------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   01/24/92 -- (C) 1992 The Washington Post
 
                    For the Disabled, a Question of Dignity
                             By Sharon LaFraniere
                         Washington Post Staff Writer
 
   D.C. attorney Marc Fiedler has been waiting a long time for Sunday. On the
day that key provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act take effect,
he plans to steer his wheelchair up to the entrance of Raleighs' brand new
downtown store and see if there's a ramp on the steps.
 
   He plans to check out the bathroom stall at the Capital Hilton, where,
much to his mortification, he once found himself stuck. He's going to Crown
Books to see if the door that keeps him out has been widened.
   And if he sees no changes at these and other businesses he wants to
patronize, Fiedler, a 36-year-old Harvard Law School graduate, is poised to
file suit. "As the person who is being excluded or humiliated or segregated,
I just refuse to wait a day longer," said Fiedler, who was paralyzed from the
chest down in a 1975 auto accident.
   Very few lawyers have Fiedler's teeth-gritting, firsthand experience with
the physical barriers that the ADA is designed to knock down. Few are as
prepared as he to argue the requirements of the ADA in court. But most major
law firms are well aware that the law passed 18 months ago will open up a
vast new area of discrimination law and potentially, a lot of business.
   "Many, many law firms are holding seminars, inviting their clients," said
Gary Marx, a Baltimore attorney who has written a book on the new law. Many
firms are attending seminars too, searching for the answers to such questions
as: How does a ski resort get a paraplegic skier up a mountain?
   Or, who is responsible for fixing the bathroom when a business that shares
a floor with other businesses hires a disabled worker? "I say, 'Hey, that's a
great question. Where should I send the bill?' " joked David Copus, a
Washington attorney who recently was confronted with such a query.
   For the potential plaintiff, disability rights groups are holding their
own seminars. Staff at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund said
the organization has trained more than 2,000 individuals in over 25 states on
the ADA.
   Whether attorneys can look forward to a real boom in business is hard to
tell. Many lawyers point to obvious gray areas in the law that await further
definition by the courts. Some argue that the fuzziest area is when the
removal of a physical barrier by a business-owner is considered "readily
achievable."
   Others see the ADA's employment provisions, which don't take effect until
July, as the source of most litigation, because disabled victims of
employment discrimination can seek punitive damages.
   Those who allege denial of access to public space can only seek the
removal of barriers and attorney's fees - "a natural disincentive" to sue,
Marx said. And while the Justice Department can seek civil penalities against
businesses who deny access to the disabled, Marx said, the agency can be
expected to limit itself to high-profile cases.
   Edward Potter, president of the Employment Policy Foundation, offers a
"back of the envelope" projection of close to 12,000 new employment
discrimination suits a year. But he adds: "no one really knows."
   Evan J. Kemp Jr., chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
predicts about 12,000 to 15,000 new complaints - a 20 to 25 percent increase
in the EEOC's caseload - but not "a lot of lawsuits."
   With six months to go before the employment provisions take effect,
attorneys are trying to figure some of the most sensitive areas, like how
employers will be required to treat job applicants and workers infected by
the HIV-virus or with histories of psychological disorders, alcoholism or
drug abuse.
   What about, for instance, the self-insured employer confronted by a HIV -
infected job applicant whose potential health care costs could drive sink the
business? The law prohibits the employer from not hiring an applicant for
health insurance reasons, but the employer might be allowed to extend the
applicant search until someone equally qualified is found, said employment
attorney Larry Lorber. "It's not an affirmative action statute."
   Fiedler's concerns at the moment are simpler. "I'm an attorney. I need
suits" to wear, he said. "I used to do most of my shopping at Raleighs, and
then they moved into a brand new building with three stairs at the only
public entrance.
   "I've written to them, I've talked to the managers . . . but  they won't
listen to me . . . I don't want to have to sue. They're making me do it."
   Susan Gorman, president of Raleighs, said Fiedler called her yesterday
afternoon - "that was my first form of communication" and she has referred
his complaint to the general counsel of the Chicago-based firm of Hartmarx,
which owns Raleighs.
   "There's a lot at stake for me here," Fiedler said. "This is my dignity."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

            