You are on page 1of 4

JAN 12 1993

The Honorable Mark O. Hatfield United States Senator Special Districts Center 727 Center Street, N.E. Suite 305 Salem, Oregon 97301 Dear Senator Hatfield: This letter is in response to your inquiry on behalf of XX regarding the effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) on small organizations. Specifically, XX XX stated his concern that implementation of the Act had forced the discontinuance of guided tours at the XX XX . The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to individuals and entities with rights or obligations under the Act. This letter provides informal guidance to assist you in answering XX inquiry. However, this technical assistance does not constitute a legal interpretation of the statute, and it is not binding on the Department. Title III of the ADA requires existing public accommodations, like the gallery at the XX to remove barriers to access by individuals with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs, to the extent that it is readily achievable to do so. Such barrier removal may include installation of ramps or wheelchair lifts. In situations where barrier removal is not readily achievable, an entity must make its goods and services available through alternative methods. With regard to the provision of public tours of facilities like the XX , if barrier removal is not readily achievable, an acceptable alternative may include a presentation by a tour guide using photographs or videotape of the areas observed during the tour.

cc: Records, Chrono, Wodatch, McDowney, Russo, FOIA, MAF :udd:russo:cong.hatfield. XX 01-01828​ -2These requirements are more fully explained in the regulations for title III issued by the Department of Justice (enclosed) at sections 36.304 and 36.305 and in the Department's Title III Technical Assistance Manual (also enclosed) at pages 28-35 and 37-38. I hope this information is of assistance to you in responding to your constituent. Sincerely,

John R. Dunne Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Enclosures (2) 01-01829​ MARK O. HATFIELD OREGON United States Senate WASHINGTON, DC 20510-3701 November 23, 1992 U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 66118 Washington, D.C. 20530-6118 Dear Friends: Enclosed is a copy of a letter I recently received from XX XX who expresses his concern about the affect the Americans With Disabilities Act is having on small organizations, in particular the XX . You will note that Mr.

XX has for years conducted informal tours of the sawmill and because of the law, the sawmill has had to terminate those tours rather than be in non-compliance. Because I want to do everything possible to be responsive to all constituent requests and concerns, I would be grateful if you would offer an interpretation of this law as it pertains to public accommodations and services operated by private entities. Please reply to my Salem office at Special Districts Center, 727 Center Street N.E., Suite 305, Salem, Oregon 97301. Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this inquiry. Sincerely,

Mark O. Hatfield United States Senator MOH:eb Enclosure 53163 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 01-01830​ Senator Mark Hatfield 711 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Hatfield, For the past twenty years I had the pleasure of escorting visiting friends and relatives from the more eastern parts of the United States through the XX local sawmill. They have built a fine gallery and stairway so that visitors can look down on the mill floor and see the whole operation. They do not have a guide service, but allow visitors to conduct themselves at their own leisure. I am personally acquainted with the owner of the mill and many of his old time employees.

Just this week I was informed that they can no longer allow visitors to enter the mill due to a federal anti-discrimination law that in affect says that they cannot allow visitors unless they modify the mill at their expense so that visitors in wheel chairs can visit any place in the mill that other visitors are allowed. The XX people were very apologetic, but felt that they could not justify rhis expense. As we left I personally felt that I, as a member of the majority had been discriminated against by a minority. I certainly cannot find fault with the XX people since they were very generous in building the stairway and gallery for the visitors benefit. I feel so affected by that I thought that I should write to you about this. Perhaps this is a misinterpretation of the law. Perhaps it is a mis-application of the intentions of the law. I don't know if there is anything that you can do about this, but I thought that it is something that you should be aware of. Thanks for your consideration. XX 01-01831