The Seattle Times ran a story this morning about the ADA and the Bush administration’s plan to revamp it in response to the many war veterans who have become disabled in Iraq and Afghanistan. The new standards would require that:

• Courts would have to provide a lift or ramp to ensure that people in wheelchairs could get into the witness stand.
• Auditoriums would have to provide a lift or ramp so wheelchair users could “participate fully and equally in graduation exercises and other events.”
• Any sports stadium with a seating capacity of 25,000 or more would have to provide safety and emergency information by posting written messages on scoreboards and video monitors to alert people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
• Light switches in hotel rooms could not be more than 48 inches high. The current maximum is 54 inches.
• A new swimming pool with a perimeter of more than 300 feet would have to provide “at least two accessible means of entry,” such as a gentle sloping ramp or a chair lift.

Disturbingly, however, small businesses, even with new facilities, can opt out of the standards if they use 1% of their revenue to attempt to become more accessible. Personally, I think that the government has an obligation to its disabled citizens and should provide financial assistance to small businesses to help them become accessible. Especially in this time of struggle, I cannot think of a better reason to require accessibility for small businesses. The construction of lifts and ramps would equate jobs and accessible buildings would equate more potential patrons for small businesses. Seems like a no-brainer for the government to me.

Additionally, the new ADA would potentially be more restrictive in some areas. Wheelchairs and scooters would still be allowed everywhere, but the government could limit the use of golf carts and Segways in indoor areas. The types of animals that could be used as service animals would be limited to, “any dog or other common domestic animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks”.

Thoughts?

If you haven’t heard, Wal-mart has been sued for failing to accommodate and firing a pharmacy worker who became disabled after being shot in a robbery. The woman was still able to do her job but used a cane and required moderate accommodations. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Wal-mart, who is expected to settle out of court for $250,000 in damages and restructure their policies. You can read more on this story here.

Honestly, it’s about time someone went after Wal-mart and their discriminatory practices and horrible business ethics. Evidently this is not the first case this year either. Wal-mart lost another $300,000 earlier this year for another case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It seems it would cost them less to employ better business practices rather than continue to be sued for large sums of money for discrimination. This is absolutely disgusting.