# House of worship & ADA



## tbz (Mar 2, 2011)

Looking for clarification of my understanding.  And section numbers.

Front of a church, existing landing to sidewalk, redoing the ramp.

Please correct me if I am wrong here,

My understanding is that the church is exempt from the ADA-DOJ?

however the church is not exempt from the AHJ building code requirements?

Thus, the ramp would need to comply with the adopted 2009 IBC & ANSI A117.1 code & standard that the state adopted.

But, is exempt from ADA,

I am hoping for detailed clarification on this with ADA section for exempt, if I am correct or not.

Thanks in advance

Tom


----------



## steveray (Mar 2, 2011)

My understanding also.....no concrete (code) sections, but something about private clubs???????    Must be in the beginning somewhere...


----------



## MarkRandall (Mar 2, 2011)

I totally agree that no ADA is enforced, but since current codes are very closely aligned with ADA, there isn't too much in favor of non-conformance of ADA.

Most churches are concerned with the mobility of their members. My church did an accessibility upgrade back in the early '90's as a project all on it's own. Included a raised (to floor level) bus drop off that is covered from the elements, added ramps where steps existed (had to sawcut existing concrete beam - thankfully it was oversized at that location) and family accessible toilet rooms. Existing toilet rooms would have been severely impacted to try and bring those up to clearance requirements.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 2, 2011)

28 CFR Part 36 July 1, 1994. Subpart A, 36.102 (e) Is where you find the ADA exemption. If the jurisdiction has adopted the ANSI A-117.1 then they must comply to that standard.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 2, 2011)

We view it the same as JP...........


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 2, 2011)

*Maybe, Maybe not*

*Equal Access Exemption for Churches*

Title III of the ADA mandates that "no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation." To comply with this provision, a public accommodation must remove barriers to the full access and enjoyment of its facilities.

The equal access provisions of ADA, however, do not apply to religious organizations or places of worship operated by religious organizations. Churches, therefore, are exempt from ADA coverage and do not have to remove barriers to the access or enjoyment of any church accommodations including auditoriums, nursery schools and daycare centers. The exemption applies whether the church activities are religious or secular. *Rationale for the Church Exemption*

The equal access exemption for religious institutions has been upheld by courts on the basis that requiring religious entities to comply with the ADA and allowing the government to initiate enforcement proceedings against religious entities would amount to an impermissible government interference with religion. As explained by the federal court in Chipkevich v. University of Scranton, exempting religious entities from the ADA's equal access provisions allows them "to design their facilities and perform their services in accordance with their religious tenets." *Church Facilities Operated by Nonreligious Entities*

The equal access exemption for churches does not extend to nonreligious entities that rent facilities owned by or located within the church. Nonreligious entities must comply with the hiring and equal access provisions of the ADA if they operate public accommodations in inaccessible facilities rented or leased from the church. If the nonreligious entity is operating in a space donated by the church, however, it is exempt from the ADA's requirements.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 2, 2011)

Given that churches are free to discriminate on the basis of sex, ethnicity, skin color, sexual orientation, country of origin and - lest we forget - religion; why would you find it surprising that they are allowed to discriminate against the disabled?


----------



## tbz (Mar 2, 2011)

Thanks everyone for input I will explain more.

1. This access is only to the front place of worship (the church) which is why I noted place of worship and not church.

2. I was asked by a fellow fabricator if they put lambs tongue ends over the last post do they comply with the 27" height portion of the code, which my answer was, as long as they stayed within 4" of the post edge.

3. However, he was asking me noting ADA, my answer was that the house of worship was exempt from ADA, but not the local AHJ's building code, nor A117.1 if adopted which would be inline with ADA.

4. The other noted point was that the designer was removing the 12" Plus level extensions from the bottom of the ramp because they protrude in to the public walkway.

I noted to the fabricator that I don't know if the extensions could be removed pending adopted code and how the AHJ classified the work.  If this was all new and the AHJ does not put this in renovation that the removal of the extension could be non-compliance.

I will note that I believe this installation is in IOWA, a little bit of a drive from NJ unless you are "Frank & MIKE - AP".

So I started with the basic question confirming ADA non-issue, but local building codes are an issue.

So, how do you all see or should I say handle the extensions protruding in to the public sidewalk?

Thanks for your input.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 2, 2011)

I agree that ADA would not apply unless the space is used for non-church purposes - -including community meetings, polling places, boy scout troop ceremonies, etc.

Also agree that the local accessibility code still has jurisdiction.

As to your handrail extenion question - "paging mark handler" - it is my understanding that the recent changes to ADA have removed the extension where they create a hazard.  Need someone else to (a) confirm that statement, and if so, then (b) see if your local code has caught up this ADA change.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 2, 2011)

Yikes said:
			
		

> I agree that ADA would not apply unless the space is used for non-church purposes - -including community meetings, polling places, boy scout troop ceremonies, etc.Also agree that the local accessibility code still has jurisdiction.
> 
> As to your handrail extenion question - "paging mark handler" - it is my understanding that the recent changes to ADA have removed the extension where they create a hazard.  Need someone else to (a) confirm that statement, and if so, then (b) see if your local code has caught up this ADA change.


 None of those uses would require a church building to be ADA compliant - however the outside organizations utilizing the building might be obliged to provide accessibility...but not in the case of the Boy Scouts due to their religious affiliation.


----------



## jpranch (Mar 2, 2011)

Never ceases to amaze me their higher calling? Sorry about the comment but still... One has to wonder? Good luck.

Post Script: Make them do the 12" extentions.


----------



## incognito (Mar 3, 2011)

Does not apply to churches but most will go out of their way to get those old disabled folks through the front door. Its a money thing.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 3, 2011)

jpranch said:
			
		

> Never ceases to amaze me their higher calling? Sorry about the comment but still... One has to wonder? Good luck. Post Script: Make them do the 12" extentions.


If I understand correctly, it's a retrofit on an existing building.   The ramp will work but the extensions will make it dangeroous in the public ROW.   I hope there's some flexibility with the AHJ to try and make it work.

Can you return the handrails to they don't protrude?


----------



## Darren Emery (Mar 4, 2011)

RE: House of Worship & ADA



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> None of those uses would require a church building to be ADA compliant - however the outside organizations utilizing the building might be obliged to provide accessibility...but not in the case of the Boy Scouts due to their religious affiliation.


A polling place wouldn't be required to be accessible???


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 4, 2011)

incognito said:
			
		

> Does not apply to churches but most will go out of their way to get those old disabled folks through the front door. Its a money thing.


Actually, its a fraternal thing.

The ADA also exempts certain fraternal organizations; like the Boy Scouts, VFW and Masons.  The reasoning is that in fraternal organizations - be they religious or not - the membership will take care of their own.

(Given the way most churches are on Sunday mornings though its a wonder anyone ever got that idea.)

Anyway, I agree with the comments.  For a place of worship - no ADA; yes AHJ.  If a day care is provided or the place is used as a poling place, then access is required - or barrier removal since its an existing facility.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 4, 2011)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> A polling place wouldn't be required to be accessible???


A polling place would probably be required to be accessible, but the responsibility for accessibility is with the government entity responsible for running the election not the place of worship serving as polling place.  In other words, if the polling place is inaccessible the government could be sued and for many facilities the owner of the facility could be sued as well. But when the polling place is a house of worship, it is hard to see how they would fall under any portion of ADA.  Of course, having a polling place at a house of worship is problematic enough from a first amendment standpoint.


----------



## Examiner (Mar 4, 2011)

The handrail extensions at the top and bottom runs of stairs and ramps must extend in the direction of travel.  You cannot return them at the bottom riser or toe of the ramp.  I am not addressing the turn at a intermediate landing but the last top and last bottom of the run.  I could look up and quote the section if asked.

I also thought that the Churches were not exempt from the Building Code.  Are we stating here that the courts have bascially stated the AHJ has no jurisdiction on churches regarding accessibility?


----------



## incognito (Mar 4, 2011)

Examiner, Churches are not exempt from the building code, they are exempt from ADA regs unless of course they open their doors to events that are not church related.

Gene Boecker, No it is a money thing. They often elect to provide ADA accomodations so they can get the elderly--and their cash--into the building. Not bad thing, just makes good business sense.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 4, 2011)

incognito said:
			
		

> Examiner, Churches are not exempt from the building code, they are exempt from ADA regs unless of course they open their doors to events that are not church related.Gene Boecker, No it is a money thing. They often elect to provide ADA accomodations so they can get the elderly--and their cash--into the building. Not bad thing, just makes good business sense.


 Places of Worship are exempt from ADA even if they hold  events which are not church related - however any secular organizations responsible for those events are not exempt.


----------



## Yikes (Mar 4, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Of course, having a polling place at a house of worship is problematic enough from a first amendment standpoint.


See http://election.dos.state.fl.us/opinions/new/1990/de9013.pdf


----------



## peach (Mar 5, 2011)

They won't get sued under ADA (the whole separation of church/state thing), but they need to comply with the minimum requirements of the building code (which includes A117, as incorporated by reference).

IF the building is used for any public purpose, they will be a DOJ target for ADA..

just sayin'


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> They won't get sued under ADA (the whole separation of church/state thing), but they need to comply with the minimum requirements of the building code (which includes A117, as incorporated by reference).IF the building is used for any public purpose, they will be a DOJ target for ADA..
> 
> just sayin'


 No. The facility is still a place of worship and exempt from ADA. Similarly, to the way in which a church bookstore is allowed to discriminate against atheists during the hiring process.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 5, 2011)

Section 36.102(e) states that the rule does not apply to any private club, religious entity, or public entity.

Religious entity means a religious organization, including a place of worship.

 Even when a religious organization carries out activities that would othervise make it a public accommodation, the religious organization is exempt from ADA coverage. Thus, if a church itself operates a day care center, a nursing home, a private school, or a diocesan school system, the operations of the center, home, school, or schools would not be subject to the requirements of the ADA or this part. The religious entity would not lose its exemption merely because the services provided were open to the general public. The test is whether the church or other religious organization operates the public accommodation, not which individuals receive the public accommodation's services.

Although a religious organization or a religious entity that is controlled by a religious organization has no obligations under the rule, a public accommodation that is not itself a religious organization, but that operates a place of public accommodation in leased space on the property of a religious entity, which is not a place of worship, is subject to the rule's requirements if it is not under control of a religious organization. *When a church rents meeting space, which is not a place of worship, to a local community group or to a private, independent day care center, the ADA applies to the activities of the local community group and day care center if a lease exists and consideration is paid.*

http://www.ada.gov/reg3a.html

Yes, the church is not exempt from the AHJ building code requirements.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 5, 2011)

Well, duh.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Well, duh.


If my post was a "duh", the OP would not have happened.

There are no "duh" questions, if the person does not know the answer


----------



## brudgers (Mar 6, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> There are no "duh" questions


 Are you saying there are only "duh&quot people?


----------



## mark handler (Mar 6, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Are you saying there are only "duh&quot people?


image projected, is image reflected.


----------



## Architect1281 (Mar 7, 2011)

Subpart A -- General

Sec.36.101 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to implement title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public accommodations and requires places of public accommodation and commercial facilities to be designed, constructed, and altered in compliance with the accessibility standards established by this part.

Sec.36.102 Application.

(a) General. This part applies to any --

(1) Public accommodation;

(2) Commercial facility; or

(3) Private entity that offers examinations or courses related to applications, licensing, certification, or credentialing for secondary or postsecondary education, professional, or trade purposes.

(b) Public accommodations. (1) The requirements of this part applicable to public accommodations are set forth insubparts B, C, and D of this part.

(2) The requirements of subparts B and C of this part obligate a public accommodation only with respect to the operations of a place of public accommodation.

(3) The requirements of subpart D of this part obligate a public accommodation only with respect to --

(i) A facility used as, or designed or constructed for use as, a place of public accommodation; or

(ii) A facility used as, or designed and constructed for use as, a commercial facility.

© Commercial facilities. The requirements of this part applicable to commercial facilities are set forth in subpart D of this part.

(d) Examinations and courses. The requirements of this part applicable to private entities that offer examinations or courses as specified in paragraph (a) of this section are set forth in Sec.36.309.

(e) Exemptions and exclusions. This part does not apply to any private club (except to the extent that the facilities of the private club are made available to customers or patrons of a place of public accommodation), or to any religious entity or public entity.

Had a group come in proud as could be that said THE DOJ says A church does not have to comply with the ADA

so I asked them for the DOJ interpretation that said they did not have to comply with the Buildiong Code

Still Waiting


----------



## Gene Boecker (Mar 7, 2011)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> (d) Examinations and courses. The requirements of this part applicable to private entities that offer examinations or courses as specified in paragraph (a) of this section are set forth in Sec.36.309.
> 
> (e) Exemptions and exclusions. This part does not apply to any private club (except to the extent that the facilities of the private club are made available to customers or patrons of a place of public accommodation), or to any religious entity or public entity.
> 
> ...


The IBC clearly does not exclude churches.  I can't find that anywhere in Chapter 1, Chapter 11 or any other chapter.  IN fact, Chapter 3 clearly lists churches as being a part of Occupancy Group A-3!

If the local AHJ adopts the ADAAG as the standard (as happens from place to place), they need to define in the scoping what is covered and what is not since the ADAAG does not identify scoping to the extent that the ADA does itself - nor does the rest of the IBC.  Churches are covered by the Building Code - but not the ADA.


----------



## peach (Mar 7, 2011)

EXCEPT when they are (or parts are made) public accommodation.. they the building is in play..

Show me a church that doesn't have a day care or open (rent) itself to non church related business.. very few (here anyway)...

The church has the whole church/state thing going for it.. once they are ANYTHING but a place of worship, it's a horse of a different color.... legally as well as actually.


----------



## Paul Sweet (Mar 8, 2011)

This exemption has little to do with the separation of church and state.  ADA is an extension ofthe 1964 civil rights law.  Churches and private clubs were exempted from that law, which is why they are exempted from ADA.

ADA is not a building code.  It is a set of standards which you can be sued if you don't meet, and the U.S. Dept. of Justice may join the suit on the plaintiff's side.

IBC & ANSI A17.1 accessibility requirements are 99% identical to ADAAG, and they apply to almost all new construction, including churches and private clubs.  IBC Chapter 34 has even copied ADAAG's requirment to upgrade existing elements when renovation buildings.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 8, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> EXCEPT when they are (or parts are made) public accommodation.. they the building is in play..Show me a church that doesn't have a day care or open (rent) itself to non church related business.. very few (here anyway)...
> 
> The church has the whole church/state thing going for it.. once they are ANYTHING but a place of worship, it's a horse of a different color.... legally as well as actually.


 Mark, see what I mean?


----------



## FredK (Mar 8, 2011)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> This exemption has little to do with the separation of church and state.  ADA is an extension ofthe 1964 civil rights law.  Churches and private clubs were exempted from that law, which is why they are exempted from ADA.ADA is not a building code.  It is a set of standards which you can be sued if you don't meet, and the U.S. Dept. of Justice may join the suit on the plaintiff's side.
> 
> IBC & ANSI A17.1 accessibility requirements are 99% identical to ADAAG, and they apply to almost all new construction, including churches and private clubs.  IBC Chapter 34 has even copied ADAAG's requirment to upgrade existing elements when renovation buildings.


I'm with Paul.


----------



## peach (Mar 9, 2011)

not all *that* identical in all states (which may/may not have a DOJ buy in).. Florida, for example used to (and I assume still does) require a totally accessible toilet stall.. sink included inside the stall)...   once DOJ buys in.. it's the law...

DOJ will almost always join in... or they can (and sometimes do) bring the case based on complaints.

ADA has never been a building code issue.. it's always been civil rights legislation.. (the federal government, conveniently, exempts themselves).

When individuals get compensation for bringing a suit, rather than forcing the building owner to comply.. that's the real problem.


----------



## alora (Mar 10, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> ADA has never been a building code issue.. it's always been civil rights legislation.. (the federal government, conveniently, exempts themselves).


What makes you think the federal government exempts itself?

They follow ABA.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 10, 2011)

alora said:
			
		

> What makes you think the federal government exempts itself?They follow ABA.


Congress Is expressly exempt from the provisions of the ADA. Not the entire federal government.


----------



## brudgers (Mar 11, 2011)

peach said:
			
		

> not all *that* identical in all states (which may/may not have a DOJ buy in).. Florida, for example used to (and I assume still does) require a totally accessible toilet stall.. sink included inside the stall)...   once DOJ buys in.. it's the law...DOJ will almost always join in... or they can (and sometimes do) bring the case based on complaints.
> 
> ADA has never been a building code issue.. it's always been civil rights legislation.. (the federal government, conveniently, exempts themselves).
> 
> When individuals get compensation for bringing a suit, rather than forcing the building owner to comply.. that's the real problem.


The Florida Accessibility Code is part of the building code. It is also certified by the DOJ because it is based on ADAAG and only contains more stringent provisions - if you look at ADAAG and FAC side by side you can see how little was changed for the FAC.

The big ones are no general exemption for vertical accessibility and the sink in the accessible toilet stall.


----------

