Bill pay kiosk?

[mtlogcabin]

Automatic bill paying kiosk in a store does not have a check writing surface. The machine will accept and process the check without it being filled out. Does this meet accessibility or should there be a check writing space

ANSI or ADA sections please so I can convey a requirement to the architect.

 

[ICE]

So you stick a blank check in a machine and it does the rest? Who signs the name?

 

[JBI]

Wal Mart has done this for quite some time at their stores. The question becomes what to do about completing the check for your own records? Or entering it in your register?

Can I quote a Code section? No. (But Wal Mart does provide a writing surface.)

 

[cda]

Not sure if this is correct

904.3.3 Check Writing Surfaces. Where provided, check writing surfaces shall comply with 902.3.

902.3 Height. The tops of dining surfaces and work surfaces shall be 28 inches (710 mm) minimum and 34 inches (865 mm) maximum above the finish floor or ground.

http://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/ada-standards/chapter-9-built-in-elements

 

[cda]

Check bottom of page 6. "C,d and 3"

http://www.vtgrocers.org/files/files/FMI%20ADA%20Memo%20101910.pdf

 

[JBI]

Chapter 2 is Scoping...

[h=3]220 Automatic Teller Machines and Fare Machines[/h]220.1 General. Where automatic teller machines or self-service fare vending, collection, or adjustment machines are provided, at least one of each type provided at each location shall comply with 707. Where bins are provided for envelopes, waste paper, or other purposes, at least one of each type shall comply with 811.

Or...

[h=3]226 Dining Surfaces and Work Surfaces[/h]226.1 General. Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902. In addition, where work surfaces are provided for use by other than employees, at least 5 percent shall comply with 902.

EXCEPTIONS:

1. Sales counters and service counters shall not be required to comply with 902.

2. Check writing surfaces provided at check-out aisles not required to comply with 904.3 shall not be required to comply with 902.

 

[JBI]

I'm leaning toward writing surface not required, but if provided must comply...

 

[MASSDRIVER]

There is no working surface for anyone, so everybody is appropriately deprived.

Even Steven.

Brent.

 

[cda]

What is a check and why do you have to write on it?

 

[Paul Sweet]

What is a check and why do you have to write on it?

So you can take a picture of it to deposit it.

 

[SCBO1]

904.4.3 Check Writing Surfaces.

Where provided, check writing surfaces shall comply with Section 902.4.

902.4 Height.

The tops of dining surfaces and work surfaces shall be 28 inches (710 mm) minimum and 34 inches (865 mm) maximum in height above the floor.

pc1

 

[SCBO1]

Accessibility continues to evolve!

additional requirement

902.3 Exposed Surfaces.

There shall be no sharp or abrasive surfaces under the exposed portions of dining surfaces and work surfaces.

pc1

 

[Jim B]

A Bill Payment Kiosk is not a checkout aisle.

Checkout aisles are regulated under ANSI A117.1-2009, 904.4

(Commentary on this section: Accessible checkout aisles, such as those found in grocery stores, must meet the provisions for the aisle, counter and any check writing surface. See the commentary to Section 904 for an explanation of the difference between a checkout aisle and a sales and service counter)



Check writing surfaces are a sub section: ANSI A117.1-2009; 904.4.3

(Commentary for this section: If a surface is provided for customers to write checks or sign a credit card slip, the height of that surface must be between 28 inches and 34 inches (710 and 865 mm) high. The reference to Section 902.3 does not require any knee or toe clearances under that surface. A side approach would be permitted.

The intent is not to prohibit an additional check writing surface at a higher level. With the checkout counter at 38 inches (965 mm) in height (Section 904.4.2) it is not possible to meet both requirements at the same location. A small pull-out shelf or fixed shelf at the lower height may be provided for this condition. If a pull-out shelf is provided, it must meet the operable parts provisions in Section 309 and be operable with only one hand.)

It would seem that a check writing surface is only required when provided at a checkout aisle

 

[mark handler]

http://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/44297-williams-sonoma-target-ada-class-action-lawsuit/

Williams-Sonoma is the latest retailer to be hit with a disabled access class action lawsuit, with a woman alleging that due to the lack of point-of-sale devices that are accessible to the blind, the company is in violation of federal statutes.

The Williams-Sonoma class action lawsuit argues that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires all companies that operate a place open to the public must offer reasonable accommodations to those with a known disability. Instead, Maria Santos alleges that when she visited a Williams-Sonoma store in November 2014, the point-of-sale devices all had flat touch screens, making it impossible for a blind person to complete a transaction without assistance.

This requires blind consumers like Santos to divulge sensitive personal identifying information such as PINs to a retail employee at Williams-Sonoma in order to complete the transaction.

Although “Defendant has centralized policies regarding the management and operation of its POS Devices, Defendant has never had a plan or policy that is reasonably calculated to make its POS Devices fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people,” the Williams-Sonoma class action lawsuit alleges.

Since Santos alleges that she would like to continue shopping at Williams-Sonoma outlets, she is seeking injunctive relief requiring blind-accessible point-of-sale devices. However, while many a disabled access class action lawsuit has focused on violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the lead plaintiff here also cites California state statute.

The relevant law indicates that “whenever a point-of-sale system is changed or modified to include a video touch screen or nontactile keypad” it must also include a “tactually discernible numerical keypad” similar to a telephone with a raised “5” key, Santos alleges. According to the Williams-Sonoma class action lawsuit, companies had until 2010 to update their retail locations in order to comply with the law.

Many other class action lawsuits have been filed in other states and thus rely on the ADA alone. The overwhelming majority of these cases revolve around the ability for blind people to complete transactions using their debit cards without divulging their PINs. In the last year, retailers such as Kay Jewelers Inc., Build-A-Bear Workshop Inc., The Kroger Co., J Crew Group Inc. and Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. have been hit with class action lawsuits over their point-of-sale systems.

Santos is represented by Michael Harrison of The Santa Clarita Law Firm.

The Williams-Sonoma Disabled Access Class Action Lawsuit is Maria Santos v. Williams Sonoma Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08843, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.