• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Back bar access through ADA bar

E

eyden

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
31
Location
California
Around my town, I've noticed a lot of restaurants and bars use the ADA section of the bar for things other than ADA customers -- cash registers, water dispensers, storage, drinks to go out, and most commonly, as the access to the back bar. I noticed on another thread (sorry I can't find it now) someone called out hinged door back bar access as being non-conforming. My firm has recently put this in a few projects. They're still in plan check, so it isn't too late to change them, but do we have to? Where is it said what other uses the ADA bar can and cannot be used for?

I'm in California.
 
Pretty simple that you don't get to boot the person sitting there out every time someone needs to go in and out....I don't need a code section for that. Kinda like you can't block a door with a table...
 
California Access civil laws and regulations promulgated in the California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 6 ensure equal access for people with disabilities by prohibiting their exclusions from everyday activities, such as buying an item at the store, watching a movie in a theater, enjoying a meal at a local restaurant, exercising at the local health club or having the car serviced at a local garage. In providing equal access, every effort must be exhausted to ensure that access is being provided on equal terms, without highlighting any special accommodations, and without any special assistance similar to the required unassisted entry usually provided to gain access. As such, people with disabilities are able to dine or work at a restaurant as well as an able-bodied individual and enjoy the same experience afforded to the general public.

If I were a Chair user and was dislocated every time you wanted to enter the "back-bar" area, I would not enjoy the same experience afforded to the general public. "Enjoying the same experience afforded to the general public was the premise for the Chipotle lawsuit which cost them a bundle to remodel all their stores
In response to the Court of Appeals’ decision, a Chipotle spokesperson announced that the chain was retrofitting all its California restaurants with a new counter design.

If I were the Bar owner, I would go after the Designer ....
See this:
http://www.wendel.com/knowledge-cen...ence-a-substitute-experience-violates-the-ada
 
steveray said:
Pretty simple that you don't get to boot the person sitting there out every time someone needs to go in and out....I don't need a code section for that. Kinda like you can't block a door with a table...
Click to expand...

I get that. I've just seen it used SO MANY times throughout California, even in new construction, that I was wondering where the issue stood.
 
In order for an employee to enter the back-bar by raising a hinged section he is going to displace somebody if that somebody is sitting there, is there a difference between displacing a normal person sitting at the bar and displacing a handicapped person sitting at a lowered section? Seems like displacement is equal.
 
conarb said:
In order for an employee to enter the back-bar by raising a hinged section he is going to displace somebody if that somebody is sitting there, is there a difference between displacing a normal person sitting at the bar and displacing a handicapped person sitting at a lowered section? Seems like displacement is equal.
Click to expand...

The difference is that this is theoretically the only place a chair user could sit. If they could sit at the bar somewhere else (if there were two sections), but chose this spot, they would be the cause of their own "misfortune".

Realistically, it's a lack of education on the part of the management. If they don't know what something is for, they're going to use it for what makes sense for them. Most people don't think about differently abled people when setting up their business processes.
 
In many retail/restaurant parking lots, I've often seen the van parking stall 8' wide access aisle also used as a path for moving trash bins in and out. In some way this reminds me of the bar scenario, but there's a big difference: the parking aisle is used as a pathway, for the bin, not a destination: they don't park the trash bins on the aisle. Likewise, the wheelchair user will not stay in the aisle, nor park in the aisle, but will only use it enter/exit the vehicle.
 
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hypothetical:

We have a small 6 person bar, the bar has an ADA compliant level that is hinged, all spaces at the high bar also have hinges, occupying all spaces are:
  1. A handicapped man in a wheelchair at the lowered section.
  2. A white man.
  3. A white woman.
  4. A Muslim man not a citizen of the United States.
  5. A Muslim woman who is a citizen of the United States.
The bartender has to exit the back-bar, one of the 6 hinged sections has to be raised for him to exit and reenter, which section does he raise to exit?
 
conarb said:
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Hypothetical:

We have a small 6 person bar, the bar has an ADA compliant level that is hinged, all spaces at the high bar also have hinges, occupying all spaces are:
  1. A handicapped man in a wheelchair at the lowered section.
  2. A white man.
  3. A white woman.
  4. A Muslim man not a citizen of the United States.
  5. A Muslim woman who is a citizen of the United States.
The bartender has to exit the back-bar, one of the 6 hinged sections has to be raised for him to exit and reenter, which section does he raise to exit?
Click to expand...

The law requires an accessible section. Your questions are pointless.
 
tmurray said:
The law requires an accessible section. Your questions are pointless.
Click to expand...

Not in this country, just look at Trump's travel ban, Federal law clearly gives the President the authority to ban anyone from entering the country solely at his discretion, yet several lower Federal Courts from both the 4th and 9th Circuits have ruled that he has violated the 1st Amendment's ban on religious discrimination, this is such a constitutional issue that the Supreme court will hear it and we'll get some clarification within a few years.


8 U.S.C. 1182(f)​

“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The Federal Law can't get much clearer than that, this is no simple code or even state statute, 8 USC 1182(F) is Federal Law.
 
This affects the ADA law how? You seem to be implying that by others getting a guarantee to pursue life liberty and happiness on equal footing as an able bodied person, your ability is somehow diminished as a result. I'm certain if there was any substance to this argument, it has already been explored by the courts.

The reality, your reality, is that this law exists and must be enforced. If the population thought that it should be removed, politicians would do so to gain political power.

Does everyone enforcing it agree with all it requires, no, but no person enforcing laws agrees with all the laws they are tasked with enforcing. What we agree to when we are tasked with enforcement is to enforce the laws that the majority of society has agreed to. When we elect representatives by majority, these representatives represent the collective interests of those living in the area that chose them. Laws enacted are as though these people voted for the laws themselves.

Have you ever tried complaining about a speed limit to a police officer? The police officer doesn't set what the speed limit is, they just enforce it. It's no different with us.
 
tmurray said:
This affects the ADA law how? You seem to be implying that by others getting a guarantee to pursue life liberty and happiness on equal footing as an able bodied person, your ability is somehow diminished as a result. I'm certain if there was any substance to this argument, it has already been explored by the courts.
Click to expand...

The constitution says that all should be given equal treatment under the law, not that some should be given special treatment.

The reality, your reality, is that this law exists and must be enforced. If the population thought that it should be removed, politicians would do so to gain political power.
Click to expand...

Our founders modeled our constitution after Plato's Republic, Plato was against democracy because of the failure of Greek Democracy, the tyranny of the majority over minorities. Laws are passed to get votes, or to get money from special interests, in most cases it isn't the laws themselves as passed by our legislators, it's the regulations written by government employees. Current Justice Thomas and new Justice Gorsuch believe in limiting agency interpretation of laws:
Twin Cities said:
Neil Gorsuch has contended that courts give too much deference to government agencies’ interpretations of statutes, a deference that stems from a Supreme Court ruling in a 1984 case. More recently, he sided with two groups that successfully challenged the Obama administration’s requirements that employers provide health insurance that includes contraception.¹
Click to expand...

T Murray said:
Does everyone enforcing it agree with all it requires, no, but no person enforcing laws agrees with all the laws they are tasked with enforcing. What we agree to when we are tasked with enforcement is to enforce the laws that the majority of society has agreed to. When we elect representatives by majority, these representatives represent the collective interests of those living in the area that chose them. Laws enacted are as though these people voted for the laws themselves.
Click to expand...

There has been such abuse of regulations that they have rendered our country noncompetitive in a world economy, our electorate recently elected a new administration on the basis that it would reduce regulation. As far as I can see the best way to deal with ADA problems is to leave the law in effect as passed by our legislators, but immediately scrap all regulations written by the Access Board and the DOJ, then carefully and prudently write new comprehensible and fair regulations that don't give privileges to a minority. Even you inspectors here can't agree on how to interpret the existing regulations.

Have you ever tried complaining about a speed limit to a police officer? The police officer doesn't set what the speed limit is, they just enforce it. It's no different with us.
Click to expand...

I had a friend who was a motorcycle officer, he smoked cigarettes, back about 1998 I asked him what he was going to do if the state passed the proposed smoking ban? He said he would be no part of such a deprivation of our freedoms and would retire immediately if they did, they did and he did. A moral inspector should retire rather than enforce an immoral law, just like the motorcycle cop did.
 
T Murray:

It has occurred to me that I didn't address your main point above, you asked:

T Murray said:
This affects the ADA law how?
Click to expand...

ADA is Federal Law, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) is Federal Law, the courts are saying that 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) violates the 1st Amendment Freedom of Religion, I am saying that ADA violates the 1st Amendment Equal Protection clause. Once we get a Supreme Court opinion on the Freedom of Religion matter it should be applicable to the Equal Protection matter.
 
Hypothetical is missing crucial information like - How big ah' boy is this bartender?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top