Reasonable Accommodations vs. Undue Hardship

[jar546]

I was thinking about the ADA and it got me wondering about a hot topic that we've all probably wrestled with at some point: "reasonable accommodations" vs. "undue hardship." Look, I don't think anyone here questions the importance of making our buildings accessible to everyone, but let's be real. The gray area of what counts as a "reasonable" upgrade and what constitutes an "undue hardship" for a business is where the rubber meets the road.

So what does "reasonable" even mean? ADA guidelines say we've got to make public spaces accessible, which could mean anything from installing ramps to setting up braille signs. But they also throw in this term "undue hardship," basically giving businesses an out if the modifications would break the bank or, say, ruin the integrity of a historic building.

That gets me thinking: Who gets to decide what's "reasonable" and what's an "undue hardship?" I've seen businesses struggle with the financial burden of retrofitting, especially small shops. Is it fair to ask them to make potentially business-ending changes? On the flip side, what about historic buildings? Do we want to start drilling into century-old walls to make way for an elevator? And don't even get me started on enforcement—different jurisdictions, different rules, and a whole lot of confusion.

I'm curious to know what you all think. Are the current ADA rules hitting the mark, or is there room for some tweaks? How can we improve accessibility without placing a crushing burden on the folks providing the spaces? I'm really looking forward to hearing your insights on this.

 

[bill1952]

I'm in a small town in a Midwest state that now survives on tourism. It's very hilly and sidewalks exceed 1:12 in places, and old buildings all with steps. Only a very few new or recently majorly renovated buildings have accessible entrances. And to require many of them to become accessible would likely result in their closing.

It's a good question.

 

[Yikes]

”Who gets to decide?”
Unfortunately, the only answer to that is: the civil court, via the outcome of lawsuits that do not end with settlements.

A CASp told my client that, apart from 100% compliance with the 2010 ADAS, there is no way to have 100% assurance you will prevail in a lawsuit.

Furthermore, undue hardship can vary year-to-year based on the financial performance of the parties involved. A struggling not-for profit may be able to afford only a very limited amount of “readily achievable barrier removal” at their office building this year. But if they get a billion dollar donation next year, they better get to work on plans for more barrier removal!

This is why architects cannot be the final arbiter on what constitutes “readily achievable barrier removal”. We are typically not privy to the owner’s / tenant’s financial statements, and we are not civil attorneys. Therefore we are not qualified to determine what is affordable vs. undue hardship. The Owner must tell us what they can and cannot afford. We advise owners to consult with their own legal counsel.