Tag Archives: Americans with Disabilities Act

by | April 21, 2013 · 12:27 pm

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: California Restaurant Franchisee Settles EEOC “Disability Discrimination Lawsuit” For $100,000; Former Floor Supervisor With “Intellectual Disability” Demoted To Janitorial Position

“…The EEOC contends that once Alia took over,  Alia management demoted Morgan to a janitorial position, cut his hours and reduced  his hourly EEOCwages, thereby forcing him to find other employment and resign by  June 2009.   The EEOC’s lawsuit argued  that Alia Corporation thus engaged in disability discrimination that violated  the Americans with Disabilities Act  (ADA)…”

Alia Corporation, a franchisee  with over 20 fast-food chain restaurants throughout Central California, agreed  to pay $100,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced  today.

The EEOC originally filed suit against the Merced,  Calif.-based company in 2011 on behalf of Derrick Morgan, a former floor  supervisor with an intellectual disability (EEOC v. Alia Corporation, Case  No. 1:11-cv-01549-LJO-BAM, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of  California).  Morgan was known to be a good employee and  promoted by previous management from crew member to super­visor in 2008.

As  part of the settlement announced today, the parties entered into a three-year  consent decree requiring Alia to hire an equal employment opportunity (EEO) monitor  to create anti-discrimination policies and procedures; a complaint process and  impartial investigations; a centralized tracking system for discrimination  complaints; a system to hold employees accountable for discrimination; and,  annual live disability discrimination training for all management and human  resources employees.  The $100,000 in  monetary relief shall be paid entirely to Morgan.  The EEOC will monitor compliance with the agreement.

“Employers cannot allow biases and stereotypes to factor  into employment decisions,” said Anna Y. Park, regional attorney for the EEOC’s  Los Angeles District Office, which includes Fresno in its jurisdiction.  “The EEOC commends Alia Corporation for  today’s settlement, as it marks a new path for Alia — one which includes equal  employment opportunity for all of their employees, regardless of disabilities.”

Melissa  Barrios, director of the EEOC’s Fresno Local Office, said, “Disability discrimination  charges are on the rise in California, comprising 30% of all charges  filed.  Workers who are unjustly  penalized due to their disabilities have protections under federal law, and the  EEOC is here to help.”

For more:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-18-13.cfm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: California Restaurant Franchisee Settles EEOC “Disability Discrimination Lawsuit” For $100,000; Former Floor Supervisor With “Intellectual Disability” Demoted To Janitorial Position

Filed under Employment Practices Liability, Insurance, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Training, Uncategorized

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | February 16, 2013 · 6:41 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Texas Man Born Without Hands Sues Amusement Park After “Operator Refused To Let Him On Ride”

“…after (he) complained to the park, Six Flags changed its policy for the ride he was not allowed to board. Now, a person must have “one full arm and one full leg” for entry…Bench says he hopes his lawsuit will change the Hospitality Industry ADA Lawsuitsway the park handles disabled customers and safety concerns. He says he hopes to “set a precedent that there is a better solution than what’s in place now.”

A Texas man born without hands is suing a major theme park after he was barred from a ride allegedly because of his disability. Clint Bench says he had been to the Six Flags in Arlington many times and never had a problem with the staff. But on a trip to the theme park in May, an operator refused to let him on a ride.

Bench went to guest services but had no luck. So he hired a lawyer and is now suing the park for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

“We repeatedly offered to resolve this with Six Flags for not a dollar. Clint was absolutely adamant when he came to me that this was not about him getting a dollar,” his lawyer Levi McCathern said.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/clint-bench-flags-times-issuese-riding-knew-knew-article-1.1264187#ixzz2L4ZII2j2

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Texas Man Born Without Hands Sues Amusement Park After “Operator Refused To Let Him On Ride”

Filed under Guest Issues, Insurance, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , ,

by | January 27, 2013 · 9:59 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: “Severe Food Allergies” Now Classified As A Disability Under ADA Law

“…the agreement says that food allergies may constitute a disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, if they are severe enough. The definition was made possible under 2009 amendments to the disability law Americans wih disabilities actthat allowed for episodic impairments that substantially limit activity…restaurants who post their ingredients can help those with allergies decide whether they even want to buy the food…”

The new law that now classifies severe food allergy as a disability applies to those severely allergic to gluten, peanuts, shell fish, corn, wheat, and other food allergens. What it translates to is of interest to hospitals, colleges, and other institutions to offer food and put labels on those buffet bars letting people with severe food allergies know what’s in the food. The settlement relates to the disability law. Severe, not mild food allergies can be considered a disability under the law.

A public restaurant also could be liable for a lawsuit by a customer if the business ignored a customer’s request for certain foods. But if the customer had the courage to eat there, even out of spite, and that person became ill knowing the restaurant brushed off the one customer’s request for serving food to which the customer isn’t allergic, or food not containing the ingredient responsible for the severe allergy, that case might be harder to argue because the restaurant might say the customer became sick from food eaten elsewhere.

The restaurant would have to know the customer well enough to have served food for that particular customer enough times that the cooks and food handlers or servers would know the allergy requests of that particular customer. The problem with this argument is that turnover in restaurant employees would throw the customer a curve ball so to speak, since new food handlers or cooks wouldn’t know the customer by face or name unless they were told and remembered or saw where the lists of familiar customers with allergies were posted.

For more:  http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-disabilities-law-may-help-people-with-severe-food-allergies

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: “Severe Food Allergies” Now Classified As A Disability Under ADA Law

Filed under Food Illnesses, Guest Issues, Health, Liability, Management And Ownership, Training

Tagged as , , ,

by | January 11, 2013 · 10:34 am

P3 Hospitality Industry Risk Report: “ADA Pool Lift Update” Presented By Loss Control Specialist Marco Johnson Of Petra Risk Solutions (Video)

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/57192729 w=500&h=281]

The January 31, 2013 ADA pool lift compliance deadline is fast approaching. Petra Risk Solutions’ Loss Control Specialist,  Marco Johnson, offers a P3 Hospitality Risk Update – ‘ADA Pool Lift Update’ – to help clear up some of the confusion about the requirements of this new ADA law.

P3 (Petra Plus Process) is the Risk Management Division of Petra Risk Solutions – America’s largest independent insurance brokerage devoted exclusively to the hospitality marketplace.

For more information on Petra and P3 visit petrarisksolutions.com or call 800.466.8951.

2 Comments

Filed under Guest Issues, Injuries, Insurance, Legislation, Liability, Maintenance, Pool And Spa, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | December 29, 2012 · 7:43 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: California Restaurant Chain Sued By Handicapped Woman For ADA Violations; Claims "Severe And Pervasive Accessibility Barriers"

“…(accessibility) barriers include having to cross the drive-through lane to reach the restaurant’s main entrance from the accessible parking area, excessive slopes in the path of travel to that entrance and ordering Hospitality Industry ADA Lawsuitslines too narrow for wheelchair users. The suit also claims wheelchair-using customers can’t reach the drinks and condiments on the service counter or slide the chair under the tabletops to dine…”

A wheelchair-bound woman who has eaten at a Redwood City Taco Bell at least twice a month for several years is suing the company for not complying with handicap access standards, saying she has been left humiliated by having others place her order or only procuring food through the drive-through window.

Susan Seales was part of a decade-old class action lawsuit against Taco Bell in which a federal judge ultimately ordered the upgrade of more than 200 California restaurants. However, in July 2012, the court also decertified the class for damage claims and Seales is now seeking that relief though the San Mateo County Superior Court.

Seales has lumbar stenosis which leaves her unable to walk or stand, according to the lawsuit filed Dec. 27. Between roughly 2002 and now, Seales has visited the Taco Bell at 2693 El Camino Real several times and from 2002 to 2009 dined inside the restaurant twice a month. From 2009 on, though, she has only used the drive-through to buy food which she eats in the parking lot because of the “severe and pervasive” accessibility barriers, the suit states.

Seales’ daughter or another customer would have to place her order as a result, giving her “discomfort, embarrassment and distress.”

For more:  http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=1760625&title=Woman%20suing%20Taco%20Bell%20for%20ADA%20issues

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: California Restaurant Chain Sued By Handicapped Woman For ADA Violations; Claims "Severe And Pervasive Accessibility Barriers"

Filed under Guest Issues, Insurance, Liability, Management And Ownership

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | October 12, 2012 · 6:13 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Texas Restaurant Settles "Disability Discrimination" Lawsuit For $41,500 And Agrees To Train Managers On Use Of "Hearing-Impaired Communication Systems"

“…the EEOC alleged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 by denying job applicant Michael Harrison employment at its Wendy’s franchise in Killeen, Texas, after learning of his hearing impairment…In addition to paying $41,500 to Mr. Harrison, Wendy’s agreed to provide all managers and supervisory employees training on the ADA and specific training on the use of hearing-impaired communication systems…”

A franchisee of The Wendy’s Co. fast-food restaurant chain has agreed to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, paying $41,500 to resolve the case and implement employee training.

After successfully interviewing with the Wendy’s shift manager for a cooker position, Mr. Harrison was interviewed by the general manager through a telephonic system for the hearing-impaired. During the course of the interview, the EEOC alleged that the general manager told Mr. Harrison that “there is really no place for someone we cannot communicate with,” the EEOC said in the statement.

After failing to reach a prelitigation settlement, the EEOC filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Waco.

For more:  http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20121011/NEWS07/121019971?tags=|70|75|305|303

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Texas Restaurant Settles "Disability Discrimination" Lawsuit For $41,500 And Agrees To Train Managers On Use Of "Hearing-Impaired Communication Systems"

Filed under Insurance, Labor Issues, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | October 2, 2012 · 6:17 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Small California Restaurants Face "Expensive And Time-Consuming" ADA Lawsuits, Forcing Some To Close Down

“…Texas West BBQ in Sacramento faced a lawsuit in 2007…and made the needed changes…but then, in March of this year, a second lawsuit is forcing Texas West BBQ to make more changes to be ADA-compliant…including better striping in the parking lot, wider doors, and a larger bathroom…it will cost nearly $35,000…”

An American with Disabilities Act lawsuit was the last straw for a struggling, longtime burger business. Ford’s Real Hamburgers on Sutterville Road shut down just weeks after the governor signed a new state law that would crackdown on ADA lawsuit abuse.

Several attorneys have filed an exceptional number of lawsuits based on ADA violations. Attorney Scott Johnson has filed nearly 2,200 of them in federal court. More often than not, businesses settle after paying thousands of dollars.

“It scares you because it’s so expensive and time-consuming,” said Louise Haynes.

Gov. Brown just signed a bill co-authored by Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, that would prevent frivolous lawsuits. It would ban demand letters. It gives the defendant time to fix the ADA violations. It’ll also prevent lawyers from stacking multiple claims to increase pay-outs.

” It prevents what I like to call ‘legalized extortion,'” said Travis Hausauer who is co-chair of Californians Against Lawsuit Abuse. His Squeeze Inn Burger restaurant was sued twice by two different attorneys.

” I got sued in court the first time, then I got sued in federal court the second time around,” said Haushauer.

Many people believe the state law is a positive step. But some say it won’t stop ADA lawsuits because attorneys will continue to file lawsuits in federal court.

For more:  http://landpark.news10.net/news/news/105381-ada-lawsuit-leads-long-time-sac-burger-business-close

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Small California Restaurants Face "Expensive And Time-Consuming" ADA Lawsuits, Forcing Some To Close Down

Filed under Guest Issues, Insurance, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , ,

by | May 30, 2012 · 6:53 am

Hospitality Industry Compliance Risks: Hotels Must Have "Written ADA And Local Accessibility Policies And Procedures" To Avoid Costly Litigation

 “…(without) written ADA and local accessibility policies and procedures for your hotel or timeshare property, then you are taking unnecessary risks…New Guest Room Requirements for Mobility and Communication Features requirements apply to new and altered public accommodations…”

What Can You Do to Avoid Liability?

  • Training – Training is critically important, and it can help prevent expensive litigation. Thought must go into the preparation of an accessible room, and the approach must be different depending on the disability of the individual who has booked the room. JMBM performs site inspection surveys and works with hotel operators to train the staff to address the needs and concerns of individuals with disabilities.
  • ADA Surveys/Site Inspections – Even if you own or operate a newly constructed property, an ADA Survey will likely reveal areas of non-compliance and rooms for improvement in policies and procedures. By working with a CASp (Certified Access Specialist program) certified consultant, you may enjoy certain protections against liability while you seek to bring your property into compliance.
  • Website Accessibility – This is an area of focus for the Department of Justice. This area is evolving, but your website must already comply with all current reservation requirements.

For more:  http://hotellaw.jmbm.com/2012/05/ada_compliance_panel.html

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Compliance Risks: Hotels Must Have "Written ADA And Local Accessibility Policies And Procedures" To Avoid Costly Litigation

Filed under Guest Issues, Insurance, Labor Issues, Legislation, Liability, Management And Ownership, Risk Management, Training

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | May 25, 2012 · 8:26 am

Hospitality Industry Guest Disability Risks: "Q&A: Accessibility Requirements For Existing Swimming Pools At Hotels And Other Public Accomodations"

  • What is the effective compliance date of the ADA standards for accessible pools? The effective date of the 2010 Standards generally is March 15, 2012. However, and in response to public comments and concerns, the Department has extended the date for compliance for the requirements related to the provision of accessible entry and exit to existing swimming pools, wading pools, and spas to January 31, 2013.
  • What does the ADA require for accessibility of pools?Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by places of public accommodation, including many private businesses.  Title III requires newly constructed and altered business facilities to be fully accessible to people with disabilities, applying the ADA Standards for Accessible Design.  In addition, Title III requires businesses to remove accessibility barriers in existing facilities when doing so is readily achievable.The 2010 Standards require that newly constructed or altered swimming pools, wading pools, and spas have an accessible way for people with disabilities to enter and exit the pool.   The Standards also provide technical specifications for when a means of entry is accessible, such as, for pool lifts, the location, size of the seat, lifting capacity, and clear floor space.  You can see the 2010 ADA Standards at http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm.For existing swimming pools built before the effective date of the new rule, the 2010 Standards provide the guide for achieving accessibility.  However, full compliance may not be required in existing facilities (see question 4).The 2010 Standards explain whether a newly constructed or altered pool needs to have one or two accessible means of entry and exit.  Section 242 provides that large pools (pools with 300 linear feet of pool wall or more) must have two accessible means of entry and exit. One means of entry/exit must be a fixed pool lift or sloped entry; the other entry can be a transfer wall, transfer system, or pool stairs.  Small pools (pools with less than 300 linear feet of pool wall) must provide at least one accessible means of entry/exit, which must be either a fixed pool lift or a sloped entry.

    The 2010 Standards also provide details about what features an accessible means of entry or exit should have.  Specifically, section 1009 addresses the location, size of the seat, lifting capacity, and clear floor space required for fixed pool lifts, as well as the requirements for sloped entries, transfer walls, transfer systems, and pool stairs.  A copy of the 2010 ADA Standards is available at http://www.ada.gov/2010ADAstandards_index.htm.  

    The 2010 Standards require that new or altered wading pools have a sloped entry. New or altered spas must have at least one accessible means of entry, which may be a transfer wall, a transfer system, or a pool lift.  See sections 242.3 and 242.4 of the 2010 Standards.

  • Does a community pool have to provide an accessible means of exit and entry?Community pools that are associated with a private residential community and are limited to the exclusive use of residents and their guests are not covered by the ADA accessibility requirements.  On the other hand, if a swimming pool/club located in a residential community is made available to the public for rental or use, it is covered under Title III of the ADA.  If a community pool is owned or operated by a state or local government entity, it is covered by Title II of the ADA, which requires “program accessibility.”  See http://www.ada.gov/pools_2010.htm.

    REQUIREMENTS FOR EXISTING POOLS

  • My pool already existed before the effective date of the new rule. What am I required to do to provide pool access to customers with mobility disabilities?The ADA requires businesses to make existing pools accessible only when it is “readily achievable” to do so.  Readily achievable means that providing access is easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense.  The 2010 Standards provide the benchmark, or goal, for accessibility in existing pools.  (See Question 2for the 2010 Standards requirements for pools).  However, owners of existing pools need to comply with the 2010 Standards only to the extent that doing so is readily achievable for them.The 2010 Standards for pool lifts require lifts to be fixed and to meet additional requirements for location, size of the seat, lifting capacity, and clear floor space.  Therefore, if a business can provide a fixed lift that meets all of the 2010 Standards’ requirements without much difficulty or expense, the business must provide one. If no fully compliant lift is readily achievable for the business, the business is not obligated to provide a fully compliant lift until doing so becomes readily achievable. In addition, the business may provide a non-fixed lift that otherwise complies with the requirements in the 2010 Standards if doing so is readily achievable and if full compliance is not.
  • Are there any tax credits or deductions to help me comply?Yes.  To assist businesses with complying with the ADA, Section 44 of the IRS Code allows a tax credit for small businesses and Section 190 of the IRS Code allows a tax deduction for all businesses. The tax credit is available to businesses that have total revenues of $1,000,000 or less in the previous tax year or 30 or fewer full-time employees. This credit can cover 50% of the eligible access expenditures in a year up to $10,250 (maximum credit of $5000). The tax credit can be used to offset the cost of undertaking barrier removal and alterations to improve accessibility; providing accessible formats such as Braille, large print and audio tape; making available a sign language interpreter or a reader for customers or employees; and for purchasing certain adaptive equipment.  The tax deduction is available to all businesses with a maximum deduction of $15,000 per year. The tax deduction can be claimed for expenses incurred in barrier removal and alterations.  To learn more about the tax credit and tax deduction provisions, contact the DOJ ADA Information Line (at 800-514-0301 (voice); 800-514-0383 (TTY).
  • What if I can’t afford to install a fixed lift in my pool, or it would be difficult to do so?In that case, installation is not required. If it is not readily achievable for a business to provide a fixed lift – that is, if it would be too difficult or expensive to make these changes – then a business may use other ways, such as a non-fixed lift, to provide access to the pool.  If it is not readily achievable to provide access to the existing pool, even by way of a non-fixed lift, the business need not do so. Nonetheless, it should make a plan to achieve compliance with the pool access requirements when doing so becomes readily achievable.
  • What is the difference between a “portable” lift and a “fixed” lift?The real issue is not whether a lift is “portable” versus “fixed,” but rather whether a lift is “fixed” versus “non-fixed.”  A fixed lift means that the lift is attached to the pool deck or apron in some way.  A non-fixed lift means that it is not attached in any way.  Therefore, a portable lift that is attached to the pool deck would be considered a fixed lift.  Thus, owners of portable lifts can fully comply with the access requirements by affixing their lifts to the pool deck or apron.  They are required to do so if that is readily achievable, except in certain circumstances discussed below.
  • How do I determine if it is readily achievable for me to install a lift in my existing pool? Readily achievable means that providing access is easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense.   This is a flexible, case-by-case analysis, with the goal of ensuring that ADA requirements are not unduly burdensome, including to small businesses.  The readily achievable analysis is based on factors such as the nature and cost of the needed action; all the financial, staff and other resources available to the business and any parent entity; and the impact on the operation of the site, including legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation.1   Generally, a mere franchisor-franchisee relationship, where the franchisor does not own or operate the franchisee business, will not require consideration of the franchisor’s resources in determining what is readily achievable.This is the same standard that places of public accommodation have been using for all covered elements of existing facilities since 1992.  Guidance on “Common Questions: Readily Achievable Barrier Removal” is available at http://www.ada.gov//adata1.htm (1996).
  • I already purchased a portable lift before March 15, 2012.  Can I still use it?Yes.  If you have purchased a non-fixed lift before March 15th that otherwise complies with the requirements in the 2010 Standards for pool lifts (such as seat size, etc.), you may use it, as long as you keep it in position for use at the pool and operational during all times that the pool is open to guests.  Because of a misunderstanding by some pool owners regarding whether the use of portable pool lifts would comply with barrier removal obligations, the Department, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, will not enforce the fixed elements of the 2010 Standards against those owners or operators of existing pools who purchased portable lifts prior to March 15, 2012 and who keep the portable lifts in position for use at the pool and operational during all times that the pool is open to guests so long as those lifts otherwise comply with the requirements of the 2010 Standards.  Generally, lifts purchased after March 15, 2012 must be fixed if it is readily achievable to do so.If a portable lift was purchased after March 15, 2012, the obligation to remove barriers is an ongoing one. If it becomes readily achievable to attach the lift to the pool at a later date you must do so.  Manufacturers, for example, are providing kits to attach portable lifts.
  • I do not have a lift at my pool and it is not readily achievable to provide one now.  Do I have to close the pool?No.  If accessibility is not readily achievable, the Department recommends that businesses develop a plan to provide access into the pool when it becomes readily achievable in the future.  Because accessibility in existing facilities is an ongoing obligation, a covered entity must provide accessible features when it becomes readily achievable to do so.
  • I’ve decided that it is readily achievable to provide a lift, but the lift I ordered is on back order. Do I have to close my pool until the lift arrives?  No.  A business in this situation should order and install a compliant lift and install it when it becomes available.

    OTHER QUESTIONS

  • What if I have two pools or a pool and a spa?  Can I share a lift between pools? In new construction, each pool or spa must provide accessible entry and exit.  For existing pools, whether each pool or spa must have its own lift (or other accessible means of entry) depends on whether it is readily achievable.  If it is not readily achievable for a business to provide a lift at each pool or spa, it does not mean the inaccessible pool or spa must be closed.  In these circumstances, the business should make a plan to purchase and install a compliant pool lift or other accessible entry when it becomes readily achievable to do so.Sharing non-fixed pool lifts between pools can pose safety risks to swimmers with disabilities because if a lift has been moved to another pool, a person with a disability might be unable to get out of the pool.  Sharing lifts between pools also requires people with disabilities to rely on staff assistance to find, move, and set up the lift each time.
  • If I can’t provide a lift at every pool, do I have to close the one(s) that has no lift? No.  If it is not readily achievable to provide a lift at each pool, the inaccessible pool(s) may remain open.
  • Do I have to leave my pool lift out at poolside when my pool is closed?No.  Pool lifts are required to be available only when the pool is open and available to the public.  If a pool is closed during the winter months or at night, the public accommodation is free to remove the lift from the pool and store it.
  • Can I store my lift and bring it out only when it is requested by a person with a disability?No.  A pool lift must remain in place and be operational during all times that the pool is open to guests.  The ADA and its implementing regulations require equal and independent access for people with disabilities for all covered facilities (not just pools).  Allowing covered entities to store lifts and only take them out on request places unnecessary additional burdens on people with disabilities.  People with disabilities have long faced the challenges of dealing with portable accessibility features – e.g., staff are unavailable or too busy to help locate and set up the equipment, the equipment is missing, the equipment isn’t maintained, or staff do not know how to safely set up the equipment.  In addition, the ADA Standards specify that a lift must be located at the proper water depth and with the necessary space around it to maneuver a wheelchair.  Moving a portable lift around raises the likelihood that the lift will be improperly located, making it difficult or dangerous to use.
  • I think a lift poses a safety risk at an unattended pool.  I also have heard that my insurance rates will increase if I have a lift in my unattended pool. Can I consider safety risks?The ADA allows businesses to consider “legitimate safety requirements” in determining whether an action is readily achievable, as long as the requirements are based on actual risks and are necessary for the safe operation of the business. However, a “legitimate safety requirement” cannot be based on speculation or unsubstantiated generalizations about safety concerns or risks.  We note that businesses cannot rely on limitations on coverage or insurance rates as a reason not to comply with the ADA.
  • I’ve provided a pool lift.  Do I have any further legal obligations?    Once an accessible means of entry to a pool, such as your lift, has been provided, it needs to remain available and in working condition while the pool is open to the public. Staff should also be trained so they will know how the lift works, where it is located, and how to operate and maintain it.  For example, a pool lift that operates on batteries may need to be recharged periodically.  To be sure that lift remains operable, staff should know how to charge the battery and be assigned to perform the task as necessary.

    ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE 2010 STANDARDS

  • What is the Department’s approach going to be to ensuring compliance with the new regulation pertaining to pool lifts? As a general matter, the Department favors voluntary compliance with the ADA from covered entities. The Department seeks collaborative approaches.  To achieve these objectives, the Department has a robust outreach and technical assistance program designed to assist businesses and State and local governments to understand their obligations under the ADA.

    RESOURCES

  • If I have a question about the new requirements, where do I go? The Department’s wide-ranging outreach, education and technical assistance program is designed to assist businesses and State and local governments to understand their obligations under the ADA. Additional information about the ADA’s requirements, including the 2010 ADA Standards, is available on the Department’s ADA Website at www.ada.gov.If you have questions and would like to speak to an ADA Specialist, please call the ADA Information Line at 800-514-0301 (voice); 800-514-0383 (TTY).  Specialists are available Monday through Friday from 9:30 AM until 5:30 PM (Eastern Time), except on Thursday when the hours are 12:30 PM until 5:30 PM.ADA experts are also available to present to conferences and training sessions through the ADA Speakers Bureau.

For complete information:  http://www.ada.gov/qa_existingpools_titleIII.htm

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Guest Disability Risks: "Q&A: Accessibility Requirements For Existing Swimming Pools At Hotels And Other Public Accomodations"

Filed under Guest Issues, Labor Issues, Legislation, Liability, Management And Ownership, Pool And Spa, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , ,

by | May 18, 2012 · 10:12 am

Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Dept. Of Justice Extends Deadline For ADA "Pool Lifts" Requirements Until Jan 31, 2013; "Fixed Lift" Requirements Still Apply To Pools & Spas Under Construction Or Being Altered

“…the Department of Justice (DOJ) last night announced a substantial postponement of the ADA compliance date for existing pools and spas with ADA requirements for accessible entries.  The new compliance date – January 31, 2013 – is more than an additional nine months beyond the original date of March 15, 2012…”

“The extension is fair and sensible and the lodging industry supports it,” said AH&LA President/CEO Joe McInerney.

AH&LA began its efforts immediately after DOJ first announced in a guidance dated January 31, 2012 that pool lifts used to provide accessible entries into existing pools and spas must be “fixed” unless not “readily achievable,” next to the pool/spa at all times when the facilities are open, and cannot be shared between two bodies of water even if they are in the same location.  DOJ subsequently clarified that that “fixed” means attached to the pool deck in some way.  This means that “portable” lifts brought out upon request would not be acceptable, raising new concerns among members about safety risks and costs posed by “fixed” lifts.   The hospitality and business community viewed this announcement to be a significant change from the pool lift requirements issued by DOJ in its September 15, 2010 final regulations and began its intensive campaign to both reverse these substantive changes and delay the compliance date.

For more:  http://www.ahla.com/pressrelease.aspx?id=34522&hq_e=el&hq_m=1729871&hq_l=1&hq_v=e98908d08d

Comments Off on Hospitality Industry Legal Risks: Dept. Of Justice Extends Deadline For ADA "Pool Lifts" Requirements Until Jan 31, 2013; "Fixed Lift" Requirements Still Apply To Pools & Spas Under Construction Or Being Altered

Filed under Guest Issues, Health, Insurance, Legislation, Liability, Maintenance, Management And Ownership, Pool And Spa, Risk Management

Tagged as , , , ,