• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Understanding the Impact of State Accessibility Variances on ADA Compliance

There's a common misconception that if a state accessibility regulatory board grants you a variance on an accessibility requirement under state code, you're in the clear. But here's the critical truth: a state variance does not relieve you from your obligations under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA is a federal law, and federal law supersedes state law. This means that even if your state gives you a pass on certain accessibility features, you could still be on the hook under the ADA.

Think about it—state agencies can adjust or waive requirements within their own codes, but they don't have the authority to override federal law. The Department of Justice (DOJ) enforces the ADA, and they're not bound by state-level variances. So, if your property doesn't meet ADA standards, you're exposed to potential enforcement actions by the DOJ or lawsuits from individuals who experience discrimination due to lack of access. Simply put, a state variance might make you compliant locally, but it doesn't shield you from federal scrutiny.

Property owners need to exercise due diligence. It's essential to understand that compliance is a dual obligation: you must meet both state and federal requirements. Consulting with legal experts or accessibility consultants who are well-versed in ADA compliance is a smart move. They can help you navigate the nuances between state and federal laws, ensuring that you're not inadvertently leaving yourself vulnerable. In cases where state and federal requirements differ, it's wise to adhere to the more stringent standard—that way, you're covering all your bases.

Don't fall into the trap of assuming that a state variance is a free pass. Misunderstandings in this area can lead to costly legal battles, mandatory retrofits, and damage to your reputation. Beyond the legal implications, there's a broader responsibility to ensure that your property is accessible to all individuals, regardless of ability. Non-compliance not only affects those who are excluded but can also reflect poorly on your commitment to inclusivity.

In summary, while state accessibility variances can offer some flexibility, they do not negate your responsibilities under the ADA. Federal law takes precedence, and the DOJ has the authority to enforce compliance. To protect yourself and do right by the community, make sure you're meeting all applicable accessibility standards. It's not just about avoiding penalties—it's about contributing to a more inclusive society where everyone has equal access.
 
Does anyone know of an ADA civil case that happened because the state accessibility regulatory board granted a variance on an accessibility?

Sort of.

A number of years ago, the DOJ offered to certify state accessibility codes/regulations as "safe harbors" under the ADA. Our State Building Inspector at the time looked into this and decided not to bother. Texas, however, had their accessibility code reviewed and certified by the DOJ.

The mega theater chain, Cinemark, built some new theaters in Texas which were deemed to be 100% in compliance with the Texas accessibility code. Someone complained about something -- sight lines, I believe. The DOJ went after Cinemark. Cinemark's defense, unsurprisiongly, was "We designed to the Texas accessibility code, which you certified as being equivalent to the ADA."

The DOJ's response was, essentially, "Oh, we said that? Just kidding."

Cinemark spent serious money modifying a number of new theaters in Texas (and elsewhere) because of this debacle.



The important thing here is that the DOJ had certified the Texas accessibility standards, and the DOJ did NOT dispute that the new Cinemark theaters in Texas met the Texas accessibility standards. Basically, the DOJ's position boiled down to "Yes, we certified your standards, but we didn't mean it." So the "safe harbor" wasn't very safe.
 
The only true "safe harbor" in ADA is when someone sues you and you prevail in civil court.

Remember, an ADA lawsuit has to do with someone alleging discrimination on the basis of their disability.
2010 ADA Standards are merely one published document that has been reviewed by the DOJ, and complying with them is a way of saying you did not intend to discriminate. However, society's notion of what constitutes discrimination changes over time. Cinemark's sightline issue wasn't a problem, until it was.
 
Remember, an ADA lawsuit has to do with someone alleging discrimination on the basis of their disability.
2010 ADA Standards are merely one published document that has been reviewed by the DOJ, and complying with them is a way of saying you did not intend to discriminate. However, society's notion of what constitutes discrimination changes over time. Cinemark's sightline issue wasn't a problem, until it was.

And the DOJ (and the Access Board) change their minds from time to time.

I'm old enough that I was working as an architect when the ADA and the original ADAAG standards came out. Where the ADA requires non-discrimination for "sight lines" in theater and stadium seating, everyone in the design community immediately thought that meant we couldn't just cluster all the wheelchair spaces in one part of the seating area, they had to be distributed among the cheap seats and the expensive seats, and on the sides of the audience as well as in the center. NOBODY considered that this might mean a 5-foot tall person sitting in a wheelchair should be able to see over Kareem Adbul Jabaar or Wilt Chamberlain if they were seated in front of you and stood up to get a better view of a crucial play.

But ... someone sued a sports arena over just that issue. The architects were Ellerbe Becket, a prominent and excellent design firm. I have worked on theaters. I remember the cross-section drawings we made showing people seated in rows, demonstrating to our satisfaction that the angle of the base floor under the seats allowed everyone to see over the heads of the people in front of them -- IF everyone was sitting in their seats and IF everyone was average height. I have no doubt that Ellerbe Becket did their due diligence and performed similar analyses when they designed sports arenas.

But then came the lawsuit. The DOJ came into court and argued that if someone stood up in front of a wheelchair space, the person in the wheelchair should be able to see over the person who stood up in front of them. Here's where the government's duplicity comes in. The DOJ introduced into evidence a guidance document showing that exact situation. The diagram was created after the date of the lawsuit. It didn't exist when Ellerbe Becket designed the facility, so how could they have been expected to know about it and follow it?

The ADA is a minefield for designers and for building owners. And I say that as a long-time accessibility consultant and advocate. I am 100% in favor of making buildings and services accessible, but when the government moves the goal posts after the kicker has launched the ball -- that's where I draw the line.
 
I remember Welton Becket, then Ellerbe Becket. They got swallowed up by AECOM.
And yes, they got screwed.

These days, when our clients have contract language about ADA compliance, we state that we will comply with the published requirements of the 2010 ADA Standards along with any published interpretations by the US Access Board and any published, binding court precedents that are provided by the Owner and/or their legal counsel to the architect at the conclusion of schematic design.
 
Back
Top