The previous article talked about who has to prove what in a case where someone is asking for an accommodation under the ADA. This article focuses on what the person asking for the accommodation has to prove and gives some guidelines for how the burden of proof is divided between the parties.
In one court case, a man with diabetes wanted to work at one of his company’s locations near a good hospital. The court said he had to show that this accommodation was reasonable. The company didn’t argue that it wasn’t reasonable, so the burden of proof shifted to them to prove that it would cause too much trouble for them. In the Borkowski v. Valley Central School District case, the court said that the student only had to suggest that she needed a teacher’s assistant as an accommodation. This suggestion was enough to show that she was asking for a reasonable accommodation, which is not a difficult thing to do. After that, it was up to the school district to prove that providing the accommodation would be too hard for them. They had to look at different factors, like what kind of school they were and the specific characteristics of the student. In Staron v. McDonaldâs, the plaintiffs, who had asthma, couldn’t go to McDonaldâs because of smoking. They wanted a ban on smoking or changes to let them in. The court said they didn’t have to pick one change and that they could try different changes in court. In Johnson v. Gambrinus, a man with a service dog was not allowed on a brewery tour. The court said he didn’t have to prove there were no problems and the brewery had to show there were problems. The court also said the man didn’t have to say exactly what changes the brewery had to make. In a case in the 10th Circuit, the court was tough on the plaintiff who wanted a building to install a ramp for people with disabilities. The plaintiff’s expert only had a conceptual drawing of the ramp and didn’t have detailed plans or cost estimates. The court said the plaintiff didn’t show enough evidence that the ramp could actually be built, and made the plaintiff prove a specific design was possible, rather than just coming up with ideas. In the first case, the court ruled that the employee needed to suggest a reasonable accommodation for her condition, rather than just asking for one. In the second case, wheelchair users wanted better access to a gaming cruise ship, but their proposed solutions didn’t take into account the changing tide or the ship’s main purpose as a gaming venue. They also didn’t suggest a reasonable way to make an observation area accessible. The court did not agree with the plaintiffs’ suggestions to lower the cash counter or the craps tables for accessibility reasons because it would be too expensive and could change the games too much. It seems like the court put all the responsibility on the plaintiffs to prove their suggestions were reasonable, without requiring the defendant to prove it would be too hard or change the games too much. Another case had a similar outcome, saying that not following ADA guidelines doesn’t automatically mean a violation of the law, and the plaintiff has to show that fixing the issues is achievable. The plaintiffs wanted the stadium to have more wheelchair-accessible seating, but the court said they didn’t prove that the current seating wasn’t enough or that their plan would make things better. The court also said the plaintiffs didn’t show a realistic plan for making the restrooms accessible. Different cases have different rules, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff (the person making the complaint) to prove their case. Basically, when someone is suing for not being accommodated under the ADA, they just need to say that they need an accommodation and that one is available. They don’t have to get too specific. In some cases, the person being sued will have to prove why the accommodation isn’t reasonable. But in cases where the requested accommodation is not required by the ADA, the person suing will have to show special circumstances why they need it. In cases where a building doesn’t follow accessibility standards, the plaintiff just needs to ask for it to be fixed to make their case. The defendant then has to prove why it would be too difficult for them to do. For example, if a restaurant doesn’t have accessible seating, the plaintiff’s case is likely to be obvious. The defendant would then have to prove why it’s too hard for them to make the seating accessible. If the defendant claims that making a change would fundamentally change the business, they have to prove it unless it’s immediately obvious. For example, in the case of the craps tables at Concorde Gaming, it seems like adding a rail around the table wouldn’t fundamentally change how the game is played. So the defendant should have to prove why they can’t make the change. The most difficult type of case is a Title III case where extensive changes are needed, which may seem expensive. The plaintiff has to show that the changes are feasible and reasonable. The court has different standards for what the plaintiff needs to prove, but they all require the plaintiff to show that the changes are reasonable and can be done without too much trouble. In one case, the court said the plaintiff needed to provide specific evidence, like a detailed plan, to show that the changes could be made. This makes it harder for the plaintiff to win the case. In a court case, the defense showed evidence that the wheelchair seating was not being used much. In similar cases, the burden should be on the defendant to prove that there is no need for special aids like hearing devices, accessible rooms in hotels, or accessible parking spaces. In an ADA case, the plaintiff needs to show that a reasonable accommodation is possible. They need to suggest an accommodation that a regular person can understand and is not obviously flawed. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove the reasonableness of the accommodation. Any hidden issues with the accommodation should be the responsibility of the defendant to prove. If the defendant shows there are problems, the plaintiff can try to prove otherwise. However, the burden of proof remains with the defendant. The court may also consider minimal notice pleading, where the complaint just needs a simple statement showing the plaintiff deserves relief. The ADA requires businesses to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. This may involve a formal process to figure out what accommodations are needed. The ADA also provides specific guidelines for things like ramps, restrooms, and parking to make public places accessible. Donald J. Spero is a lawyer who has been practicing for a long time and now works as a mediator. This information comes from the Labor and Employment Law Section. The Florida Bar aims to teach its members about duty and service to the public and to improve the justice system.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/burdens-of-proof-of-reasonableness-and-undue-hardship-under-titles-i-ii-and-iii-of-the-americans-with-disabilities-act-part-ii/
Leave a Reply