The Ethics of ADA

A while back I recall seeing a story on television about a burger joint in Sacramento, California, that was just big enough for a kitchen area and a counter with 12 stools – and usually had a line out the door and down the block, of people just waiting to get some of their exceptional food. Nothing fancy – obviously – but the local people swore by the specialty of the house: a cheeseburger with so much shredded cheese that the cheese ran off the patty while it was cooking and formed a shelf (or “skirt”) around the sandwich. Despite being an almost literal hole in the wall, the “Squeeze Inn” was beloved of people in Sacramento, and customers came from miles around to wait in the huge line for their crispy fried cheese. So what could possibly force such an operation out of business?

Well, if you said “bureaucracy” or more to the point, “bureaucracy run amok,” come claim your prize. But what makes this story so remarkable is that the bureaucracy that shut the place down, and the regulations that the business had indeed violated six ways from Sunday, wasn’t anything to do with health codes, vermin infestations, business licenses, liquor licenses, noise, parking, storage or use of illegal chemicals, price fixing, price gouging, exterior signage, interior signage, false advertising, or even tax evasion. No, apparently what did in the Squeeze Inn was the ADA – the Americans with Disabilities act. And the worst part is, as far as I can tell, it wasn’t even incorrectly applied…

As I pick up the story off the Sacramento Bee website, the tiny burger stand was not in compliance with the Federal law that requires all places of public accommodation to be accessible to all Americans, even those who can’t walk without mechanical assistance. With its tiny floor space, narrow door and inconvenient parking arrangements, the Squeeze Inn was out of compliance with the basic ADA requirements, and wound up being sued by a local resident who was unable to maneuver inside the place for lunch. While the case was eventually settled, the owners decided to move their operation to a larger (and more compliant) location before someone else decided to jump on the same gravy train and sue them for even more money. Fortunately, they were able to find a new location nearby, and able to afford the move, but the situation still raises a basic question of ethics…

The ADA exists because if it didn’t, all manner of businesses would simply tell disabled Americans that the fact they were being denied equal access was their tough luck, and they could take their business to some equally unfriendly competitor. If we assume that all people, regardless of their physical limitations, should be allowed equal access to all of the same freedoms and services, then we must have laws that guarantee compliance with this principle. At the same time, there are going to be some businesses that can’t afford to bring their operations into full ADA compliance, and those companies will be driven out of business by lawsuits and bureaucrats, which harms the customers who were patronizing that business and damages the local economy and does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to help the disabled people who are, in principle, being aided by this law. Even with the best will in the world, it’s hard to see what good it does disabled people to destroy a business that they can’t use – but it’s hard to see what other threat would keep all business owners from claiming this hardship…

So what’s the answer? Should all businesses be forced to comply with ADA regulation? Should special exceptions be granted when a business can establish that compliance is not possible and there are alternative services that the disabled people in the community could use? Should people who sue businesses under ADA regulations solely for the purpose of extorting money be charged with extortion and sent to ADA-compliant Federal prisons? Should business owners who claim the hardship exemption when there isn’t one (or when they could easily comply but just don’t want to) be charged with racketeering and civil rights violations and sent to much less enlightened Federal prisons? And should such decisions be made by unelected bureaucratic officials, or should these decisions be left up to the people (and their elected representatives)? Or would that constitute the very “tyranny of the majority” that the ADA was set up to prevent in the first place?

It’s worth thinking about…