U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 126— EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERVICES OPERATED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES

42 U.S.C. § 12183

New construction and alterations in public accommodations and commercial facilities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Application of termExcept as provided in subsection (b), as applied to public accommodations and commercial facilities, discrimination for purposes of section 12182(a) of this title includes—(1) a failure to design and construct facilities for first occupancy later than 30 months after July 26, 1990, that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, except where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements of such subsection in accordance with standards set forth or incorporated by reference in regulations issued under this subchapter; and(2) with respect to a facility or part thereof that is altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of an establishment in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or part thereof, a failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. Where the entity is undertaking an alteration that affects or could affect usability of or access to an area of the facility containing a primary function, the entity shall also make the alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities where such alterations to the path of travel or the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope (as determined under criteria established by the Attorney General).(b) Elevator

Subsection (a) shall not be construed to require the installation of an elevator for facilities that are less than three stories or have less than 3,000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider or unless the Attorney General determines that a particular category of such facilities requires the installation of elevators based on the usage of such facilities.

(Pub. L. 101–336, title III, § 303, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 358.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 18 months after July 26, 1990, see section 310(a), (b) of Pub. L. 101–336, set out as a note under section 12181 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 187 cases (59 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Christopher Mielo v. Steak N Shake Operations Inc, 897 F.3d 467 (3d Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Christopher Mielo v. Steak N Shake Operations Inc, 897 F.3d 467 (3d Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “" 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(1). Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief to require Steak 'n Shake to adopt centralized corporate policies crafted to ensure that potential discriminatory access violations are actively sought out and corrected.”
Matt Strong v. Valdez Fine Foods, 724 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 8× “” Discussion There is no dispute that Strong is disabled, that the restaurant is covered by the ADA or that the restaurant qualifies as new construction under 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(1). The only question is whether any barriers interfered with Strong’s ability “‘to participate in…”
Roberts v. Royal Atl. Corp., 542 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(2) (emphasis added).”
Rosa v. Lewis Foods of 42nd Street, LLC, 124 F. Supp. 3d 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). · cites it 13× “, in January 2013, alleging, inter alio, that McDonald’s Restaurants designed and constructed a restaurant that did not comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a). Compl. ¶45. De La Rosa has added and settled with a number of defendants,…”
Speciner v. Nationsbank, N.A., 215 F. Supp. 2d 622 (D. Md. 2002). · cites it 9× “42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(1). However, the Building was constructed in 1929 and is therefore “an existing facility” rather than “new construction” under the ADA.”
Zach Hillesheim v. Myron's Cards & Gifts, Inc., 897 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “" 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(1) . "A public accommodation shall maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities by the Act or this part.”
The Regents of the Mercersburg Coll. v. Repub. Franklin Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a). If an alteration could affect usability of or access to an area of the facility containing a primary function, the entity shall also make the alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and…”
Rosa v. 600 Broadway Partners, LLC, 175 F. Supp. 3d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). · cites it 3× “2008) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(2)). “The determination whether a facility has undergone an ’alteration’ involves a fact-specific inquiry centered on a broad application of the concept of ’usability.”
Andrews v. Blick Art Materials, LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 381 (E.D.N.Y. 2017). · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 12183 (emphases added). The emphasized words show that in these provisions, the term “facility” refers to a building or physical structure.”
Medina-Rodriguez v. Fernandez Bakery, Inc., 255 F. Supp. 3d 334 (D.P.R. 2017). · cites it 3× “§ 12182 ; 42 U.S.C. § 12183 ; (Docket No. 1 at p. 6.”
Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 765 F.3d 1205 (10th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(1) (emphasis added).”
Clark v. McDonald's Corp., 213 F.R.D. 198 (D.N.J. 2003). · cites it 2× “where such removal is readily achievable,” (2) in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(2) by, with respect to altered facilities, “failing] to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to…”
Show all 187 citing cases →
42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2): 1 case
Rosa v. 600 Broadway Partners, LLC, 175 F. Supp. 3d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). “2008) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12183 (a)(2)). “The determination whether a facility has undergone an ’alteration’ involves a fact-specific inquiry centered on a broad application of the concept of ’usability.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.