A divided Supreme Court has upheld the rights of people with disabilities to sue for damages if states ignore requirements of the landmark 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said the ADA was "an appropriate response" to people being excluded from courthouses and court proceedings because of their disabilities.
States have balked at the ruling, fearing an onslaught of lawsuits for alleged violations of ADA. If nothing else, the ruling should serve as a strong incentive to comply with ADA, which bars discrimination in state government services, programs or activities.
The condition of certain Tennessee courthouses not only prevented plaintiff George Lane from accessing criminal proceedings, they deprived plaintiff Beverly Jones of the opportunity to work as a court reporter. Lane and Jones are paraplegics and use wheelchairs. The Polk County Courthouse, where Lane was to appear in court on reckless driving charges, has no elevator.
More than a decade after the passage of ADA, some states have been slow to create or improve disability access in public buildings. It is regrettable that lawsuits have to be the club to ensure compliance with ADA requirements.
But for Lane, a lack of physical accessibility in the Polk County Courthouse meant Lane was denied access to equal justice. Lane had to crawl up two flights of stairs for his initial appearance on misdemeanor charges because the building lacked an elevator. On his second court appearance, Lane refused to crawl up the stairs or to be carried to the second floor by officers. On subsequent court dates, Lane stayed on the ground floor of the courthouse while his attorney shuttled between the courtroom and Lane in an attempt to represent his client. The judge then ordered that Lane's case was put on hold pending the construction of an elevator.
Meanwhile, Jones lost work because she could not access proceedings in four county courthouses.
While ADA was intended to ensure equal access to government services, programs or activities, the broader effect of the law is that modifications to existing structures or design elements in new construction not only ensure access to people with disabilities, they also assist people pushing baby strollers, senior citizens or people who have sustained injuries and are temporarily disabled. These are important quality-of-life issues.
Hopefully states will view this ruling as a wake-up call and either retrofit or construct government buildings that are accessible to all. States that comply with the provisions of ADA should be able to avert legal problems. If they don't, the affected people deserve the right to seek a legal remedy.