ADA MEMO

MEMORANDUM

To: Management, Merrill Gardens
From:  Bill Spriggs, Resident
Date:  May 29, 2025
Subject: Violation of Disability Rights: Restrictions on Mobility Devices and Reasonable Accommodation Requirements

Introduction:

I am writing to raise serious concerns about the facility’s recently implemented policy restricting motorized mobility devices, such as electric scooters and power wheelchairs—in key areas, including the dining room and near exit points. These restrictions appear to target residents with physical disabilities directly and violate their federally protected rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Act (FHA). These policies are not only discriminatory, but they also appear to be legally indefensible.

Federal Law Requires Reasonable Accommodation:

Under Title III of the ADA, public accommodations, including senior living facilities, must permit individuals with disabilities to use wheelchairs and other power-driven mobility devices (OPDMDs) in all areas where the public can go. (28 CFR § 36.311)

Similarly, the Fair Housing Act requires housing providers to make reasonable accommodations to allow individuals with disabilities to fully use and enjoy their residence, including access to common areas and transportation. Blanket restrictions on mobility devices frustrate these purposes.

The facility’s new policy effectively denies residents with mobility impairments the ability to:

• Access the dining room to receive meals
• Reach exit points to board transportation
• Freely move within and around the facility like all other residents

This amounts to a denial of services and unequal treatment based solely on disability.

Addressing the Claimed “Safety Concern”

Management may claim these restrictions are justified on safety grounds. However, this argument does not withstand legal or logical scrutiny:

• Safety concerns must be real, specific, and based on objective evidence—not assumptions.
  The ADA allows denial of access only if a person’s use of a mobility device creates a direct threat to the health or safety of others, and even then, the denial must be based on actual risks, not generalizations or stereotypes. (28 CFR § 36.208)
• Any object or person can pose a safety risk if operated negligently.
  A resident using a cane, walker, or simply walking can trip, bump into others, or fall. We don’t ban walking in the halls because some people walk recklessly. By that logic, shall we ban shoes with rubber soles next?
• Blanket bans are inherently discriminatory.
  The Department of Justice and federal courts have clarified that across-the-board mobility device restrictions are prohibited. The proper response to safety concerns is not prohibition but individual assessment and, if necessary, education or supervision of those misusing devices, not collective punishment for disabled residents.

Legal Precedent:

In Anderson v. Franklin Institute, 185 F. Supp. 3d 628 (E.D. Pa. 2016), the court held that denying an individual the right to use their motorized wheelchair in a facility's public spaces constituted discrimination under the ADA, absent specific, documented safety concerns.

Likewise, U.S. v. City of Chicago Heights, 161 F. Supp. 2d 819 (N.D. Ill. 2001) reaffirmed that housing providers must provide reasonable accommodation unless doing so would impose an undue burden or fundamental alteration, not merely inconvenience.

Recommendations:

To bring this facility into compliance with federal law and restore equal access for all residents, I respectfully request the following:

1. Immediate rescission of the current restrictions on mobility devices in the dining room and near exit areas.
2. Implement individualized assessments if safety issues arise rather than blanket bans that punish all disabled residents.
3. Development of a reasonable accommodation process so residents can request exemptions or modifications where needed.
4. Training for staff and management on ADA and FHA responsibilities, including handling safety issues without violating civil rights.

Conclusion:

The Americans with Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Act exist to prevent precisely this kind of exclusion and unequal treatment. The idea that disabled residents should be confined to their rooms or barred from eating meals or exiting the facility like everyone else is both offensive and unlawful.

I urge you to reconsider this policy immediately, work with residents to address any specific safety issues and adopt procedures that respect the rights and dignity of every community member.

Sincerely,