In the United States, the idea of civil liberties has been a bedrock principle. The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to liberty and equal protection. The Enforcement Act of 1871 makes government liable for deprivation of civil liberties. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 addresses the notion of equal access for all. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities, including anything that prevents seeing, thinking, or concentrating.
The emissions of LED Visible Light radiation violates our civil liberties by interfering with the human nervous system, preventing us from seeing, thinking, concentrating, sleeping, and communicating and violating our right to visual freedom. The laws and statutes described above can be used by individuals to require our government agencies to protect our civil liberties and our right to exist without being subjected to hazardous and discriminatory LED Visible Light radiation.
Impacts of LED Visible Radiation on Individuals with Disabilities
Quotes from Adversely Affected Individuals – This is a set of quotes from real persons, describing their suffering from LED visible radiation.
One Third of Us are At Risk; Medical Science and LEDs – This article discusses the impacts of LED visible radiation on individuals and the related medical science.
Personal Stories of Harm – A collection of stories by individuals, describing the impacts of LED visible radiation on their lives.
Letters from Doctors – Official letters from doctors describing the impacts of LED light on their patients.
Risk Groups
Photophobia Conditions – This is a list of conditions that cause people to suffer from photophobia.
Individuals who are the most sensitive to light are commonly ignored by researchers and the government, and yet those in this group are most harmed by LEDs.
Americans with Disabilities Act
ADA Update: A Primer for State and Local Governments – Discussion of what makes an environment discriminatory.
Title I Regulations – Title I is for employers. This document is hosted by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Title II Regulations – Title II is for government agencies and government programs and services. This document is hosted by the US Department of Justice. Local governments are required to provide the most integrated, least restrictive environment.
Title II Technical Assistance Manual – The US government publishes additional information about how the ADA process works.
Title III Regulations – Title III is for commercial and public accommodations. A business is required to provide the most integrated setting and shall not deny an individual with a disability the right to participate. This means that if you are an LED light-disabled person, then the business must turn off the LED light so that you can use the business. This document is hosted by the US Department of Justice.
Title III Technical Assistance Manual – Additional US government details about the ADA process.
The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems – Title II of the ADA requires State and local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities.
League of California Cities and Sedgwick, LLP published an excellent article explaining the rights and responsibilities of both parties in an ADA accommodation request.
ADA Discrimination Lawsuit
Cities, Counties, and States have perfected the denial of ADA accommodation requests. Over time, since the passage of the ADA law, state and local government agencies have been trained by the federal agencies such as the ADA National Network to use key phrases that will deny accommodation requests. This section explains what you need to know to secure your rights as defined in the ADA law.
Let’s take an example of an LED Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon operated by a city that triggers an epileptic seizures. The first step is to file a Request for Accommodation with the city. There is no requirement to provide medical documentation or to use the city’s ADA grievance form. Instead, write your own letter with as much precise legal phrases as possible. Request an accommodation and the initiation of an Interactive Grievance Process to find a mutually agreeable accommodation. The city will then respond, although times the city will drag their feet and delay providing the response.
The ADA Coordinator for the city is merely a messenger. The ADA Coordinator doesn’t care about your discrimination, so it does no good to try to appeal to the ADA Coordinator for help or empathy or to get angry at the ADA Coordinator. Realize that that the ADA Coordinator simply passes on your request for accommodation to the City Manager or Public Works or the City Attorney. All of those officials will then respond with ways to deny you accommodation. The ADA Coordinator may or may not set up a meeting with you, but even after the meeting, the response will be a denial of your request for accommodation.
The next step is to file a lawsuit. If you can find a disability rights lawyer to take your case, that would be the best. However, the disability rights lawyers take very few cases, so you are most likely on your own. This is called Pro Se. Write up your complaint using examples found on this website as a template. Your initial complaint is all about the law. Presenting the evidence for discrimination will take place later in the process.
One you have filed your discrimination lawsuit with the Court, the city will have to respond. The city will turn the case over to an outside law firm who cares nothing about you or your rights. They will aggressively act to have your case dismissed.
The next step is called Discovery. During this phase you will submit a set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production to the city’s law firm. The responses will often be vague, so you may need to call and try to negotiate with the city’s lawyer, or subpoena what you want through the Court.
During the pre-trial hearing, there will be some discussion about whether the case should continue. If the case continues, you will then present your evidence and witnesses at the trial and then wait for a decision from the Court. The entire process will take around 2 years.
There are a handful of key phrases that you must use to win your case.
Full and equal access – The use of an LED device prevents you from full and equal access to city services because it creates a discriminatory barrier.
Solely due to your disability – Your claim for accommodation must be based solely on your disability. If the general public is also harmed or prevented from accessing services, then your discrimination claim is not viable. The LED light must be creating the discriminatory barrier solely due to your individual disability.
Most integrated setting – The Olmstead decision requires that the city provide the most integrated setting. It is permissible for the city to exclude you or isolate you, such as telling you to take a different street.
Readily accessible and usable – All city services must be readily accessible to you.
Alteration – Any alteration made after 1992 requires that the facility that is altered be readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities after the alteration. The addition of any LED device is an alteration, and if the LED device creates a barrier for you due solely to your disability, then the alteration is not readily accessible and usable.
Deliberate indifference – This is the standard by which an ADA claim merits compensatory damages. The act of deliberate indifference means that the entity didn’t necessarily act with intentional malice, but rather that the agency acted carelessly and thoughtlessly, showing little concern for the individual’s needs. Systemic discrimination through inaction is common for individuals with disabilities, and thus the deliberate indifference standard allows for compensatory damages for failure of an agency to act in good faith to protect the individual from discrimination.
Undue burden – The city will claim that making an accommodation for you will be an undue burden. Your first response is that the city was required when making the alteration to make the facility readily accessible and usable, so Undue Burden cannot be claimed in that case. Your second response is that it’s a trivial matter to turn of an LED light, so the Undue Burden claim is invalid. Even if there was a cost involved, the cost must be compared to entire city budget, not against a department budget or project cost. The Undue Burden claim is only valid for architecture changes that were installed prior to 1992.
Unreasonable request – The city may respond that your request is unreasonable, such as because the city needs the RRFB for safety. Your response is that your case and request for accommodation is not about safety, but about discriminatory barriers. The city was required to ensure that when they made the LED alteration, the facility or service was readily accessible by individuals with disabilities, which they did not do. Don’t let the city shift the conversation away from their requirements to provide full and equal access to city services without discriminatory barriers.
ADA Case Law
Frame v. City of Arlington – 5th Circuit Court of Appeals – Wheelchair access in a jail.
Lacy v. Cook County – 7th Circuit Court of Appeals – Wheelchair access for sidewalks.
Access Board
The Access Board was created by the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and is codified as 29 U.S.C. 792. This statute directs the Access Board to “ensure compliance with the standards prescribed pursuant to the Act entitled “An Act to ensure that certain buildings financed with Federal funds are so designed and constructed as to be accessible to the physically handicapped.” and “establish and maintain—(A) minimum guidelines and requirements for the standards issued pursuant to the Act commonly known as the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968“. The Access Board refuses to comply with this mandate for LED discrimination.
June 5, 2023 – We submitted a petition to the Access Board to comply with 21 USC 360ii to liaison with the FDA and publish performance standards to ensure protection of those with disabilities from the harms of LED visible radiation.
August 21, 2023 – The Access Board denied our petition to comply with 21 U.S.C. 360ii.
United Nations
The United Nations has a Universal Declaration of Human Rights. LED flashing lights violate several of these basic human rights.
Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. – LED flashing lights interfere with basic human functioning of using our eyes, depriving us of our liberty and security, and even our right to life for those who have epilepsy.
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. – LED flashing lights are not warning lights; they are designed to assault and punish, dehumanizing people, even if they are simply innocent bystanders.
Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. – LED flashing lights discriminate by creating a barrier to access. LED flashing lights prevent those who are LED-reactive from navigation without undue fear of harm or injury. LED flashing lights literally prevent people from seeing, thinking, and concentrating.
Article 13: Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. – LED flashing lights prevent freedom of movement.