Responsibility for enforcing ADA standards at local level.

[brudgers]

If the code official has no formal authority to act the only thing that he can do regarding perceived civil rights violations is to report the perceived violation to an entity that has the authority to take action. The code official can and probably should inform the applicant of the limitations of the building code process and the potential implications this may have for the applicant. The code official could point out that he believes that the ADA requires something but probably should qualify that by stating that he is not in a position to formally interpret the ADA requirements. If a code official were to give advice on the ADA requirements that the applicant relied on, the code official could potentially have liability for resulting problems if that advice were in error. Liability relates to a legal duty. If the building official has no legal duty to enforce the ADA it is not clear how he/she could have liability for it's enforcement. I think what is being confused here is the distinction between legal duty and what some may see as a moral obligation.

Governments have a legal obligation not to act in a way which violates Civil Rights (as does each person individually).

 

[Frank]

The question is can a code official knowingly allow civil rights violations without liability?

Could you make them take down a "No Coloreds allowed" sign?

This is prohibited in the same sentence of federal civil rights law that requires accessibility.

Can you stop the cop from beating on some one who is not resisting?--this too is a civil rights violation.

Our authority is limited to the assigned and adopted buidling codes.

 

[mark handler]

Most, if not all states, have statues that require adherence with the ADA

 

[brudgers]

Could you make them take down a "No Coloreds allowed" sign? This is prohibited in the same sentence of federal civil rights law that requires accessibility. Can you stop the cop from beating on some one who is not resisting?--this too is a civil rights violation. Our authority is limited to the assigned and adopted buidling codes.

So you issue permits to contractors who don't meet state licensing laws, and your planning department doesn't require compliance with Federal environmental regulations?

 

[mark handler]

ADA standards can be enforced both on a federal and local level.

Federal: Complaints are filed through the U.S. Department of Justice. Entities are sued for a federal civil rights violation.

Local/State: When Local agencies or local/county/state governments adopt the ADA standards into their building code.

These bodies can then withhold grants, funds, licenses, certificates of occupancy, building permits and occupancy certifications.

 

[Francis Vineyard]

At least Local/State should enforce themselves first; The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems



Francis

 

[Mark K]

On the subject of verification of contractors license the authority of the building department may vary from state to state. If in doubt check with the agency's attorney. If the building department does not have authority to deny the permit I would suggest that when there is a doubt as to licensing of the contractor that the agency issue a comment stating that it appears that the the contractor does not appear to be licensed and that if the question is not resolved the department will refer the issue to the contractors licensing board and the district attorney.

We must work within the legal structure. If the laws and regulations appear to be broken, work to have them changed. What we do not need is for every building official to go off and trying to correct all of the wrongs of socienty. The laws and regulations reflect a delicat balance of what are conflicting rights of the citizens. It is the job of our elected representatives to determine that balance not the building official's. It is well established that building officials job is to interpret and enforce building codes and not to adopt additional requirements.

In California a building permit will not be issued unless the Contractor provides evidence of workmans compensation insurance.

The IBC has provisions where it requires an action by a registered design professional. Thus the building official could verify if the license is current before accepting an application.

 

[fatboy]

Or, as in my case there is no state licensing, and we have nothing on a local level.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Ditto here

 

[ICE]

In California a building permit will not be issued unless the Contractor provides evidence of workmans compensation insurance.

The contractor can claim to be exempt from workman's comp because he has no employees. Unless of course it is a roofing contractor (C-39), in which case she must have workman's comp. insurance even if she has no employees. That's because roofing work is more dangerous than other trades.

The big hole in that requirement is that any "B" licensed contractor can take a permit to do a re-roof.

In any event, we are told to not bother with workman's comp. issues.

 

[Mark K]

ICE

Suggest your attorney review the facts of "Morris v. Marin County". Unless there is something unique about Marin County, building departmentss in California appear to be liable for people who get hurt when the contractor has no workman's compensation insurance.

 

[ICE]

Mark,

When a permit is issued we get one of two things, proof of workman's compensation or a declaration that the contractor is exempt. There's nothing more to do after that and our collective *** is covered. I used to write a correction when I found employees and the contractor claimed to be exempt. I was told to stop doing that because that created a liability issue because not all inspectors do that.

Apparently it is better if we don't know any details and claim that our due diligence stops at the permit counter.

We have enough attorneys to fill a bus driving off a cliff.

 

[globe trekker]

Not to hijack this thread about "enforcement of the ADA", but

all we require here is a minimum amount Contractors Bond

and no proof of any insurance. Some other municipalities in

this state DO require proof of insurance and Workman's Comp.,

but I am told that as soon as the permit is issued, the contractor

will drop the insurance policy, so any potential homeowner has

no recourse. Also, I know of a few builders that will open up

a "new" checking account for every house they build, and close

it immediately upon completion.

Does anyone else see that most homeowners are not getting what

they are paying for (i.e - a "built to code" structure)? This type

of dubious activity once ruled the automotive industry as well.

In places such as ' Alias ' & ' Sifu ', the elected officials don't want

to know and apparently, ..aren't going to do anything about it

either. :banghd

In conjunction with ICE' last statement, ..look in your local

Yellow Pages book. What is the largest amount of pages /

listings in there?

.

 

[brudgers]

Not to hijack this thread about "enforcement of the ADA", but all we require here is a minimum amount Contractors Bond and no proof of any insurance. Some other municipalities in this state DO require proof of insurance and Workman's Comp., but I am told that as soon as the permit is issued, the contractor will drop the insurance policy, so any potential homeowner has no recourse. Also, I know of a few builders that will open up a "new" checking account for every house they build, and close it immediately upon completion. Does anyone else see that most homeowners are not getting what they are paying for (i.e - a "built to code" structure)? This type of dubious activity once ruled the automotive industry as well. In places such as ' Alias ' & ' Sifu ', the elected officials don't want to know and apparently, ..aren't going to do anything about it either. :banghd In conjunction with ICE' last statement, ..look in your local Yellow Pages book. What is the largest amount of pages / listings in there? .

Why are you enforcing bond requirements? They're not in the building code - just like ADA.

 

[globe trekker]

Why are you enforcing bond requirements? They're not in the building code - just like ADA.

Our state requires it!.

 

[Papio Bldg Dept]

If the code official has no formal authority to act the only thing that he can do regarding perceived civil rights violations is to report the perceived violation to an entity that has the authority to take action. The code official can and probably should inform the applicant of the limitations of the building code process and the potential implications this may have for the applicant. The code official could point out that he believes that the ADA requires something but probably should qualify that by stating that he is not in a position to formally interpret the ADA requirements. If a code official were to give advice on the ADA requirements that the applicant relied on, the code official could potentially have liability for resulting problems if that advice were in error. Liability relates to a legal duty. If the building official has no legal duty to enforce the ADA it is not clear how he/she could have liability for it's enforcement. I think what is being confused here is the distinction between legal duty and what some may see as a moral obligation.

Mark K, while I agree with what you have said here, I do take issue with the parts you left out. As a code official, and an employee of a local authority having jurisdiction, I do have a legal obligation under the ADA to ensure that I do not adopt policies, regulations or ordinances that would prevent or prohibit compliance with the ADA, and enforce them as such. We have adopted policies, resolutions and devolped transition plans which include self-evaluation of our programs and services, Building Department included. We submit these plans to both state and federal agencies for review.

In my conversations with the DOJ, The ADA is a civil rights statute prohibiting discrimination (whether intentional or unintentional) against people with disabilities in all aspects of life, including transportation, public services, employment, housing, public accommodations, education, communication, worship, recreation and health services. In essence, the ADA places responsibility for the inability of people with disabilities in becoming part of the mainstream society due to, or as a result of barriers in the physical, societal, and information infrastructure, and not a person’s disability.

There is no grandfather clause, or safe haven in the ADA.

While we are liable for the standards we adopt and enforce, we do not ensure compliance through plan review or inspection, but make guidelines and standards available such that compliance is acheivable. If your design, details or construction do not conform to those standards adopted, then we enforce them. As an example, many AHJ's have adopted non-compliant standard curb ramp details for PROW, which are subsequently used by RDP's such as yourself on private property construction. In these cases, both parties are liable. It has happened here in our backyard of Omaha, and Chicago is another very good example of the shared liability by all parties involved. Both of these AHJ's are currently either under active review or have reached a settlement with the DOJ.

I can't think of one jurisdiction that is so bold as to not have accessibility standards and non-discrimination policies of some kind adopted.

I think what has been lost in the semantics of this discussion is that the ADA, as a civil rights act, does not descriminate in it's liability, and holds all parties liable to prevent descrimination. In that regard, yes we are all responsible to enforce the ADA, and not all enforcement requires having to go to court. But then again, that might be a moral decision made by the parties involved when they get tired of finger pointing.

Every time I see one of those little boiler plate notes for "all construction shall comply with the ADA" that RDP's and AHJ's like to put on their drawings and standard plates (which don't mean squat when it comes to ADA enforcement these days), 9 times out of 10 they are a precursor to non-compliant design, details and construction.

 

[Jim B]

It happens monthly in Pennsylvania.

The Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industries Accessibility Advisory Board (AAB) is the only entity within Pennsylvania that can rule on accessibility issues. If a variance is granted for accessibility, it is clearly stated in their response that the variance was in reference only to the PA Uniform Construction Code and its referenced codes (2009 I-Codes) and that other state and federal laws such as the ADA may affect this project.