Human/Civil Rights Archive

Has ADA Gone Too Far with Poolmageddon?

March 16th, 2012. By AbiK

So pool operators have been given a 60-day extension to come up with an ADA-compliant plan for having public pool access for disabled individuals. The ADA pool access law was passed in 2010; the original deadline to comply with it was March 15, 2012. And somewhere in between, the new ADA pool lift regulation law has earned the moniker, “Poolmageddon”.

Even with the year+ lead time, did anyone really think that every pool affected by the ADA pool access law would a) figure out exactly what the law–the nitty gritty parts one needs to understand in order to comply—meant; and b) be able to source pool lifts, install the pool lifts, train staff, and do whatever else was needed to remain open (or avoid risking a DOJ wrist-slap or worse) by March 15?

One could argue that the public pools had plenty of time to be planning for this—but, if you’re at all familiar with public pool operation, it’s not like money is pouring in, so even a portable pool lift that doesn’t require electrical grounding or ripping up the pool deck can cost in the range of $6,000. Not pocket change for most pools. So it’s easy to see how compliance in providing disabled individuals with pool access may have been pushed to the back burner in many a pool budget meeting.

But once the public pool owners’ and operators’ backs were to the wall, and they had to figure out exactly what was required by the ADA pool accessibility law, well, who knew?

If it weren’t for the fact that ADA compliance is a serious issue—and no one wants to see the rights of a disabled individual curtailed or not honored, nor does anyone what the DOJ breathing down his neck—there would almost be a comical element to pool operators scrambling to figure out what the hell the ADA pool lift law means. There’s even an ADA Pool Lift Regulations group on LinkedIn—and the questions and comments sound in line with someone who’d been dropped into a corn maze at dusk without a flashlight and is screaming for help.

Much of the issue is the wording (ain’t it always so?) of the law. In order to comply, public pool operators must accommodate disabled individuals to the extent that it is “readily achievable” to do so. Uh, yeah. So if cash flow is not readily flowing, does that mean a pool lift is not readily achievable?

In reading a LinkedIn comment, it seems the Assistant AG for the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ responded to the “readily achievable” question posed in a letter from the American Hotel & Lodging Association (AH&LA). The response stated:

“readily achievable [ is,] i.e., easily accomplished without significant difficulty or expense.”
“…portable lifts can be used at existing pools if affixing the portable lift or installing a fixed lift is not readily achievable”, but must be fixed when it is readily achievable.
The DOJ believes that the regulation as written provides the flexibility necessary for these entitles to evaluate whether and how to remove barriers to access and to take only actions that they deem are “readily achievable.”

Hmm. So you’re telling me I have to comply, but I have complete latitude to determine if—based on if I think it’s readily achievable—I will or will not comply—right?

You can see where this is heading, right?

Hello litigation!

There are other rather gray or vague areas to figure out as well—such as whether the need to comply with a pool lift is actually still an issue if you’re pool has a sloping entry. Good question. So it’s a veritable can of worms….

Let us know what you think—keeping in mind the issue is not whether or not disabled individuals should have pool access—they should. The issue is in how it’s regulated.

Tags: ADA, ADA Compliance, Americans with Disabilities Act, DOJ, Pool Lift Regulations
Posted in Discrimination, Human/Civil Rights | 96132 Comments »2012-03-16+14%3A43%3A14AbiK

Open-Season Surveillance: GPS Under the Hood

September 13th, 2010. By Hunter West

How far is too far?

The capacity for a police department to surreptitiously affix a GPS (Global Positioning Satellite) unit under a suspect’s car and track the hapless individual for weeks at a time without his knowledge (and without a warrant) is not only raising the hackles of human rights activists—it’s also fostering disagreements amongst judges.

Either way, the Fourth Amendment needs an overhaul in this day of high-tech, advanced technology.

I suppose there were complaints about this same thing in a bygone era, when telephones were all the rage (land phones, not cell phones) and police figured out that if they tapped into someone’s phone line, they could recover secrets and private conversations (read: evidence) they would otherwise not have access to.

But they needed a warrant for that. And a warrant for searching someone’s premises. Approaching the court and seeking permission to invade the privacy of a suspect for the purpose of an investigation—assuming the police could provide adequate grounds for the request—added a welcome buffer into the mix.

But should the police require a warrant to put a GPS tracking device under someone’s car?

The courts are divided on the differences between long-term, and short-term surveillance.

Traditionally, the Fourth Amendment is held by the courts as not covering the trailing of a Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Fourth Amendment, GPS, Invasion of Privacy, Police, Surveillance
Posted in Emerging Issues, Human/Civil Rights | 48881 Comment »2010-09-13+13%3A27%3A55Hunter+West