Prospective Physically Handicapped Members Access to Squadron?

[RADIOMAN015]

I recent took over the PAO function for the squadron.  I've got a plan to get us more exposure for recruiting both new senior & cadet members but see one particular challenge.

The problem is, that we occupy office/classroom space provided by the military on the 2nd floor of Hangar facility that has no elevator (only stairs) to get to the 2nd floor.

Historically this hasn't happend in the past, BUT a fear that I have during the recruiting process is that we will get someone who wants to join the program that has a physical limitation that would not allow them to climb stairs.

So when we get a call by a prospective member, do we just state we are on the 2nd floor office area of a hangar and than let them ask additional questions or voice concerns? 

I'm not sure how many CAP units US wide have handicap accessible facilities, but how would this affect the units' compliance with CAPR 36-1, http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R036_001_D6D80CB431788.pdf
which references the DOD directive on this but makes no further mention in the regulation as to specific details on physical limitations    

Perhaps others on the site have some actual experience with this type of challenge.   Please note we do have some members in the unit now that have some disabilities and they are very dedicated members who can be counted upon to do the best they can within their limitations (and I guess we all have limitations)!
RM

[RADIOMAN015]

The problem is, that we occupy office/classroom space provided by the military on the 2nd floor of Hangar facility that has no elevator (only stairs) to get to the 2nd floor.

I'm not sure how many CAP units US wide have handicap accessible facilities, but how would this affect the units' compliance with CAPR 36-1, http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/R036_001_D6D80CB431788.pdf
which references the DOD directive on this but makes no further mention in the regulation as to specific details on physical limitations    
     

Well actually CAPR 36-1, para 3b "Qualified Member with A Disability", seems to give guidance that anyone accepted into the program, with or without reasonable accomodation can perform the essential functions required by the CAP program or activity without endangering the member, other members, or CAP property.
So I would guess it is reasonable for us to state we are on the 2nd floor of a military provided facility with no elevator, and then basically wait for the response.
RM   

[PHall]

As far as I can tell from the information you have provided, CAP is not discriminating here, you're using the facilities provided by the Air Force.
And AFAIK, the Air Force is not bound by the Americans With Disabilities Act.

[RiverAux]

This is a problem for your commander.  Just go out and recruit and if anybody responds that can't make it upstairs, let him and his superiors figure out what to do. 

[RADIOMAN015]

This is a problem for your commander.  Just go out and recruit and if anybody responds that can't make it upstairs, let him and his superiors figure out what to do.

It's best to be in the proactive prevention of problems mode, especially in public relations. (Our purpose is to portray the organization at it best).    The last thing we need is for someone not to get screened properly and physically show up at our parking lot but not be able to get up to the offices.  This would be a lose, lose situation regardless of any regulation or policy. 
Like I stated in the first post, this hasn't been a problem in the unit, that I am aware of.  It will be presented to our sq commander as a "what if" boss.
RM

[RiverAux]

There is no way to be "proactive" here unless you move the squadron to a handicapped accessible building, which is probably what any CAP squadron in a similar situation should be looking at doing anyway. 

Just what are you proposing to do in terms of public affairs?  Mention in your news releases that wheelchair bound people are welcome to join, they just won't be able to participate in squadron meetings unless they crawl up the stairs? 

[RADIOMAN015]

There is no way to be "proactive" here unless you move the squadron to a handicapped accessible building, which is probably what any CAP squadron in a similar situation should be looking at doing anyway. 

Just what are you proposing to do in terms of public affairs?  Mention in your news releases that wheelchair bound people are welcome to join, they just won't be able to participate in squadron meetings unless they crawl up the stairs?

We have no intention on asking to be moved to another facility on base.  We have one of the best military provided facilities in the region.

The news release will be very generic.   Since we are on a secure military installation certain procedures have to be followed to visit us.   HOWEVER, the designated squadron members calling back the prospective members to coordinate the visit, are going to have to mention that we are on the 2nd floor of a building, with stair access only.   Than if there's a problem (with the prospective member being unable to climb the stairs), they can give it to the Squadron Commander to figure out.  (BTW There's another squadron within about 12 miles of us that is on a first floor facility).

We probably won't have any issues with this anyways (since historically there hasn't been an issue) and the CAP regulations appears to be supportive to what units have available to them for meeting facilities versus being forced to find ADA compliant facilities.

BTW There was a device invented by the Segway Company see
http://arthritis.about.com/cs/assist/a/stairclimbwc.htm
HOWEVER, I believe it has been pulled from the market.

RM     

[capchiro]

You obviously don't have one of the best military provided facilities in the region.  You don't even have a facility that meets CAPR-36-1.  If a member shows up to visit your squadron in a wheelchair, you may be unpleasantly surprised at the outcome.  To be proactive you need to begin looking for solutions, ie, making your locations handicap accesible or finding a different location on base.  I am sure the Base Commander will be glad to help with either one.  The Base Commander will not be amused when he and his facility are involved in an ADA suit.  Just by using your current facilities you are discouraging disabled people from visiting and joining.  You are doing a disservice to CAP and should be dinged on an IG Inspection.. By the way, by telling people that you meet on the second floor is not an answer to the problem, but an invitation to the lawsuit..

[Ned]

Colonel,

I truly admire your unique skillset as a health professional and a lawyer, but are you suggesting that CAP has to make accomodations for folks who haven't even applied for membership?

Why do you think the ADA applies to federal military facilities in the first place?

Would you argue that CAP cannot have encampments in a military barracks that is not wheelchair accessible because somebody might join someday that needs such an accomodation?

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[capchiro]

If there is the appearance that a disabled person may not be offered accomodations and that appearance would make a person feel that they are not welcome to become a member, you have a potential problem.  And if you have a disabled cadet applying for an encampment, you should make sure "reasonable accomodations" are being made.  As you well know, the courts have held the reasonable accomodation standard to be beyond absurd so you must (as we like to say) Govern Yourself Accordingly..  I have seen what I consider to be poor court decisions involving these matters, but the court is very, very supportive of ADA and cost is usually a very small consideration in these matters,  It is based upon political correctness and not necessarily common sense..  It is what it is.. CAP is also very supportive of ADA in the matters I have seen discussed at National level.  After all, we are a civilian corporation..  Meeting on a military base doesn't remove our liability..

[lordmonar]

The ADA only requires "resonable accomidations".

Even if CAP owned the upstars part of the hanger we would not be required to do anything more then what is considered reasonable.

No one is going to expect us to put in $10000 elivator or buy a new building.

So...don't sweat it.

[capchiro]

Ned and Major, perhaps you need to review the letter/memo our National Commander issued on February 15, 2010 and March 12, 2010 regarding this matter.  This is to be posted at every squadron.  Also, a $10,000.00  elevator is much less expensive than the attorney fees to defend this.. Gentlemen, this is nothing to mess around with.  Talk to your commanders and legal officers..  We as an organization don't need a black eye with this..

[Eclipse]

We, as an organization, also cannot afford to accommodate every person who walks up and asks for membership.

Reasonable accommodation within our abilities is all that is required - you don't move a squadron or shut things down because
you don't have an elevator.

There's a difference between active discrimination and inability to accommodate.

And yes, the only opinions in this that matter are the Legal Officers.

[Ned]

Harry,

Thanks for the tip.  I have reviewed the letters and have worked a number of these issues in a CAP context.

My point is that I think you may have put the cart before the horse.  We can and should make reasonable accomodations for members.

We need not, nor should we spend members money to accomodate non-members or unidentified persons who may not even know we exist.

It is just silly to require  a unit to uproot from a modern government facility because someday someone with an unspecified disability might want to join the unit.  Especially without knowing if equivalent accessible facilities are reasonably available.  Even if the ADA applies, it only requires reasonable accomodation on a case-by-case basis.

Would you agree?

[capchiro]

Ned, Respectfully, I would disagree, and upon reading our National Commander's Memo, you will see she does also.  The specific words "potential members" pretty much covers it, wouldn't you agree?

[PHall]

DOD is exempt from ADA. So your "lawsuit" will get exactly nowhere.
DOD does have a policy to make accommodations for their disabled employees, but it's just that, an internal policy.

[Ned]

Ned, Respectfully, I would disagree, and upon reading our National Commander's Memo, you will see she does also.  The specific words "potential members" pretty much covers it, wouldn't you agree?

No, I read "potential members" as someone who has actually expressed some interest in joining.  Otherwise, how could we possible determine what a "reasonable accomodation" is without knowing what disability we need to accomodate?

Nothing in our policies requires us only to meet in locations that could accomodate every possible disability known to man.  Just ones for our members and identified potential members.

Reasonable?

[FARRIER]

     I don't see Radioman's fear unreasonable. My thought would be to ask the base commander if there was another available place on base that could meet wheel chair requirments. You could actually turn that to a positive and advertise the meeting location as wheelchair accessable.

     I knew a ground school instructor who was wheelchair bound when I worked in the airlines and working in aerospace I've know quite a few wheelchair bound people. Aren't these the people we are looking for in an aviation organization?

[tdepp]

Ned and Major, perhaps you need to review the letter/memo our National Commander issued on February 15, 2010 and March 12, 2010 regarding this matter.  This is to be posted at every squadron.  Also, a $10,000.00  elevator is much less expensive than the attorney fees to defend this.. Gentlemen, this is nothing to mess around with.  Talk to your commanders and legal officers..  We as an organization don't need a black eye with this..

As an attorney who litigates discrimination cases, $10K in legal fees would be a bargain.  Multiply by 2.5 to 5 and you have a closer figure on attorneys fees to defend the matter should it go to trial.  (I have no opinion on whether ADA applies to CAP or the USAF but you can bet I'll be doing some research just to be proactive. ) The scenario poses a interesting situation.  My own squadron is on the second floor of a hangar with no elevator so I'd like to know what we should do if the the situation arises.  Our HQ is not on USAF or ANG property but airport property that is owned by a private company. 

Apart from the legal ramifications, however, I think it just makes good sense and is good manners to have a facility that is accessible to people with disabilities.  What if our next mayor of Sioux Falls was wheel chair bound and we wanted him/her to visit our squadron?  One of our S.D. U.S. Senators, Tim Johnson, relies on a scooter to get around after his stroke.  I'd hate to tell him, "Sorry Senator, but we can't get you into our squadron ready room.  Mind if we carry you up the stairs?"  So it's not just members or potential members but all the public we need to think about.  We want people to think (and know as true) that we are a modern organization that is accessible to our citizens--you know, the people we serve?

[capchiro]

Gentlemen, I feel the public are our "potential members" and Senator Johnson could very easily belong to our Congressional Squadron, so it would be nice to accomodate him.  I have made my opinions known and feel very comfortable with them.  You are all entitled to your own opinions.  Please remember that your CAP Legal Officer represents the Corporation and not you or your squadron..  National is their client.. And as they say, Be careful out there..

[tdepp]

Gentlemen, I feel the public are our "potential members" and Senator Johnson could very easily belong to our Congressional Squadron, so it would be nice to accomodate him.  I have made my opinions known and feel very comfortable with them.  You are all entitled to your own opinions.  Please remember that your CAP Legal Officer represents the Corporation and not you or your squadron..  National is their client.. And as they say, Be careful out there..

Chiro:
Good points.  Not only do I have my own chain of command legal officer-wise, they are also lawyers as well!  And while I only advise my squadron and wing (so far), National is ultimately the "client."  We're kind of like H.R. at a company; members might ask for advice and help but ultimately we look out for the organization's best interests.  That isn't always a fun position to be in but I knew the "job" was dangerous when I took it.

And, Chiro, as I think you at least imply, it is usually cheaper, less stressful, and better public relations to be proactive on legal issues like this rather than end up in litigation.  While I make part of my living as a litigator, avoiding legal problems or controversies when possible is usually a better solution.  Litigation is like having cancer: you don't know what the outcome will be, it is stressful, expensive, and painful. 

Obviously, any squadron, group, or wing that's looking at new office or meeting space should consider accessibility for the reasons noted above. 

[PA Guy]

If a squadron is meeting out of the trunk of the commander's car and are offered a facility that is non ADA compliant they should turn it down? Or, the only facility for the Wing's encampment isn't ADA compliant they should cancel the encampment? Should our corp. AC be accessable? Should all of our vans have lifts?

What was that about "reasonable".

[Spike]

I would approach the base liaison Officer and discuss this situation.  Different accommodations could probably be found.  They may not be ideal, but Radio wants a solution to a situation that probably won't exist, so lets give him one. 

[FARRIER]

Should our corp. AC be accessable?

http://www.wheelchairaviators.org/info_faqs.html

Out of CAP's total membership, how many are form five rated pilots - I've heard 6%.

[RiverAux]

A squadron in our wing has a very similar situation with their facility and I know that this issue was discussed before they ever moved in and the legal opinion given at that time was to not to worry about it (I'm paraphrasing).

Ned, I'm not sure I would call this a modern government facility since it is not handicapped accessible. 

[a2capt]

..and just what is the matter with "here, we can carry you up/in/out/whatever?" anyway?

Of course, there brings a whole other issue of legal worries.

This is another case where the minority rules the majority.

We have this wheelchair bound lawyer, locally, that runs around places and then files suits because he can't get in, 24 car lots in one weekend, nearly every business in a small gold rush era tourist trap town, (his weekend was "ruined" because he couldn't get into all these places) ..

Thats way beyond reasonable. The buildings are from the 1800's, most on the historic register of somewhere, and it might as well be the hysteric register.

The OP actually didn't say it was an issue, just thought about it. 

[lordmonar]

There is proactive and then there is just stupid.

First.....there are thousands of squadrons....if each one of them was proactive and did the minimum to make sure that their buildings were accessable.....How many THOUSANDS of dollars are going to be spent?  Who is going to pay for it?  What are the guide lines?

Second...reasonable accommodation.  If you meet in the loft over the hangar.....it is unreasonable to expect you to intall a $10,000 chair lift for one person.  CAP is a volunteer organisation, not employment.  No one has a right to join.  We have an internal policy  to accommodate....but no one has a civil right to join.

If someone with special needs wants to join you work with that individual to see what accommodations can be made....and you seek help from wing. 

Don't be building wheel chair ramps just in case maybe someday you will get someone in a wheel chair who may join CAP.   That would just be stupid.

[capchiro]

First, just what is the inter-anal policy you speak of?  That sounds either entertaining or downright scary depending on your viewpoint..  Second, I think you might just be surprised to find out that both the ADA and National would consider that disabled people do have a "right" to join CAP.  We actually have a Col. in charge of EEOC and most people in the know feel that an ounce of prevention in this area is worth many pounds of cure..  And remember, "Stupid is as Stupid does"..

[Spike]

..and just what is the matter with "here, we can carry you up/in/out/whatever?" anyway?

Of course, there brings a whole other issue of legal worries.

This is another case where the minority rules the majority.

We have this wheelchair bound lawyer, locally, that runs around places and then files suits because he can't get in, 24 car lots in one weekend, nearly every business in a small gold rush era tourist trap town, (his weekend was "ruined" because he couldn't get into all these places) ..

That's way beyond reasonable. The buildings are from the 1800's, most on the historic register of somewhere, and it might as well be the hysteric register.

The OP actually didn't say it was an issue, just thought about it.

Really?!?!  His case would have gone nowhere since buildings built after the ADA law took effect had to incorporate the changes and only certain buildings or establishments had to make the improvement.  There were "grandfather clauses" built into ADA specifically for this situation.

I remember reading about people like him going out and trying to sue everyone and everything.  They are called slimeballs, and should be shipped to a country that treats disabled persons worse than anyone in the US ever would. 

[davedove]

Yeah, the one's who run go around looking for excuses to sue are slimeballs in my view.

So much more is accomplished when everyone works together.  When the ADA was passed, most businesses found it easiest when they asked disabled customers what would make it easier for them, with the solutions sometimes amazingly simple.

For example, one bank was concerned their counters were too high for wheelchair-bound customers to write on.  Rather than immediately start worrying about having to lower their counters (and the cost associated with that) they simply asked these customers for a possible solution.  The answer the customers provided:  provide clipboards that they could write on.

[lordmonar]

That's the solution.....working with the individual members who join and have special needs.

Shouting that each and every squadron needs to make their meeting place accessable before hand is just silly.

A) Where is the money comming from?
B) What about units that meet in facilities they don't own?
C) What sort of timelines and complainace standards are we going to have to meet? (There are more disabilities then just being wheel chair bound).

The killer is A and B.

Most units do not own the property the meet at.  Most may have  space or even a building loaned to us by some other agency or group.  We simply can't go around making modifications to them with out permission.

The other killer is money....who pays for it?  I know my squadron does not have the money to put in a simple ramp....let alone an elevator!  Do we sell off planes to pay for wheel chair ramps?

[RiverAux]

Shouting that each and every squadron needs to make their meeting place accessable before hand is just silly.

You would agree that regardless of whether it is required of CAP or not, that having all CAP facilities be handicapped accessible should be our long term goal? 

[tdepp]

Wouldn't want the law, the regulations, or the facts get in the way of the discussion.  Here's the federal government's compliance manual for public accommodations: http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html

[a2capt]

http://www.nctimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/article_e34176dd-050a-5c2d-a642-95bfa9aa82af.html

Basically..

http://www.google.com/search?q=theodore%20pinnock

Julian, a gold rush area tourist trap, famous for the old west feeling, and Apple Pie.

One weekend it was 20 car dealers. He's famous for picking out a theme, another it was mom & pop restaurants.   You'd never know when you were gonna get shopped around here. Dude was even proven to not have actually been to some of the places he filed suit against, just sent in scouts "nope, you won't fit in here.. "  everything from the toilet paper is too high, the sink hasn't got the insulator over the drain pipe. A pyramid display of Coke to the side of the aisle, the buttons on a 40 year old elevator too high. (A stick on a chain is present, too, to push said buttons. Dude sued, saying he felt out of place using the stick)

The diaper looking thing you see on the under-sink drain elbows? So a wheel chair person doesn't burn their .. legs.

Now.. tell me, the water in the sink, thats coming out raw, that won't burn you, but the drain will? OMG.

Just like the first article link says, Turning the ADA into an ATM. This guy is still at it to a smaller degree, he's probably on everyones [Filter Subversion] list too. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason" .. sounds like a good starting point. Too bad it's not that simple.

We are fairly shielded by the DoD on this stuff, but for those units that meet in donated space like a barely leasable unit in a shopping center..  there's a bit more exposure. I'd go with the reasonable approach though, you tried.

Really, is there anything wrong with providing physical assistance? "Ring the bell for assistance", and two or three can just carry up the chair if thats whats needed?

[lordmonar]

Shouting that each and every squadron needs to make their meeting place accessable before hand is just silly.

You would agree that regardless of whether it is required of CAP or not, that having all CAP facilities be handicapped accessible should be our long term goal?

No.....got better things to spend the money on.

I would first make sure that all our aircraft were properly hangared, each wing has it's own facility and we have regional encampment/training facilities before I spent money on making sure existing faculties were retrofitted with handicapped accessibility.

[lordmonar]

Wouldn't want the law, the regulations, or the facts get in the way of the discussion.  Here's the federal government's compliance manual for public accommodations: http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html

Non-applicable.....CAP is not a public accommodation.

[RiverAux]

Did I say we were going to need to spend gadzillions of dollars?  What we're talking about here is moving to adequate facilities over the long term when the opportunity arises.

No one is suggesting we spend 100K to put an elevator in somewhere.  But, we should be on the lookout to move to a facility that doesn't have that problem. 

[lordmonar]

Oh...of course I believe that if CAP were to start funding/finding facilities for new and existing units....we should strive for those that ARE ADA complaint.  I thought you were suggesting that CAP start funding the modification of existing facilities.  My bad.

[jimmydeanno]

Common sense tells us that two locations, both of equal size, space and condition that only have the difference of being more handicapped accessible that we should take the latter.  However, given the option of having no meeting place or one that isn't accessible, the latter would take precedence. 

Military facilities that are designed to provide services to handicapped people make the buildings accessible (BX, Commissary, MPF, Hospital, Vet, Golf Course, Marinas, Clinics, etc).  When your NAF funding is dependent largely on retirees (of whom, a large number have disabilities) it makes sense to provide those accommodations.

My last squadron met in the same type of location that yours does (second floor of a maintenance hangar with steep concrete stairs leading up).  Certainly, the base is not going to put an elevator or 3000' wheelchair ramp to accommodate a volunteer tenant unit.  We had plenty of folks with disabilities (no wheelchairs) and unfortunately it was difficult for them to get upstairs.  However, it wasn't something that a helpful arm couldn't fix...

However, it couldn't hurt to ask if there is space available somewhere else that could be used.

[tdepp]

Wouldn't want the law, the regulations, or the facts get in the way of the discussion.  Here's the federal government's compliance manual for public accommodations: http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html

Non-applicable.....CAP is not a public accommodation.

Please cite me to the law, regulation, or case law (or even a law journal article) that says that.  I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like a citation so I know where to go for an answer if or when this comes up under my watch.  If you're thinking CAP falls under the "private club" provisions, I think that would be a specious argument.  But I'm here to learn.  Education me.  Thanks.

[lordmonar]

In my non-lawer opinion we either fall in the private club category......AND we do not fit any of the 12 categories cited in para III 1-2000.

[lordmonar]

And from the ADA link provided.

Are public accommodations required to retrofit existing buildings by adding elevators? A public accommodation generally would not be required to remove a barrier to physical access posed by a flight of steps, if removal would require extensive ramping or an elevator. The readily achievable standard does not require barrier removal that requires extensive restructuring or burdensome expense. Thus, where it is not readily achievable to do, the ADA would not require a public accommodation to provide access to an area reachable only by a flight of stairs.

So....there you go....even if we are a public accommodation.....most units would be covered under the burdenson expense rule.   If you assume that most units only have a few hundred to a few thousand dollars in their coffers....even a $1000 ramp job could be considered a burdensome expense.

[PHall]

Wouldn't want the law, the regulations, or the facts get in the way of the discussion.  Here's the federal government's compliance manual for public accommodations: http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html

Non-applicable.....CAP is not a public accommodation.

Please cite me to the law, regulation, or case law (or even a law journal article) that says that.  I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like a citation so I know where to go for an answer if or when this comes up under my watch.  If you're thinking CAP falls under the "private club" provisions, I think that would be a specious argument.  But I'm here to learn.  Education me.  Thanks.

Or you could provide a little case law on any ADA lawsuits against CAP or even the Air Force.

[tdepp]

In my non-lawer opinion we either fall in the private club category......AND we do not fit any of the 12 categories cited in para III 1-2000.

Lord:

Thanks for the reference.  I think you make a good point.  I'm going to repost the section from the fed's ADA manual that you're referring to so our players at home can follow along:

III-1.2000 Public accommodations. The broad range of title III obligations relating to "places of public accommodation" must be met by entities that the Department of Justice regulation labels as "public accommodations. " In order to be considered a public accommodation with title III obligations, an entity must be private and it must --

    Own;

    Lease;

    Lease to; or

    Operate

    a place of public accommodation.

    What is a place of public accommodation? A place of public accommodation is a facility whose operations --

    Affect commerce; and

    Fall within at least one of the following 12 categories:

        1) Places of lodging (e.g. , inns, hotels, motels) (except for owner-occupied establishments renting fewer than six rooms);

        2) Establishments serving food or drink (e.g. , restaurants and bars);

        3) Places of exhibition or entertainment (e.g. , motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, stadiums);

        4) Places of public gathering (e.g. , auditoriums, convention centers, lecture halls);

        5) Sales or rental establishments (e.g. , bakeries, grocery stores, hardware stores, shopping centers);

        6) Service establishments (e.g. , laundromats, dry-cleaners, banks, barber shops, beauty shops, travel services, shoe repair services, funeral parlors, gas stations, offices of accountants or lawyers, pharmacies, insurance offices, professional offices of health care providers, hospitals);

        7) Public transportation terminals, depots, or stations (not including facilities relating to air transportation);

        8) Places of public display or collection (e.g. , museums, libraries, galleries);

        9) Places of recreation (e.g. , parks, zoos, amusement parks);

        10) Places of education (e.g. , nursery schools, elementary, secondary, undergraduate, or postgraduate private schools);

        11) Social service center establishments (e.g. , day care centers, senior citizen centers, homeless shelters, food banks, adoption agencies); and

        12) Places of exercise or recreation (e.g. , gymnasiums, health spas, bowling alleys, golf courses).

Can a facility be considered a place of public accommodation if it does not fall under one of these 12 categories? No, the 12 categories are an exhaustive list. However, within each category the examples given are just illustrations. For example, the category "sales or rental establishments" would include many facilities other than those specifically listed, such as video stores, carpet showrooms, and athletic equipment stores.

What if a private entity operates, or leases space to, many different types of facilities, of which only relatively few are places of public accommodation? Is the whole private entity still a public accommodation? The entire private entity is, legally speaking, a public accommodation, but it only has ADA title III obligations with respect to the operations of the places of public accommodation.

I think an argument could me made that CAP could fall under 4, 10, and 11 above, based on our status and missions.  But your point of view is not unreasonable either that we don't fit. 

I would be interested in knowing if there has been litigation against CAP or at least a charge of discrimination filed based on accessibility via the ADA 

To everyone who has commented on this subject, I want to thank you.  It has given me a lot to think about and research when I get a few free minutes.  And Lord, thanks for responding in the spirit in which I asked.

[tsrup]

  But I'm here to learn.  Education me.  Thanks.

Well first lesson, it's "Educate"..

[tdepp]

  But I'm here to learn.  Education me.  Thanks.

Well first lesson, it's "Educate"..

Rup:
Next time I see you, no free beer for you! 
Thanks for the catch.  I'll make the change.

[tdepp]

Wouldn't want the law, the regulations, or the facts get in the way of the discussion.  Here's the federal government's compliance manual for public accommodations: http://www.ada.gov/taman3.html

Non-applicable.....CAP is not a public accommodation.

Please cite me to the law, regulation, or case law (or even a law journal article) that says that.  I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like a citation so I know where to go for an answer if or when this comes up under my watch.  If you're thinking CAP falls under the "private club" provisions, I think that would be a specious argument.  But I'm here to learn.  Educate me.  Thanks.

My corrected version thanks to the Rupster.

[Rotorhead]

I recent took over the PAO function for the squadron. 

How can someone with such a demonstrated dislike for Civil Air Patrol be tasked to represent it?

[Eclipse]

[tdepp]

I recent took over the PAO function for the squadron. 

How can someone with such a demonstrated dislike for Civil Air Patrol be tasked to represent it?

I guess I'm not seeing how RM is a hater on CAP.  I think he voiced a valid concern about handicap accessibility to our meetings (or at least his/her squadron's meetings).   And what the rest of our were trying to sort out was what, if any legal responsibility, does CAP have to comply with the ADA.  And others of us, including RM said, regardless of the ADA, shouldn't we strive to be accessible?  Others pointed out the costs of compliance or adaptation of facilities.  All good points in rebuttal. 

I thought RM started a healthy discussion that members have reasonably commented on, even those with whom I disagree.

[necigrad]

..and just what is the matter with "here, we can carry you up/in/out/whatever?" anyway?

Working for a major airline, I can say I have firsthand experience in doing this.  It sucks.  Some people are quite heavy, some people can't carry loads (especially up stairs).  It's also VERY scary for the person being carried.  Airlines are (to my knowledge) no longer doing this for these reasons, plus the liability of the person being dropped.

The bottom line is that the law is murky at best.  Consult with your Wing LO.  Let them decide what to do and take the heat for that decision.  In the mean time I'd not worry about it until the problem comes up.  At the worst you can explain the problem (it's never been a problem so far), offer your apologies, and be quite emphatic that you WANT this person as a member and will work with them and CAP to see if a good solution can be reached.

[Rotorhead]

I recent took over the PAO function for the squadron. 

How can someone with such a demonstrated dislike for Civil Air Patrol be tasked to represent it?

I guess I'm not seeing how RM is a hater on CAP. 

Check out his "body of comments" on this board over the last couple of years or so.
You'll see what I mean.

[RADIOMAN015]

How can someone with such a demonstrated dislike for Civil Air Patrol be tasked to represent it?

I guess I'm not seeing how RM is a hater on CAP. 

Check out his "body of comments" on this board over the last couple of years or so.
You'll see what I mean.

I'm sure I will do a fine job as the unit's PAO :angel:

To a certain extent I've "baited" the forums since joining, BUT my purpose is to spark serious debate. :angel:

I've come to understand those that have a very strong interest in purchasing wearing AF type uniforms (I think you will find an apology to what I so called termed "wannabees" in my more recent posts.

So what is, is and life inside & outside CAP goes on

RM

[heliodoc]

Scott

Just because someone has an opinion on CAPTalk, the world's reknown source on alll things CAP.......

RADIOMAN or just about anyone can (provide the training) can become a great PAO....they are not born......

I attended FEMA's G290 Basic PIO Course approx 3weeks ago myself..........once you know a script, once you know the mission/ incident, anyone and I mean anyone can get in front of a camera or write a news release with  all the  5W's and 1H and review it before going to press

Now whether or not someone stays PAO or not...that's another story.  But with all the "JOBS " in CAP....why not try and see what one is good at?

You saying RADIOMAN can not or should not serve as a CAP PAO type?  Sounds like a challenge to me, my man

We and I ought be looking out for good work from that guy.  Opinions on CAPtalk do not necessarily reflect the true ability of a individual, whatsoever.....sound like some "corporate or lawyer type " disclaimers,eh?

CAPTalk.....where sensitivities to CAP run at an unnecessarily high OPTEMPO