Establishments asked to conform with ADA

A week before the CNMI would proclaim March as the month for persons with disabilities, a Rota resident filed before the US District Court a civil action suit against three Saipan hotels for allegedly violating provisions under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As if on cue, Rita Ramos through her counsel Mark Edward Williams last week filed charges that pray injunctive relief for the failure of three hotel resorts to comply with accessible requirements cited under ADA.

Ms. Ramos, a person with severe physical disabilities by virtue of having suffered a stroke, is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, costs transportation, and other expenses against Stanford Resort Hotel, Marianas Resort, and Plumeria Resort.

The establishments have allegedly infringed on Title III of the ADA that generally includes violations on accessibility guidelines.

The plaintiff has demanded the federal court for a jury trial.

Northern Marianas Protection and Advocacy Systems Inc. Programs Coordinator Jim Rayphand said yesterday the recent complaints filed against the three allegedly unconforming establishments are expected to further open the floodgates of more ADA-related lawsuits.

This, despite efforts by NMPASI last year to offer local establishments free ADA accessibility evaluation and assessments that not many companies responded to.

“Many hotels are not properly equipped with ADA compliance kit and some facilities are not accessible. Last year four complaints were forwarded to NMPASI on employment equality and six others on other issues but all of them were settled out of court. This will serve as a warning to hotel owners because some may see the opportunity to do the same,” said Mr. Rayphand.

The ADA advocate cited that of more than 30 hotels in the CNMI, only five are believed to be ADA compliant.

But the small number is no surprise following a dismal participation in last year’s ADA-compliancy standards workshop that yielded a weak cooperation from local business/establishment owners.

“Every facility must comply with ADA and it should follow that people running the facility should know about it. I think if there were more lawsuits, there would be more people,” said Mr. Rayphand, in an earlier interview.

Public accommodations in the CNMI, he added, is still far off from reaching the adequate ADA-compliance standards.

“In terms of facility access, we’re lagging very far behind. If you notice even the parking accommodations, there may be a park sign for individuals with disabilities but then it lacks a ramp…so even if there’s a space reserved for them, they can’t get up over the sidewalk,” he said.

“We’re still on primitive stages in terms of compliance,” he added.

He, however, cited some companies are making the effort towards full-compliance.

“But still, we have a long way to go. That’s why are making this proactive stance in educating people about disability issues and so forth…before they get sued for non-compliance,” said Mr. Rayphand.

ADA classifies public accommodations as private entities that own, operate, lease, or lease to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors’ offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers, the law states. But private clubs and religious organizations are exempt from the ADA’s title III requirements for public accommodations. (MM)