Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Chapter 4: DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS ADA Public Accommodations Claims PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Chapter 4: DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS ADA Public Accommodations Claims

Chapter 4: DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS ADA Public Accommodations Claims

1 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Chapter 4: DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS ADA Public Accommodations Claims

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Property II: Class #25Wednesday 11/14/18Power Point PresentationNational Pickle DayWhere There’s a Dill, There’s a Day!!

  2. Chapter 4: DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONSADA Public Accommodations Claims

  3. ADA Public Accommodations ClaimsFiedler Generally • Reas Modification case re placement of spots for wheelchairs in cinema; • Denies D’s Motion for Summary Judgment • 1st two issues are technical & mostly not especially relevant to our work • First: Common kind of statutory jurisd Q. Fed’l Govt activities not covered by ADA (tho other statutes). Court holds lessee from feds running public accommodation is covered by ADA • Second: Fight over meaning of clustering exemption in regs. Admin Law issue re Plausibility of agency reading of reg. Rejects AMC reading of reg (that they can put wheelchair users wherever they want). Note court is pretty contemptuous of this.

  4. ADA Public Accommodations ClaimsFiedler Generally • Reas Modification case re placement of spots for wheelchairs in cinema; • Most significant issue is relevance of direct threat exemoption • As we saw in Dadian, wedetermine"direct threat" after attempts to provide reasaccomm/modif (OR “provision of auxiliary aids or services.“) • Generally statutes require individualized assessment of the nature and extent of danger in relation to the specific disability of the person to be disfavored. • Here, need to look beyond individualized assessment because locations will be for all wheelchair users, not just Marc Fiedler (American Ninja Wheelchair User) • Examples given of rejected direct threat exclusions all suggest that prejudice part of decision • QUESTIONS on FIEDLER?

  5. ADA Public Accommodations ClaimsStaron Generally • 2/93(beginning of Clinton Admin) smoking still allowed in public places • Plaintiffs w respiratory issues sue McDonald’s & Burger King requesting smoking ban in all restaurants in chains. 2d Cir reverses lower court’s dismissing case on pleadings. • Court uses Davis test for reasonableness like Shapiro Smith& Lee etc. • General Q re availability of smoking bans easy b/c ADA explicitly references (also Ds unlikely to win on reasonableness b/c already banned in corporate owned restaurants) • Ds claim other accommodations would serve as well; court says this requires fact-specific inquiry as to whether D’s proposal would serve Ps as well • QUESTIONS?

  6. ADA Public Accommodations Claims DQ4.24: Ramos & Fleming • 4.24. What language and ideas do you see that you might be able to use when analyzing a reasonable accommodation case under the Fair Housing Act? • In Fiedler?

  7. ADA Public Accommodations Claims DQ4.24: Ramos & Fleming • 4.24. What language and ideas do you see that you might be able to use when analyzing a reasonable accommodation case under the Fair Housing Act? • Might use Fielder to show • Meaning of “necessary” for equal oppty to enjoy an (not just seats, but choice of seats) • Dislike for reading of regs to give Providers complete discretion oin how to accommodate PWDs • When to do Individual assessment of reasaccomm & direct threat • Idea of “readily achievable” to help explain administrative burdens • In Staron?

  8. ADA Public Accommodations Claims DQ4.24: Ramos & Fleming • 4.24. What language and ideas do you see that you might be able to use when analyzing a reasonable accommodation case under the Fair Housing Act? • Might use Staron to support need for fact-specific inquiry as to viability of D’s proposal for alternate accommodations (as we did in class with elevator in DQ4.15

  9. DQ4.25 for you on your own.Heart Of Chapter 4 is Determination of What Constitutes “Necessary” and “Reasonable” for Purposes of 3603(f)(3)(A) & (B)As review for Chapter, you should compile for yourself the range of language anf fact situations that cases say meet the tests (or don’t).

  10. Written Submission #5: Due Sunday 11/18 @ 8 pm • Two 3-Page Questions • See Specific Formatting Instructions on p.13 of Overview Memo (Avoid Add’l Penalties) • Other Graded Review Problems E-Mailed to You by Friday @ 5 • Write-Ups of Some Additional Review Problems Posted by Saturday @ 5 (Check course page)

  11. Written Submission #5: Due Sunday 11/18 @ 8 pm • Two 3-Page Questions • (1) Mixed Chapter Exam Question M1B: Is C entitled under 3604(f)(3)(b) to a waiver from the Z rules (as a reasaccomm) to build his ramp in the front of his house. Not REAS MODIF b/c he owns the house. • Assume 3604(f)(3)(b) governs the problem and no exemptions apply. • Assume the Davis test from the Rehab Act generally governs the meaning of “reasonableness” but the specific cases we read are otherwise persuasive rather than binding. • Discuss both necessity and reasonableness. • QUESTIONS ON M1B?

  12. Written Submission #5: Due Sunday 11/18 @ 8 pm • Two 3-Page Questions • (2) Review Problem 3C: Is A entitled to modify the building and/or the parking lot of his NCU restaurant under the legal standard provided? • Although you will not use the legal standards from Gage and Parrillo’s, you can use the analysis, language, and distinctions in those cases to support points you make about the relevant interests of the parties. • Assume that, in order to continue operating a Pizza Knoll outlet, A must offer delivery service and must use the delivery trucks supplied by the national headquarters. • QUESTIONS ON 3C?

  13. Chapter 4: DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONSAdditional ProblemsRev Prob. 4B, Mixed Chapter Q M3(ii)

  14. Rev Prob 4B: Reasonable Modification QMandel & Friends • HAIRSPRAY Q • Would probably be 40 minutes out of 1 hour iussue-spotter. Longer than you’ll get on 3-Page Q • Both ReasModif & ReasAccomm

  15. Rev Prob 4B: Reasonable Modification QMandel & Friends • Reas-Mod is easier Q for C/T because they’d be paying. • Lets Talk About Ramp in Front • Necessary? • To get into building at all? Front v. Back Entrance? • Reasonable? • Assessing Burden • Assessing Fundamental Alteration • We’ll Skip Restoration Q (Discussed Version of This Last Week)

  16. Rev Prob 4B: Reasonable Accommodation QMandel & Friends • Now Turn to ReasAccom claim for Ramp in Front • Presumably “Necessary” Analysis is the Same • Presumably Concerns re Altering Building and Working with Zoning Board are the Same • What Other Info Would You Need to Assess “Undue Hardship” or “Substantial Burden” for ReasAccomm ?

  17. Mixed Chapter Q M3(jj): McLaughlin & Mandel • Cs (married) own split level ranch house on corner lot in residential n-hood. • AC in accident; paralyzed from the waist down; confined to a wheelchair. • House not wheelchair accessible. • Now AC has ad trouble getting into and around house • Architect designed an addition to the house that would include ramps so Andy could get into the house and move between its levels easily. • If the addition is built, 2 Z violations: • house will exceed the maximum area allowable • House will be too close to the street on at least one side. • Addition necessary? Will depend on whether design minimizes floor area while maximizing usefulness of interior space • Addition reasonable? Check fund’l alteration (harm to Z plan)

  18. Finding Your Voice: Final Riff • Where You Are • Where I am (“Refinding my Voice”) • Final Exam & Going Forward

  19. Finding Your VoiceFinal Riff/Final ExamQUESTION 1 QUESTION 2QUESTION 3QUESTION 4 QUESTION 5