JUN 15 1995

The Honorable Nancy L. Johnson

U.S. House of Representatives
343 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congresswoman Johnson:

Your letter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

on behalf of your constituent, XX , has been referred
to me for response. We apologize for the delay in responding.
XX letter questions a Connecticut State Department
of Transportation decision to install wheelchair ramps at rural
intersections as part of a project to replace old traffic lights.
According to the article attached to XX letter, the
Connecticut Department of Transportation believes such wheelchair
ramps are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of

disability by State and local government entities. The ADA
directed the Department of Justice to issue a regulation
implementing title II. I am enclosing a copy of the Department's
regulation and the Title II Technical Assistance Manual for your
information.

When public entities build new facilities or alter existing

facilities, the title II regulation requires that such new
construction or alterations be made accessible to individuals
with disabilities. The regulation allows covered entities to
apply either the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS)
or the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (Standards) as the
standards for accessibility of new construction and alterations.

The Connecticut project referred to in XX letter

appears to be an alteration to existing traffic signals. Merely
replacing traffic signals or installing crossing buttons would
not trigger an obligation to install curb ramps.

cc: Records, Chrono, Wodatch, McDowney, Blizard, Hill, FOIA

Udd:Hille:Policylt:Johnson.ltr
01-03656

-2-

The title II regulation specifically addresses curb ramps at

altered streets, roads, and highways. When streets are altered,
ramps are required at altered intersections if they have curbs
that prevent entry to or from pedestrian walkways. 28 C.F.R.
S 35.151(e)(1). In addition, ramps are required when pedestrian
walkways are altered. 28 C.F.R. S 35.151(e)(2). Curb ramps are
not required to be installed in the absence of a pedestrian
walkway. Nor are they required in the absence of a curb or other
barrier between the street and the pedestrian walkway.

I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to

your constituent.

Sincerely,

Deval L. Patrick
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

Enclosures
Title II regulation
Title II Technical Assistance Manual
01-03657

XX
No. Granby, CT. XX

14 March, 1995

The Hon. Nancy Johnson

United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.

Dear Representative Johnson;

Undoubtedly your staff has brought the subject of the enclosed

Hartford Courant editorial to your attention.
This editorial which was published on March 14, 1995 is the
second time the Courant has published an article on the subject
of installing crosswalks where they will only be used by
wildlife.

I guess it would be easy to simply glance at the enclosed, throw

it aside and worry about more important things ..... well, an
awful lot of people think this is important! I don't think it is
the incident itself as much as the mindset of those who make such
decisions and those who let them stand!

Don't you thing you really should do something about this sort of
thing? There were an awful lot of frustrations in the past where
you and your colleagues simply had to bow to the majority; but
now we have a new majority, and you're it!

Now, a half million here and a half million there can begin to
add up to a lot of money! You want to cut expense without
reducing services, right? Well, a half million here and a half
million there can really help!

You are in a position to do something about this stupid

interpretation of regulations . . . or should we say "this stupid
regulation"? I hope you will use your good office to get this
project killed; you aught to, you know!

Very truly yours,

XX
cc: The Hartford Courant

01-03658

Publisher
DAVID S. BARRETT
The Hartford Courant Editor
Established 1764 JOHN J. ZAKARIAN
THE OLDEST CONTINUOUSLY PUBLISHED Editorial Page Editor
NEWSPAPER IN AMERICA
CLIFFORD L. TEUTSCH, Managing Editor
ELISSA PAPIRNO, Reader Representative

EDITORIALS

GOP legal reforms go too far

Although changes in this nation's overbur-

dened system of civil justice are needed, the three
legal reform bills approved by the House last
week would severely limit the ability of people to
sue for damages.
The measures sent to the Senate would:
* Set federal standards in product-liability
cases, and require states to abide by them.
* Impose strict limits on punitive damages in
all civil cases.
* Require the loser to pay the court costs and
legal fees of the winner in many cases.
Last year, Connecticut Democratic Sens. Jo-
seph I. Lieberman and Christopher J. Dodd,
among others, proposed substantive but more
careful changes in product-liability law.
In the GOP version, stockholders, for exam-
ple, would have to prove a company or broker lied
in order to prove fraud. If a stockholer failed to
win a lawsuit, he or she could be forced to pay
court costs and legal fees of the defendants.
Granted, far too many frivolous lawsuits are
filed by lawyers who try to force companies to
settle rather than face a long and costly trial.
Some lawyers maintain a stable of "professional
plaintiffs" and use them to file lawsuits as soon as
the stock price or dividend falls. But truly ag-
grieved stockholders should be able to sue for
winner. And lawyers who filed what the judge
ruled were frivolous lawsuits would face fines.
The bill is aimed at forcing pretrial mediated
settlements, an excellent idea. It would also do
away with the abused contingency-fee system,
which generates about $15 billion a year for law-
yers in personal-injury and product-liability law-
suits. But this reform does not provide for a fee
system based on work done. It should.
The reform aimed at replacing state product-
liability laws with a single federal standard and
capping damage awards should be reconsidered.
Limiting awards is fine, but such a law should be
written carefully. In its present version, the bill
could protect firms and professionals from being
sued over clearly reckless or incompetent
behavior.
The House Republicans, who champion em-
powering local governments, want to nationalize
liability laws. States would be unable to enact ver-
sions tougher than the federal liability laws.
By contrast, the Lieberman-Dodd measure
would protect most state liability laws and pro-
mote pretrial mediated settlements.
Reform of liability laws has been overdue.
but what was tilted one way has now been tilted
the other way by the House. The Senate should
bring a balance to the scale of justice for plaintiffs

01-03659