The Candy Kitchen on North Market Street is on the receiving end of a lawsuit filed by Marilynn Phillips, who tried to enter the shop on a visit to Frederick three years ago, but was unable to do so because there was no ramp. At that time, the owner of the shop, John Leos, offered to lift her chair into the store, but she declined.

Phillips later filed a complaint of discrimination in a public accommodation with the Maryland Commission on Human Relations, in which she alleged violation of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.

The ADA framed failure to comply with its provisions as discrimination against people with disabilities -- much in the same way the seminal Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender and other personal characteristics.

After no response for several years from the commission, Phillips filed her lawsuit. She's asking that the store be made properly accessible for people with disabilities and that the plaintiffs -- the Candy Kitchen and its landlord, the Evangelical Reformed United Church of Christ -- pay her lawyers' fees and other costs of litigation.

Barbara Kershner Daniel, senior pastor of the church, said she was surprised when notified of the lawsuit. According to her, the church has been complying with the commission to resolve the issue and believed it was going to mediation with Phillips.

There is little doubt that the ADA was far from a cost-free piece of legislation -- for government and the private sector alike. Its requirements affect public transportation and government and private-sector facilities. Ramped entrances are but one of its myriad provisions. It has also spawned numerous lawsuits involving compliance, e.g., Phillips' suit against the Candy Kitchen.

Many argue that the ADA's requirements are financially onerous to the private sector. Others wonder what level of accommodation, and at what cost, it is reasonable for society to provide those with disabilities.

Unquestionably, the ADA makes the world friendlier, more accessible and fairer to the nation's sizable disabled population. But like everything else of value, it comes at a price.

We're not sure how the candy store plans to comply with the ADA. The church, we assume, will have to bear the cost of making the shop accessible. If it decides to pass on all or some of that cost to the tenant in the form of higher rent, patrons of the shop might find that next pound of walnut fudge costing a little more than the last one did.

The ADA sprang out of a decent human impulse to improve the lives of people with disabilities, and the cost of its application has been borne by many. The core question here is what value society should put on millions of disabled persons having greater access to the world around them.

That may depend in part on one's perspective, which in the case of Phillips and the Candy Kitchen, involves very different vantage points.

Post your comments »