Lawsuit claims revamped Union Station violates Americans With Disabilities Act

[mark handler]

Lawsuit claims revamped Union Station violates Americans With Disabilities Act

POSTED 7:23 AM, AUGUST 19, 2014, BY CATHY HERNANDEZ

http://kdvr.com/2014/08/19/lawsuit-claims-revamped-union-station-violates-americans-with-disabilities-act/

DENVER — Union Station is facing a lawsuit just weeks after it celebrated its grand opening.

A local advocacy group along with two individual plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court against the city, county and the Regional Transportation District. In the lawsuit, the group claims some parts of the new Union Station are not welcoming to people with disabilities.

After years of planning and work, Union Station opened its doors for business on July 26. The Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition says the revamped Union Station is in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Specifically, in the Great Hall, where there is a raised area with seating and shuffleboards, the group claims it is only accessible by two steps, making it essentially off-limits to people in wheelchairs and scooters.

Union Station had installed a small sign saying individuals with disabilities need to ask an employee for a portable ramp to access the area. The lawsuit says by relying on a temporary, portable ramp, Union Station is discriminating against people with disabilities.

The lawsuit asks for Union Station to comply with the ADA and pay for attorney fees.

City leaders have not responded to the lawsuit. An RTD spokeswoman told The Denver Post the agency has not reviewed the allegations but is “disappointed the group did not choose first to notify RTD of their concerns.”

 

[JBI]

The last quote is the most telling... That they did not attempt to resolve it with the RTD tells me that an attorney is looking for an easy buck.

I am a firm believer in most Code requirements, including Accessibility. I also believe that Court proceedings are most properly instituted after voluntary compliance can not be obtained. That was my standard as a regulator, and what I teach my classes now.

 

[Paul Sweet]

Do they have equivalent seating and shuffleboards on the accessible level? I can't imagine that 2 steps would create a view that is missing on the main level.

 

[ADAguy]

Paul!

View you ask? What is the point of your comments?

 

[JPohling]

I believe he is saying that if there are the same amenities on the accessible level then access to the level two risers up to the same amenities would not necessarily be required, which is true, but it could have an overlook or "view" that is not able to be seen from the accessible level and then there would be an issue.

 

[Paul Sweet]

That's what I'm getting at. I'm on the road using motel internet connections, so I don't have ready access to ADASAD to quote it. I recall there is an exception , at least for restaurants, that says raised areas don't have to be accessible as long as the same accessible seats, etc. are provided on the accessible level.

On the other hand, ADA is an extension of the 1964 civil rights law. Because of the reason for this law and what went on before it was passed, separate is presumed to be unequal, and the burden of proof is on the one who proposes not providing full accessibility.

 

[ADAguy]

Paul "gets it", all for one and one for all.

If addressed at the start of design inclusion as part of the process should be automatic.

With a clear head and a little patience the same may be said for existing buildings.