Justice Dept. signs ADA settlement with Merced County

[mark handler]

Justice Dept. signs ADA settlement with Merced County

http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/local/article27975490.html

Access for the disabled will improve in Merced County under an agreement signed with the U.S. Justice Department on Monday.

Along with Champaign County in Illinois and Yakima County in Washington, Merced County signed the agreement after being scrutinized under the Justice Department’s Project Civic Access. The initiative ensures that cities, towns and counties comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The birthplace of Tony Coelho, the former congressman who introduced the Americans with Disabilities Act in the 1980s, Merced County reached the access agreement as the federal government marks the ADA’s 25th anniversary.

“Individuals with disabilities faced the indignities of not being able to enter public buildings or have equal access to the services, programs and activities offered by their local governments; they were barred from attending schools and getting jobs,” said Vanita Gupta, head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Until, that is, the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

The 17-page settlement unveiled Monday details the scope of the Justice Department’s review, which ranged from the county’s Winton Park and Los Banos Fairgrounds to the jail and main library.

The county has been working on the agreement with the Justice Department for about a year, said Mike North, a Merced County spokesman.

Under the agreement, Merced County will hire an independent architect who will certify that the required ADA modifications have been made. The county is in the process of selecting an architect, North said.

Once the hire is made, North said, the county will have a better idea of what the work will cost and how the changes will be implemented.

The county also must designate an ADA coordinator. To comply with that requirement, Dana Hertfelder, the county’s public works director, was named the ADA coordinator, North said.

Another part of the agreement requires the county to amend its employment policies to comply with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agreement requires the policies to provide that the county will not discriminate on the basis of disability in hiring or employment practices and that a job applicant will not be questioned about a disability.

The agreement also requires that the county contract oral and sign-language interpreters to serve the Sheriff’s Department 24 hours a day, polling place barriers will be removed and curb ramps will be installed as necessary, among other changes.

North said the county already made some small changes to comply with ADA requirements, including updating signage, changing door handles and mechanisms, changing bathroom fixtures and installing new drinking fountains.

Settlement agreement here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjADahUKEwj20qzf6evGAhUMpIgKHXkcB1o&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.justice.gov%2Fopa%2Ffile%2F631516%2Fdownload&ei=iAWuVfbuEozIogT5uJzQBQ&usg=AFQjCNH9T4w70TIMazWxrGWxPktPE01ogw&sig2=lp9SQAZfESuAKiZVOfVGdg

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Wow. They've had 25 years to comply. Why aren't the officials being sued and fined?

Oh, wait. No risk non elected officials.

Brent.

 

[steveray]

Wow. They've had 25 years to comply. Why aren't the officials being sued and fined?Oh, wait. No risk non elected officials.

Brent.

Brent...I am guessing the serial litigants thought they were too hard of a target and go after the low hanging fruit. Inviting the DOJ might be like inviting OSHA in, if you do, they don't beat you, just tell you what you need to do..

 

[conarb]

Brent...I am guessing the serial litigants thought they were too hard of a target and go after the low hanging fruit. Inviting the DOJ might be like inviting OSHA in, if you do, they don't beat you, just tell you what you need to do..

No Steve, I've posted the link to the Supreme court decision before, the court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to sue the states and their subdivisions over ADA, it took until now that we have a President who disregards the constitution and does what he describes as "The right thing to do" as opposed to following the rule of law, in fact this infamous DOJ jumps in and supplies a free legal services to compliment this unconstitutional law. It can't be any clearer than this, from the Infamous DOJ's website:

[QUOTE='ADA]
III. PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ADAThe Department has been actively engaged in defending the constitutionality of the ADA. The Department intervenes in private suits across the country to defend the constitutionality of the statute against challenges by state defendants. In early 2001, the Supreme Court limited the reach of the ADA by holding in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett 141 that a private individual may not, consistent with the Constitution, sue a State or state agency to enforce the employment discrimination protections in Title I of the ADA. The Court held that States are protected from such suits by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Following earlier decisions holding that Congress may remove States' immunity only when acting pursuant to its powers under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court in Garrett held that Title I's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability went beyond Congress's authority under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus plaintiffs may not sue a State directly to enforce Title I. ¹

[/QUOTE]Commentary I've read states that Article II would be held unconstitutional as well if brought to the court.

¹ http://www.ada.gov/5yearadarpt/iii_constitionality.html