Under the ADA, which statement correctly contrasts Title II and Title III and notes alterations?

Under the ADA, which statement correctly contrasts Title II and Title III and notes alterations?

• A. Title II focuses on accessibility of public entities’ programs; Title III focuses on accessibility of places of public accommodation; alterations must be accessible to the maximum extent feasible.
• B. Title II requires accessible public programs and services; Title III requires accessible places of public accommodation; alterations must be feasible.
• C. Title II addresses digital accessibility only; Title III addresses physical accessibility.
• D. Title II and Title III both require full compliance in every building regardless of construction type.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is that the ADA distinguishes two areas: what public entities must do with their programs and services (Title II) and what places of public accommodation must do with their facilities and the services they offer (Title III). Title II requires public entities to ensure access to their programs and services, and when alterations are made to achieve that access, the goal is to make things accessible to the maximum extent feasible. Title III requires accessibility of places of public accommodation, and alterations to existing facilities are pursued to remove barriers to the maximum extent feasible as well, to the extent practical. This combination of distinctions and the emphasis on pursuing accessibility as far as feasible during alterations is why the statement is correct. The other options misstate the scope or the alteration standard. Digital vs physical is an inaccurate simplification of Title II and Title III, which cover more than just digital or just physical aspects. The idea that alterations must be merely “feasible” or that every building must be fully compliant in all cases ignores the real-world flexibility built into the accessibility requirements.

The key idea is that the ADA distinguishes two areas: what public entities must do with their programs and services (Title II) and what places of public accommodation must do with their facilities and the services they offer (Title III). Title II requires public entities to ensure access to their programs and services, and when alterations are made to achieve that access, the goal is to make things accessible to the maximum extent feasible. Title III requires accessibility of places of public accommodation, and alterations to existing facilities are pursued to remove barriers to the maximum extent feasible as well, to the extent practical. This combination of distinctions and the emphasis on pursuing accessibility as far as feasible during alterations is why the statement is correct.

The other options misstate the scope or the alteration standard. Digital vs physical is an inaccurate simplification of Title II and Title III, which cover more than just digital or just physical aspects. The idea that alterations must be merely “feasible” or that every building must be fully compliant in all cases ignores the real-world flexibility built into the accessibility requirements.