Argument related to handicap parking spots in a business This is a situation from 15-20 years ago, but I feel like I never got a real answer: This took place in Redwood City, California. We had a building that could accommodate more or less 500 people and had a large parking associated with it. When we started to use the building, there was no proper markings on the ground; I mean there used to be, but they had faded a long time ago. So new lines were painted and quite soon we got the visit of a few city officials, like the fire marshal, etc for inspections. The city requested we allocate a percentage of the parking spots as handicap spots, nearby the building entrance. We made the argument that there was no employee with disabilities and we'd certainly accommodate if the need would arise. To this they countered than a visitor may need it, but this was a software development place without any visitors and not even a reception desk. To make a long back and forth short.. we had to mark the spots as allocated for handicap. Over time, employees were using them because of the proximity to the entrance and, although no tickets were given, somehow the city got to know about it and told us to not allow this. This was wasting about 10 spaces (don't remember exactly), and anyone from the Bay Area knows how valuable are parking spots there. So, my question: During the 3 years I was involved with the place, these parking spaces had absolutely no utility. There was never any visitor (besides deliveries and there was an area for that) and never a single employee with physical disabilities. I do recognize the importance of these parking spaces where they can be used, but in that case it was wasted space. To be the devil's advocate, it could have been conceivable that a city inspector with disability would have visited us, but certainly not 10 of them at the same time. Are there provisions that would allow to not reserve the spaces for cases that never happen, understanding that these spaces could be created on demand if needed?
No, even if not used, they are explicitly required by federal law! The History of handicapped parking started in the 60s. In the late 1960s, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act banned discrimination against disabilities and then the Amaricans with Disabilities Act entered Congress in 1988. It passed as law in 1990 and included section 4.6 Parking and Passenger Loading Zones (linked in its 1998 revision): 4.6 Parking and Passenger Loading Zones. 4.6.1 Minimum Number. Parking spaces required to be accessible by 4.1 shall comply with 4.6.2 through 4.6.5. Passenger loading zones required to be accessible by 4.1 shall comply with 4.6.5 and 4.6.6. 4.6.2 Location. Accessible parking spaces serving a particular building shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. In parking facilities that do not serve a particular building, accessible parking shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel to an accessible pedestrian entrance of the parking facility. In buildings with multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances. 4.6.4* Signage. Accessible parking spaces shall be designated as reserved by a sign showing the symbol of accessibility (see 4.30.7). Spaces complying with 4.1.2(5)(b) shall have an additional sign &quot;Van-Accessible&quot; mounted below the symbol of accessibility. Such signs shall be located so they cannot be obscured by a vehicle parked in the space. So, how many do you need? Well, 4.6.1 points to 4.1.2 Accessible Sites and Exterior Facilities: (5) (a) If parking spaces are provided for self-parking by employees or visitors, or both, then accessible spaces complying with 4.6 shall be provided in each such parking area in conformance with the table below. Spaces required by the table need not be provided in the particular lot. They may be provided in a different location if equivalent or greater accessibility, in terms of distance from an accessible entrance, cost and convenience is ensured. [table] Except as provided in (b), access aisles adjacent to accessible spaces shall be 60 in (1525 mm) wide minimum. (b) One in every eight accessible spaces, but not less than one, shall be served by an access aisle 96 in (2440 mm) wide minimum and shall be designated &quot;van accessible&quot; as required by 4.6.4. The vertical clearance at such spaces shall comply with 4.6.5. All such spaces may be grouped on one level of a parking structure. The table demands that for 500-1000 2% are handicapped parking. As a result, your 500 parking lots would demand 10 handicapped spots, at least one of which needs to be van accessible.
This recently came up in a local PA homeowner association. Legally they own the roads in their development, but they have erected stop signs to make it clear who has the right of way and asked the township police to enforce them. A resident challenged the right of the police to enforce traffic laws on private property, but lost his appeal (albeit at the municipal level). The judge explained that the residents and any visitors had a reasonable expectation that the traffic signs would be obeyed, and that therefore violating them was just as dangerous as violating them on public roads, and that the same law and penalties would therefore be applied.
I have a really good pizza place near my home but the bastards won't deliver when I go interstate! Now, that's discrimination! Yes, it's discrimination. However, it's not unlawful discrimination. Discrimination is not unlawful unless it is on the basis of a protected class. Geography isn't a protected class of itself. It can be if it's used as a proxy for a protected class, such as excluding certain neighbourhoods which correspond with racial or religious groups, but that's not the case here.
The ADA Standards , in section 226.1 requires that: Where dining surfaces are provided for the consumption of food or drink, at least 5 percent of the seating spaces and standing spaces at the dining surfaces shall comply with 902. Where section 902 gives specifics on the requirements for accessible dining surfaces. It therefore seems that, in order to determine compliance, you would need to know how many dining spaces are available in total, and how many are wheelchair accessible. If less than 5% are accessible then the restaurant is not compliant, otherwise they appear to be OK.
The agency is allowed a reasonable time to implement the request, given the nature of the request and surrounding circumstances. Superficially, it would seem that the request is to continue working at home as has been the case for a couple of years, so the agency would not seem to have to change anything in order to implement the request, and unnecessary delays would be a violation of ADA. There is no fixed time requirement for evaluating and implementing the request.
the first two highlighted parts seem to contradict each other. No, in this case they do not. The first highlighted portion refers to works or items produced "for or under the direction of the Company", whereas the second highlight refers to your creations that satisfy conditions (a) and (b). Where contradictions actually exist, the doctrine of contra proferentem entitles you (the non-draftsman of the contract) to adopt the portion or reasonable interpretation that favors your legal position. Also wondering how valid those statements actually are They are valid and become enforceable as soon as you sign the contract or your subsequent conduct reflects your acceptance thereof. it's a matter of privacy. So the question is what I can do or what the reality is of the situation The reality is that you are asked to sign a contract that is abusive and ridiculous. One vulnerability from describing your inventions (presumably in Appendix A) is that the employer gets "irrevocable, worldwide, etc" rights on them as soon as you "use or disclose any [items listed in Appendix A] when acting within the scope of [your] employment". This means that if instead of reinventing the wheel you share or apply any portion of your prior creations so as to enhance your productivity, you knowingly and irreversibly grant to the employer perpetual rights to those items. Legal disputes regarding APIs can become extremely intricate. And, since judges usually have no decent background on IT, even those few judges with integrity are unlikely to grasp the key subtleties that would lead to a correct ruling. "not useful with or related to any Company Interest" is very vague. The company could be interested in literally anything these days. Clauses which are too vague or excessively wide-encompassing are supposedly stricken as unconscionable, unenforceable, etc. However, I personally would foreclose upfront the risk of judicial hassle and decline the abusive contract. Legal issues aside, keep in mind that you are offering your expertise (in terms of supply &amp; demand, you are on the supply side). This fact has a less derogatory connotation than "asking for a job". Accordingly, the relation between the parties should be more leveled.
This is an amusing idea, but ultimately it seems frivolous: How does one establish the physical presence of a corporation in a car? Yes, corporations have some of the legal rights and liabilities of people, but they are not people. And there are plenty of rights a person has that a corporation does not. For example (at present) a corporation can't be a party to a marriage. The closest a corporation comes to any corporal presence is the address listed of their agents.
You have to start with the pertinent ADA regulations, 28 CFR Part 36, and esp. subpart B which gets to the prohibition. Under §36.201(a), No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any private entity who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. After that under activities, it is stated that A public accommodation shall not subject an individual or class of individuals on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, to a denial of the opportunity of the individual or class to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation. and also A public accommodation shall not afford an individual or class of individuals, on the basis of a disability or disabilities of such individual or class, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, with the opportunity to participate in or benefit from a good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation that is not equal to that afforded to other individuals. moreover &quot;separate but equal&quot; is not allowed. The sign does not articulate any denial of opportunity, so that should be the end of the discussion. OTOH I suspect that a sign saying &quot;Please do not enter this store if you are white&quot; would be held to be discriminatory, as an indirect denial of permission to enter based on race. §36.208 introduces two important exceptions. First, This part does not require a public accommodation to permit an individual to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of that public accommodation when that individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. That means that (irrespective of the fact that covid is not a legal disability) it is legal to exclude direct threats to the health of others. And furthermore, In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, a public accommodation must make an individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best available objective evidence, to ascertain: The nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk. Based on reasonable medical judgment and innumerable official government proclamations, it is reasonable to believe that a person with covid symptoms pose a threat to public health. The law doesn't require you to be omniscient and actually know that customer A has covid and customer B has asthma. §36.301 then says more about possible screening requirements. It is generally expected that everybody knows the law and will follow the law: ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor is it a cause for a discrimination claim. It would not be legal to exclude a person from a public accommodation when they pose no threat to public health. The customer with asthma is expected to know this law, and is expected to not infer incorrectly that the sign implies that he is being illegally excluded. The customer with covid is also expected to know this law, and is expected to know that it refers to him – as is allowed under the law. Potentially illegal discrimination enters the picture once actual exclusion happens, getting you back to &quot;individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment&quot;. A rule that &quot;anybody who coughs gets thrown out&quot; is most likely to not pass muster as a reasonable health-based criterion. Including a temperature scan is likely to put the practice within the realm of the reasonable.