The ADA Complaint That Went Federal

Accessibility complaints are one of those slow-moving threats that co-op and condo boards rarely see coming — until they're already in trouble. In this episode, Louis Lipson and Eric Cohen, principals and architects at Ethelind Coblin Architect, walk through a real case that landed a New York City building in the crosshairs of the Department of Justice. What started as a single complaint from a patient visiting a doctor's office turned into a year-long process involving federal regulators, city agencies, attorneys, and some genuinely creative architectural problem-solving. Lipson and Cohen are candid about the constraints, the costs, and the moments where there simply wasn't a perfect answer. If you've ever wondered how buildings navigate the gap between what the law demands and what's physically possible, this might be the answer. Habitat's Carol Ott conducts the interview.

Thanks for listening. Subscribe to this podcast for more stories on how New York co-ops and condos have solved a myriad of problems. Brought to you by Habitat Magazine, the "bible" that hundreds of board directors turn to every day!

Transcript

Carol Ott: Welcome to Problem Solved, a conversation about challenges facing New York co-op and condo board directors. I'm Carol Ott with Habitat Magazine, and today I am joined by Louis Lipson and Eric Cohen, principals and architects at Ethelind Coblin Architect.

Welcome gentlemen. 

Louis Lipson: Thank you so much. Thank you. 

Carol Ott: Steps and stairs are great for those of us who can maneuver and like to exercise, but for those with mobility issues, access can be torturous. It's not always practical or frankly affordable to do over a building's access to accommodate all. Yet if a co-op or a condo board ignores this issue or ignores it until someone files a lawsuit, the fix and the penalties slapped on the building can be overwhelming.

Lou and Eric, you have worked with a board that faced a complaint and then a fix, and I understand the complaint went beyond New York to the Department of Justice. What was the complaint? What happened with DOJ, and how did it get resolved? 

Louis Lipson: Yeah. So in this is instance the area that was in question wasn't accessed typically by the residents of the building.

This particular building had a separate wing still within the envelope of the building, owned by the building, that was for professional spaces that are filled with doctor's offices. There's five offices down a corridor that's accessed directly off of a small sidewalk off of the street. There's, as you pointed out in the introduction, there's steps inside the building, right after you enter off the street, and they bring you down to a sunken area, which is the narrow corridor that connects to these five offices. And one of the patients of one of the offices who is in a wheelchair filed a complaint with the Department of Justice. 

Carol Ott: I assumed complaints were filed with the Human Rights Commission or the buildings department.

How did it get to the Department of Justice? 

Louis Lipson: Eric, do you want to chime in as possible process? 

Eric Cohen: Yeah. It can vary how someone registers a complaint. You're exactly right. It can vary. Sometimes it happens with the mayor's office for people with disabilities through DOB, sometimes it happens through Fair Housing or some other advocacy group or neighborhood group.

In this case, it was different. 

Louis Lipson: Yeah, we're not entirely sure if the person reached directly out to DOJ first or if one of these other agency groups or advocacy groups directed them to the Department of Justice in New York State. 

We've had situations in other buildings where a patient files a complaint with management and it's not a legal action. They don't go to the city. They just say, Hey, what did you do here? You didn't address this problem. And then sometimes it escalates from there, but it gets ignored. But we got involved with this particular issue once the building received the letter from the Department of Justice, and it wasn't directed to the building, it was directed to the doctor's office. 

Carol Ott: But they were commercial tenants in the building. 

Louis Lipson: Exactly. So then the doctor turned it around and sent it to management and said, what do we do here? Obviously they wanted to make all of their patients as comfortable as possible.

And the building wanted to do the best they could to actually make the space accessible. But there were certain constraints in the space that made it impractical to truly create an accessible condition where you're following the full spirit of the a DA where there's independent use for everyone that's accessing the space. 

Carol Ott: So you couldn't just stick a ramp down the steps?

Eric Cohen: No. So we studied using a lift. Part of the obstacles is locations of doorways, the height itself. So you need a fairly long ramp to accommodate. And it's a fairly narrow corridor. A foldable lift did not work. The width couldn't accommodate, couldn't start demolishing the doctor's offices or portions of them on the other sides of the wall.

Carol Ott: So what happens if the fix is not the few things you've just mentioned. I mean, You can't tear down your building. 

Louis Lipson: Yeah. Exactly. , eventually, someone may expect people to start tearing down their buildings to make all of these compliance issues achieved, but for now, yeah, nobody's forcing you to do that. Like Eric said, we went through a whole process for the building where we did studies for ramps, showed that we'd have to move doors of offices, some that would force them to, take over space of an adjacent office. And that was obviously not gonna happen.

And then we even studied a collapsible lift that automatically closes after it's been opened for use after a few minutes of it being left open, if someone doesn't close it with the button. 

Eric Cohen: And you have potential egress concerns with that because you're temporarily obstructing an egress corridor. We looked at the exterior as well. 

Louis Lipson: Putting a ramp in. But, because we were going down and not back up inside the building, putting a ramp outside meant we had to chop the slab, chop the girder, move the door. The cost implications were quite substantial. It was back to the envelope calculations that we did with the contractor that, in that particular case, we didn't actually develop a set of drawings that could be built off of a file, but it was enough to get the building to understand the cost implications and said, they just didn't have an appetite or the ability to really spend in that space there. 

Carol Ott: Was there a time limit given to you? 

Louis Lipson: Sometimes there is. In this case the letter was really vague.

It was an informal request for them to try to make an improvement here. The relationship with the Department of Justice was all through email, generally. I think there was a couple conversations on the phone with management and DOJ at first. We were on an email chain with them. It went on for over a year of showing that we were doing studies, doing analysis. We filed with the commissioner's office in the city to see if we would be allowed to put in that collapsible ramp that compromised egress, which we didn't think was gonna be allowed, but we had to show the Department of Justice the city wouldn't allow it, which was the case. It was denied. Through all that process, finally when we got the denial, the building thought, did what we could do and DOJ was satisfied with the attempt. And then a few months went by and it was brought back up.

DOJ reached back out and said, so what are you gonna do? At that point, DOJ pushed the building to engage in another consultant who basically advised the same way we did about putting an exterior ramp in and doing all these studies. And, we told them it was not cost effective. And at that point we said, we done everything we could reasonably and they're still pushing. So we recommended that the building engage their counsel to increase the intensity of the dialogue portion with the Department of Justice while taking some of the things that we developed and integrating it into their own letterhead and argument.

Sometimes the opposite happens where management goes straight to their attorney and says, what do we do here? And that's usually really defensive posture. That is offputting to Department of Justice, the DOB, anyone, because you're automatically saying, we don't wanna do anything here. Our attorneys are gonna deal with this.

But I think it really helped the building, and also building counsel said it did ,that they actually went through the process with a designer and architect to try to resolve the conditions with the constraints that they were living with. And it really smoothed things over. It just took one letter with some of our diagrams to show that, we were proposing something now that wasn't technically code compliant and it required assistance from someone to use.

But it was slightly better than the existing situation that they had, and Department of Justice appreciated that. And offered other things that we needed to do with signage and putting notifications on the doctor's office's websites about how to get access if you need access, and it worked out.

 Or it is working out, it's still in process, but as long as the building complies with everything that we said they would do it'll be fine. 

Carol Ott: And were there any fines during this period? 

Louis Lipson: No. There was costs obviously. The building had to pay us, they had to pay the Department of Buildings for that filing.

They had to pay the attorney. But there was no fines from the city, no fines from the federal government. 

Carol Ott: Did they have to pay the consultant that DOJ recommended? 

Louis Lipson: I'm fairly certain that fell upon the building to pay. I don't know for sure. But I don't think the Department of Justice would've paid them to deal with that dialogue.

So yeah, there, there was a lot of professional fees and soft costs. A lot less than there would've been if we had to put in a permanent ramp and rip out the slab and, just to go back to that for a second: obviously, when you do a major renovation like that, you can't use that corridor, and that's the only way in and out of these offices.

So not only the expense of doing the actual work, they would've had the expense of relocating the offices temporarily. Which it's just untenable. That would've been way more money probably than actually the work itself. 

Eric Cohen: Yeah. And incapacitating a business that's in process that's caring for people.

Louis Lipson: Yeah. All of these things were package together with the attorney and they, added their legalese. And luckily this counsel had a good relationship also with the Department of Justice that deals with these issues. They're on like a first name basis.

They were able to pick the phone, have conversations and things that, we couldn't do because, we're not attorneys and don't have that relationship with them. 

Carol Ott: So the fix will allow people to still enter and exit the physician's offices. 

Louis Lipson: Yeah, exactly. So I'm sure you've seen them all over the city.

 There's aluminum folding ramps. They're fairly heavy, but they're portable. There's different lengths. So they usually start at six feet long. And that's what this building was using. But because of the number of steps down, it was very steep. So if someone was in an actual wheelchair, you really had to hold them back from just rolling away and you had to drag them up or really shove them up because it was that steep.

 They had a vestibule. We got rid of the vestibule so we could put in a longer folding temporary ramp. It's basically twice as heavy, so they're gonna need to find the location closer to this entranceway to store it so they don't have to lug it around from the basement and the other side of the building.

But it unfolds so it's twice as less steep as the original folding ramp, but it's still not the proper slope. So it's easier to use, but it's not technically code-compliant from even a slope perspective. 

Eric Cohen: and this is one of the struggles, right? The mayor's office for people with disabilities is very clear about using ramps that a chieve all of the components for accessibility. 

Louis Lipson: Yeah. So the city would never approve this as a solution, right? We've attempted in other projects to get the mayor's office to opine and say, there's nothing else we can do.

They don't want to touch it because they're opening themselves up to liability. And, we had to work through this carefully with the Department of Justice to ensure that, it was really the best they could do with what they have. It makes it safer for anyone that really needs to use this space and that has mobility issues because they're not going up and down something that's much steeper. So from a liability point of view, it's much safer adding in one permanent handrail mounted on the wall at a slightly different elevation of the stair hand rail. There's still something for them to grasp when they're walking down, when the ramp is open.

Eric Cohen: So that, and that will help with the ramp that will also help without the rep. 

And part of what's challenging about accessibility that has improved with the Americans with Disabilities Act is looking at a broader spectrum of the population and what they need. 'cause the codes were originally designed for returning World War II veterans, men in wheelchairs with relatively good upper body strength.

When you look at these things, this condition, for example, having a permanent handrail can not only accommodate the ramp, but even without the ramp be better. 

Louis Lipson: Yeah. Someone can grasp it when they're walking towards the stairs even that just has balance issues. 

Carol Ott: But they need to have a staff person, 

Louis Lipson: correct?

Eric Cohen: They do. 

Louis Lipson: Yep. 

Eric Cohen: They still 

Louis Lipson: need that. Yeah. So you can't have a temp. You can't put in a temporary ramp like this and expect someone to use it without. Staff helping someone use it. Correct. Because there's no guardrail. There's, you need to have technically two handrails, but this is a folding ramp.

You don't have that solution. So there needs to be someone there. So one of the other issues they had, it's very narrow. They had a vestibule door that was centered in the narrow hallway. So the temporary folding ramp had to just fall down the middle of the steps when it was open. Literally nowhere for someone to stand next to the ramp and help someone down. 

 So by taking out that vestibule wall, we were able to push it against one wall where the handrail is affixed to it. And there's still a little bit more space, so someone that's working either for the office or for the building, can actually walk beside the ramp and help someone down carefully as opposed to, praying that nobody's rolling away or tripping on themselves because you can't really guide them.

Eric Cohen: In this instance, because it's a doctor's office accommodating assistance from someone coming with them is an additional consideration. 

Carol Ott: And on the street, was there anything done on the street level? 

Louis Lipson: No. So this building, like a lot of buildings in the city are in, is in a landmark district.

At one point LPC could be used as a crux to say, oh, we can't put a ramp in, or we can't put a lift in, but they've accepted that, we have to be accommodating. So even now, you can't really use LPC even on a proper landmark building necessarily.

There's certain facade elements that you can't touch, but they still want you to comply. 

Carol Ott: Isn't down in Soho, you hear that they're accessibility scammers, and that is a landmarked area.

How do those buildings accommodate this? 

Louis Lipson: Yeah, so it's, I think it's a similar situation, right? There are a lot of scammers for sure that are just trying to settle cases and get a quick 20 or $40,000 out of a business. And, certain situations, the businesses can come up with a solution that works.

If it's one step off the sidewalk, then there's ramping situations that are permitted with the DOT allow a certain extensions into the sidewalk for ramps, which I'm sure you've seen all throughout this. 

Eric Cohen: And part of the actually advantage of Soho is that the sidewalks are generally wider.

It was an industrial area. So spatially it can be more accommodating than the Village, for example. Or a lot of post-war buildings have that typical layout where you step down into the lobby and then back up. and you have low ceilings. So those are actually more problematic than some older buildings that are more generous spatially. 

Louis Lipson: Yeah. And it's always the public facing parts of the building that become problematic. Where you either have a scammer that comes in, oh, the business can't serve me. Sometimes it's legitimate, but if it's legitimate, then they're usually willing to accept some solution.

But if it's a true scammer, they're just gonna keep pushing until someone settles. And then it's out of the hands of an architect, really, or even the building, it's really an insurance issue. 

Because, if they're not willing to accept a solution that isn't perfect there's not much you can do about it.

In the case of the project we were talking about, it wasn't a lawsuit, it was just DOJ reached out and said, you need to address this. 

Carol Ott: As you said, Eric it can be very typical in a building to have steps, if it's a commercial unit or just to get in the building. I know you're architects, but I suspect most buildings are not gonna deal with this until somebody has asked. 

Eric Cohen: It depends.

When we underwent a project on the Upper West side where all we were charged with is front door replacement, and we suggested to the building that they consider accessibility issues, especially given that at the time they had, and this is also common in buildings, older buildings, right?

You have many older residents who have lived there for years and may have issues, and you have young families with strollers, right? So you had these two populations really needing this, at the front door of the building. And we were able to come up with a solution there that allowed for a slope instead of a ramp.

Again, larger spatially, less constraints and physical constraints. But there were structural moves involved. 

Carol Ott: What happens if your building doesn't really have an alternative? Or is there always an alternative? 

Louis Lipson: There isn't always an alternative. 

Eric Cohen: No, there isn't. 

Louis Lipson: We often, when we do lobby projects, entrances into buildings, if they have an accessibility issue or just concern, at the start of the project, when we're doing just the general studies, we'll prepare a specific study for them to keep on file.

That talks about accessibility and talks about, what can be done and we try to implement as much of it as possible and what constraints there are. Sometimes you have lobbies where you walk in, it's totally level, and then right in front of the elevators on the left and right hand side, there's six steps up to wings on the first floor where there's 10 apartments on both sides, and there's nowhere to put two ramps in the lobby because they're small compact lobbies and there's nowhere to put a lift because they're small, compact lobbies. Unless you're willing to buy part of the adjacent apartment square footage and cut the slab and do all of this crazy work. Which is usually gonna be way more money than the actual cost of the project. They're protected. 

Eric Cohen: There's also a common solution raised by buildings, sometimes due to physical constraints and sometimes due to their desire to maintain the lobby impression and look.

But that solution is to create an accessible entrance through the service entrance, which very often already is accessible or it's reasonably accessible. But then you're dealing with two issues. One is just the image. Dignity. The dignity of the person who's potentially entering past trash and other things.

And also just the sheer length of travel, for someone who has mobility issues. Just the length can be an impediment, even if it's level. 

Louis Lipson: Yeah, exactly. Even if you make the passage from the sidewalk into the service entrance more pleasing, it's still a problem.

Eric Cohen: Still be a long journey. 

Carol Ott: If you had one of those buildings where you enter and then there are steps that go off into the side and there is no fix. Are you open to any kind of lawsuit? Let's say they hired you and there is, and you document, there is no fix, is that an acceptable.

Louis Lipson: Yeah, the, anyone can sue at any time, right? Oftentimes what happens is when you do a renovation, other residents that maybe they were completely against the project and have a mobility issue, or think they're going to have one in the future come out of the woodworks and complain or file a lawsuit because you didn't address accessibility during the renovation.

And that does happen and can happen, and that can happen even if there isn't a proper fix. And then having the paper record, usually it's a great first step for the building's attorney to have as defense as an initial response. It's like, no, no. We looked at it, it's not possible. It's not practical.

And then, hopefully it gets settled and mitigated any real problems, but, obviously they sue. 

Eric Cohen: Yeah, there was a building, a project we had where they needed a new accessible entrance and there were some facade issues with leaks, et cetera, that needed to be addressed.

We completed that project. However, they had recently completed a very large lobby project and there were steps up from their lobby. And there was a resident who raised this concern to the mayor's office on people with disabilities. And the solution was, we prepared a plan that showed what could be done and the cost, but it was delayed due to the cost.

They'd already spent so much money on the exterior to fix things, and it was cost prohibitive. But there was a plan in place that satisfied at least. 

Carol Ott: That's my question. If you had a plan, would it satisfy the mayor's office or whoever else is going --

Eric Cohen: At least temporarily. 

Louis Lipson: Yeah, exactly.

It satisfies agencies. It satisfies the building. It often satisfies individuals, but again that only works to a certain point. People can take it eventually to court if they really want to, 

Eric Cohen: But to your point about something being physically, structurally impossible. The code does use the word reasonable accommodations, and the code does describe if something is structurally infeasible, then not feasible.

Louis Lipson: Yeah. The ADA explicitly says that as well. But yeah. And so it usually would work itself out well before a court hearing. But, you never know what someone's willing to do if they're angry about it, about a situation. 

Carol Ott: I think on that note it's good to know that, if it's impossible or unreasonable, you can. You can breathe a sigh of relief. 

Louis Lipson: Yeah, exactly. 

Carol Ott: So I wanna thank both of you for joining me today. That's Louis Lipson and Eric Cohen, principals and architects at Ethelind Coblin Architect. 

Louis Lipson: Thanks. 

Carol Ott: Thank you. 

Louis Lipson: Thanks so much. 

Carol Ott: Thank you. And just as a reminder, Habitat's Problem Solved series dives into dozens of real world examples.

Everything from interior design to major engineering projects with cost saving tips, board focused strategy, and of course, lessons learned. If you're a board member with your own story to share, we'd love to hear from you. Please get in touch online, habitatmag.com or use the contact details in our print magazine.

Again, thank you so much. 

Louis Lipson: Thank you. Thank you. Bye-bye.