You may exclude any animal, including a service animal, from your facility when that animal’s behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others.  For example, any service animal that displays vicious behavior towards staff or members of the public may be excluded.  You may not make assumptions, however, about how a particular animal is likely to behave based on past experience with other animals.  Each situation must be considered individually. Although a court may exclude any service animal that is out of control, it should give the individual with a disability who uses the service animal the option of continuing to conduct his or her business without having the service animal on the premises.

A court must ensure that its communications with individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.  A court must make available appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication.  The type of auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication will vary in accordance with the length and complexity of the communication involved.  The ADA does not require the provision of any auxiliary aid that would result in an undue financial or administrative burden or in a fundamental alteration in the nature of the services of the court.  However, a court is not relieved from the duty to furnish an alternative auxiliary aid, if available, that would not result in a fundamental alteration or undue burden.  Both of these limitations are derived from existing regulations and case law under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and are to be determined on a case-by-case basis.   When providing the auxiliary aid or service, the court must not pass on the costs of these aids to the person with disability, and the court must give primary consideration to the type of aid or service requested by the person with the disability.

Title II’s anti-discrimination provision employs expansive language intended to reach all programs and actions undertaken by public entities.  According to the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, Congress intended Title II—including the terms “services, programs or activities”—to be read broadly to cover every action taken in every forum in which a public entity may function.  Courts, in allowing spectators to attend proceedings, are providing a service, program or activity covered by title II.

Courtroom spectators with disabilities are participants in the court program and are entitled to such aids or services as will afford them an equal opportunity to follow the court proceedings.  The ultimate determination of which “spectators” are ultimately accommodated and the type of accommodation received, should be determined on a case by case basis and should not result in an undue financial or administrative burden being imposed on the court.  Where a court has the responsibility for providing qualified sign-language interpreters, it also has the responsibility to pay for the services of the interpreters.  In addition, the ADA regulations specifically prohibit interpreting services being assessed as an element of normal “court costs.”  (Click here to see an advisory opinion letter by the Department of Justice on the subject of providing auxiliary aids to court spectators.)

Relay services involve a relay operator who uses both a standard telephone and a TTY to type the voice messages to the TTY user and read the TTY messages to the standard telephone user.  Where such services are available, public employees must be instructed to accept and handle relayed calls in the normal course of business.

However, state and local agencies that provide emergency telephone services must provide “direct access” to individuals who rely on a TTY or computer modem for telephone communication.  Telephone access through a third party or through a relay service does not satisfy the requirement for direct access.

In determining what type of auxiliary aid or service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requester’s preferred mode of communication.  The public entity must provide an opportunity for individuals with disabilities to request the auxiliary aids and services of their choice.  The public entity shall honor the choice unless it can demonstrate that another effective means of communication is available or that the use of the means chosen would not be required under the terms of the act.

In determining whether financial and administrative burdens are undue, all public-entity resources available for funding and operation of the service, program, or activity should be considered.  The burden of proving that the request would result in an undue financial or administrative burden rests with the public entity.  The decision that compliance would result in such burdens must be made by the head of the public entity or his or her designee (presumably the chief justice or administrative director of the courts) and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion.

Court must ensure that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from services, programs, and activities because existing buildings are inaccessible.  Court programs, when viewed in their entirety, must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.  This standard, known as program accessibility, applies to court facilities that existed on January 26, 1992.  Courts do not necessarily have to make each of their existing facilities accessible if the service, program, or activity can be made accessible in another manner.  For example, if a court holds hearings on the second floor of a building without elevators, it can make the program accessible by holding the hearings in an accessible room on the first floor or in another facility.  The specific judicial system will be viewed in its entirety when determining accessibility.  Therefore, if the court system in a particular jurisdiction consists of numerous facilities, and a specific proceeding can be moved within reason from an inaccessible facility to an accessible facility, the specific judicial system would be in compliance with the program accessibility requirements.

A court facility will be in compliance with the ADA for new construction and alterations if it follows either of two accessibility standards.  It can choose either the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG), which is the standard that must be used for public accommodations and commercial facilities under Title III of the ADA.  If the court chooses the ADA Accessibility Guidelines, it is not entitled to the elevator exemption (which permits certain private buildings under three stories or under 3,000 square feet per floor to be constructed without an elevator).

Yes.  The Department of Justice is proposing to amend its current ADA Standards for Accessible Design (which incorporate ADAAG) to deal with judicial, legislative, and regulatory facilities; detention and correctional facilities; residential housing; and public rights-of-way.  The current ADAAG standards are minimum, generic design standards posed to ensure that there is no discrimination against disabled individuals.  The proposed amendment would apply the standards for the specific sections mentioned above to new construction and alterations under Title II.  The final rule will not be retroactive.  In other words, courts will not be forced to redo design elements that were not required at the time that the facility was designed or renovated. 

Although at this time courts are not legally required to consider the unique design elements particular to courthouses, courts should be careful of building in features that are inaccessible.  If it is feasible to make a court facility more accessible, such solutions should be incorporated into the facility design.

Questions about the status of the ADAAG rules can be addressed to the Department of Justice at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY).

Alteration to historic courthouses must comply with the specific provisions governing historic properties in ADAAG or UFAS to the maximum extent feasible.  Under those provisions, alterations should be done in full compliance with the alterations standards for other types of buildings.  However, if following the usual standards would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a feature of the courthouse, alternative standards may be used.  The decision to use alternative standards for that feature must be made in consultation with the appropriate historic advisory board designated in ADAAG or UFAS, and interested persons, including those with disabilities, should be invited to participate in the decision-making process. 

The alternative requirements for historic buildings or facilities provide minimal level of access.  For example:

• An accessible route is only required from one site access point (such as the parking lot).
•  A ramp may be steeper than is ordinarily permitted.
• The accessible entrance does not need to be the one used by the general public.
• Only one accessible toilet is required, and it may be unisex.
• Accessible routes are required on the level of the accessible entrance and on other levels where practicable.

The United States Department of Justice and seven other federal agencies are charged with enforcing Title II of the ADA.  Individuals may file complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice within 180 days of the alleged discrimination.  The Department of Justice will investigate each complete complaint, attempt informal resolution, and, if no resolution is achieved, will issue a Letter of findings to the complainant and to the public entity.

The ADA places the legal obligation on each agency respectively. When agencies share the same building, they can work to ensure that facility modifications are made as needed to provide program accessibility. Each agency is responsible for ensuring effective communication and for providing auxiliary aids and services as needed. It is often possible to share resources or equipment, such as assistive listening systems or Braille printers.