Mediation News

Americans With Disabilities Act Mediation Highlights

The ADA Mediation Pro-gram is a Department sponsored initiative intended to resolve ADA complaints in an efficient manner. Mediation cases are initiated upon referral by the Department when both the complainant and the respondent agree to participate. The program utilizes professional mediators who are trained in the legal requirements of the ADA and has proven effective in resolving complaints at less cost and in less time than traditional investigations or litigation. Over 75% of all complaints mediated have been settled successfully.

In this issue, we highlight complaints involving places where people go for fun, entertainment, and exercise.

• In Arizona, an individual whose son uses a wheelchair complained that a bowling alley did not have accessible restrooms. The bowling alley agreed to renovate the restroom to make it accessible and to host a party for the complainant’s son upon completion of the renovation.
• In California, a person with a mobility disability complained that a marina lacked accessible parking. The marina installed two accessible parking spaces in front of the restaurant and an additional accessible space was installed in the area reserved for vehicles towing boats. Because much of the area was gravel, the marina agreed to pave accessible paths of travel from parking to the restaurant, loading ramp, restrooms, and piers. Entrances to the restaurant and restrooms were also modified to increase access. In addition, the respondent paid the complainant $500.
• In California, a disability advocacy group filed a complaint on behalf of a wheelchair user alleging that a bowling alley, which was in the process of being sold, was inaccessible. Both the current and prospective owners participated in mediation and agreed to re-stripe the parking lot to provide van accessible parking and appropriate signage, install a wheelchair lift to the bowling lanes, create an accessible unisex restroom, and install directional signage. In addition, the advocacy group researched and provided the respondent with information about methods for cleaning or covering wheelchair tires to protect the hardwood bowling lanes and about how to interact appropriately with customers with disabilities.
• In Connecticut, an individual with a mobility impairment complained that a golf course denied him access because he uses a service animal. The golf course agreed to give ADA training to its staff and to post a sign at the entrance welcoming service animals and providing the owner’s telephone number in case problems arise in the future.
• In Massachusetts, an individual with a mobility impairment complained that a public golf course’s policies unnecessarily excluded people with disabilities by restricting cart access to certain parts of the course. The golf course agreed to modify the existing policy and developed a written policy providing persons with mobility disabilities access by golf cart to specified areas otherwise off limits. The respondent also apologized to the complainant and offered him a pass for a complimentary round of golf.
• A wheelchair user complained that a South Carolina health club’s entrance was inaccessible. The club installed an accessible ramp.
• The husband of a wheelchair user complained that a Washington ski tour company arranged a trip that included inaccessible hotel and transportation accommodations. The owner of the company agreed in the future to speak directly to any individual with a disability for whom he was making trip arrangements and to confirm, in advance of the travel, that the arrangements would meet the accessibility needs of the traveler. In addition, the tour operator provided the complainant and his family a free week at a condo in the ski area that was the destination of the original trip.

If you decide to retain a mediator in Mississippi and begin the mediation process, Contact our Mississippi Mediaton Lawyer now!

	Did You Know?
	Mediation may not be the most appropriate avenue for resolution in all cases. For example, it may not be appropriate in cases where: A definitive or authoritative resolution of the matter is required; The matter involves or may bear upon significant questions of Government policy that require additional procedures before a final resolution may be made; Maintaining established policies that apply to many people is especially important; The matter significantly affects persons or groups who are not parties to the process; A full public record of the proceeding is important; or The agency must maintain continuing jurisdiction over the matter with authority to alter the disposition of the matter in light of changed circumstances.