I could have sworn that ADA had provisions to protect buildings that were older and where upgrades would be too costly to implement. This sounds like that is the case... What am I missing?
https://www.burnhamnationwide.com/final-review-blog/a-misund...
>Title III also specifically states that for public accommodations discrimination includes “failure to remove architectural barriers . . . in existing facilities” unless it can be shown that removing a barrier is “not readily achievable” or accommodations cannot be provided through other means. (See 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(iv)&(v))
>The ADA defines readily achievable as “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” The statutory definition also provides factors to be considered in determining whether barrier removal is readily achievable and recognizes what may be achievable for one business might not be for another:
>The nature of cost of the required barrier removal;
>The financial resources of the involved facility or facilities;
>The number of people employed by the facility;
>The effect on the facility’s expenses and resources;
>Impact on the operation of the facility;
>Overall finances of the covered entity;
>The number of employees in the covered entity;
>The number type and location of its facilities;
>The type of operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure and functions of its workforce; and
>The geographic, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities at issue to the covered entity.
>(See 42 U.S.C. Section 12181(9))