02-0882 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Hemo r a.ndUJT~ August: 16, :998 Page 2 actt.:.al relioious ObSel"Var:ce takes p':'ace, ~,; <,:hat it would cover SUCh bU':'ldi~gs as :ncsques, ter..ples, synaq09ues and :he like, but ~ot ot~er buildings owned cr controlled by the religious organiza- tior;s slJch as schoclhous es ar.d hosp:.. tal~;. Un::.er the latter read.ing, "cnurc;hes" as used ~tl the Acces,:ibility Act would be construed to have the same meanin; as "religious orqanizationsU as the latter phrase is used in 7itle III. ,Although it is a close question, in my opinion the be:ter interpretation of the Accessi- bility Ac~ ~s the former o~e: that ~churchesH was intended to de- note the type:>! building used for a religiCll.lS observance, so that the deletion of churches from the scope of ~he Act did not relieve ~eligious orga~lzations of acce5sibil1ty requirements as applied to other jn~ild:..ngs owned or controlled by .such. organizations. My conclusion is based cn several considerations, not all of which may be rel~tec.. The first co~sidera~ion is the difference in nomenclature be- tween the reference to "religious organizationsN in Title III of the k",~ricar.s iJith Disab,;,:ities Act of 1990 and the L;se of the ex- pression "churches" in the Accesaibility Act. Here a his~orical perspec:ti ve is needed. 8efore th.e Access ibi 1 i ty Act. went into! effec-:, ttle buildinq accessitility' requirerc\ents in the State of Florid,;:. had covered. religious en:it:.es and t:l1e faciliti.es owned by them for many years. for inst~nce, some nineteen years earlier the Legislature had approved accessibil~ty requirements inter alia for "monas:eries.u 5 J, Ch. 74-292/ Fla. Laws. ~hen it first approved the .;,c::es sibili t y Act, the Leg;,s 1 a lu=e ...:as follmoling a nu.'!\ber of requirements in Tltle III and expanding on others. It knew the no- rnen;latureused in Title rII, so its use of "churches" rather than the Titl~ III phrase "religious organizationsH may be deemed to be intentional.2 ~hat is more, thi5 is consistent with the interpre- ta~ion of the Act by the Board itself in lts actions on waivers. rro~ the time the Act ~ent int:> effect ~ntil the deletion of the \\chl.:.rch~s" ~eference nc.:-e tha" three years later the Act was construed to cover facilities owned by churches. The deletion of "churchesN from the Act merely gave ris~ to the logical converse of the sit~atio~ that existed before: that although churches are no ... ; The cifference ln wording may give rise to the inference :hat the Legislatu=e did not override all of the ~reliqio~s organ- izations" exem?tion in Title III, but on':'y S~ rr...;ch 0: it as en- compassed ~churches.~ There ~s no text~al ev~dence i~ the Act of such an intent. 7ne "chur:ches" reference ITIl.iSt also be construed in the cc~tsxt o~ the a~tecedent accessibili:y requireme~ts, ~hich had applied to buildlngs o~ned cr ccntr~lled by r(ligious i~stitutions.