> I can't readily access it, so nobody should have it
Where do you draw the line though? If accessibility is not a requirement of doing business, disabled people can't access a large proportion of places, either out of indifference (it's cheaper) or just not considering it.
> a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities[...], where such removal is readily achievable
with readily achievable meaning:
> easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include—
> (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;
> (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;
> (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities
In addition, for the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2) ("facilities altered [...] must be made readily accessible"), there is a requirement that "such alterations [...] are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope" (I'm unclear on the claim that "the Facility was designed and constructed (or both) after January 26, 1993" as this appears to contradict the article's claim that "her nearly 100 year-old building needed some upgrades").
There does not appear to be any intent to place any undue burden on a business.
Where do you draw the line though? If accessibility is not a requirement of doing business, disabled people can't access a large proportion of places, either out of indifference (it's cheaper) or just not considering it.
Furthermore, the ADA (at 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12182) defines discrimination to include:
> a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities[...], where such removal is readily achievable
with readily achievable meaning:
> easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include—
> (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;
> (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;
> (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities
In addition, for the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2) ("facilities altered [...] must be made readily accessible"), there is a requirement that "such alterations [...] are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope" (I'm unclear on the claim that "the Facility was designed and constructed (or both) after January 26, 1993" as this appears to contradict the article's claim that "her nearly 100 year-old building needed some upgrades").
There does not appear to be any intent to place any undue burden on a business.