beyond the scope of any legal analysis as they have more to do with construction design and cost of modification. 26