Since it was an appellate court decision, that would mean the Supreme Court taking it up on cert. Probably not happening. 
Um, I call rubbish.
First of all, I doubt there are many “small ATM and Vending Machine companies.” Second of all, as we’ve been discussing, most of the likely changes will be able to be handled by current ATMs, because they already have to be adaptable to non-US currencies to be able to be sold outside of the US (it is only our typical parochialism that insists on believing that everything is done our way everywhere else, or SHOULD be done our way everywhere else, or doesn’t MATTER at all). Third, vending machines handle changes in money easily enough now (those that accept bills) by simply having new recognition software uploaded into them. So the only issue would be making sure that the newly sized bills are able to be accepted, and I’m not so sure that there will be size changes; to me that is likely to be the last option used to differentiate the bills for the sight impaired.
Aside from my (and others) explanation from up-thread that this is unlikely to require a complete redesign from scratch as the doomsayers would tell us, why would the manufacturers of the machines bear the cost of their replacement as opposed to the end operators like banks and candy distributors? Why should the ATM and vending machine industry receive particular protection over other industry sectors found to be in non-compliance with standards of access for disabilities?
I’m all for it, especially the size and color idea with paper currency, if only because it will spawn hip new slang for our money, resulting in new rap songs. Imagine if they made $100 bills bright yellow. It wouldn’t even be a week before people were calling them “chicks” and there was a top 40 rap song about the “Feller with da Yellers”
Australian notes are all 65mm (about 2.5 inches) wide, it’s the length of the notes that varies.
$5 = 130mm x 65mm,
$10 = 137mm x 65mm,
$20 = 144mm x 65mm,
$50 = 151mm x 65mm,
$100 = 158mm x 65mm.
A five dollar note is roughly an inch shorter than a $100 note. Most cash registers would be able to accomodate that size variation without trouble.
There are pictures of our colourful, plastic, different-sized notes at this link for those who are curious. It will be interesting to see if the US turns to Australian currency for inspiration.
OK that’s it, I want a plastic Australian bill. Which doper from down under is willing to send me one? I will, of course, pay for it.
As DSYoung points out, the Supreme Court could grant cert. (And it’s also possible for the DC Circuit to re-hear the case en banc.) Absent those steps, this decision is binding.
I’m asking if anyone believes that the court got it wrong. There are many arguments about the wisdom of making the changes; those aren’t really issue for the court to decide. I’m asking if anyone takes the position that the court got the law wrong; that the law does not mandate this change.
Bricker, correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall that the Rehabilitation Act lacks provisions simlilar to the ADA that allow the businesses in question to avoid the effects of the Act if they are not able to do so through “readily achievable” modifications. So it isn’t important under the Rehabilitation Act that it would be expensive to accomplish, am I right?
I think it should have been done long ago, when the ADA was passed, myself. I don’t think anyone can argue that the court got it wrong, it’s pretty plain-and-obvious. Just gonna be a pain in the ass.
Correct, as it applies to the Treasury Department. The law does make an exception for “small providers,” which exempts small providers from having to make significant structural alterations to their existing facilities for the purpose of assuring program accessibility, if alternative means of providing the services are available.
But there’s no such exception available for the Treasury Department. And to the extent that small providers are affected by this change, it’s not an an issue of “significant structural alterations to their existing facilities.”
According to this editorial from the Wall Street Journal, there is such a provision: "… the Rehabilitation Act makes an exception if accommodating the disabled would pose an ‘undue burden.’ " The dissenting judge apparently relied on that approach in his ruling.
Here in Canada, the Bank of Canada is already working on the second generation of notes that are friendly for visually impaired: Bank of Canada redesigning currency to better help visually impaired:
There have apparently some problems with the dots in the upper right hand corner, which flatten out over time. The different colours, large print, and so on help those who are visually impaired, but for those who can’t see at all, the Bank of Canada offers a little note reader, which I didn’t know:
As well, the Bank of Canada apparently rejected different sizes of notes because of the costs involved.
Given that paper money is becoming less and less used – are there going to have to be similar rules for debit/credit cards? Maybe they’d have to speak the amount to be charged aloud?
Well, that teaches me to opine in areas I don’t know.
There doesn’t appear to be such an explicit provision in the statute, but according to Barth v. Gelb, 2 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1993), there is such a restriction. It’s not quite clear to me where, specifically, this provision is found.