• 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

Abercrombie & Fitch brand Hollister Co. ALL U.S. store entrances

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,709
Location
So. CA
Abercrombie & Fitch brand Hollister Co. ALL U.S. store entrances after losing legal battle against disabled shoppers

A lawsuit launched in 2009 accused the Abercrombie & Fitch-owned company of discriminating against disabled customers

Many of its stores have entrances that resemble a stepped front porch making it for difficult for wheelchairs to enter

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

PUBLISHED: 08:40 EST, 19 August 2013

Hollister ordered to redesign ALL U.S. store entrances after losing legal battle against disabled shoppers | Mail Online

article-2327492-19E528D2000005DC-920_634x458.jpg


Abercrombie & Fitch brand Hollister Co. must redesign hundreds of its storefronts to ensure that they are wheelchair-friendly.

An advocacy group for the disabled says a federal judge is giving the surf-inspired clothing label, which has more than 500 locations worldwide, until January 1, 2017, to make the changes.

Many of its stores have entrances that resemble a stepped front porch and a lawsuit launched in 2009 accused the company of discriminating against disabled customers.

The Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition says a ruling Friday by a federal judge in Denver requires Hollister to make changes at a rate of 77 stores per year so they are more accessible.

The ruling says the company has options including leveling out stairs at entrances or installing ramps.

It also can close off stairway entrances so that all customers, not just those who can't walk, would use secondary entrances.

The lawsuit was filed in 2009 against J.M. Hollister LLC and its owner, Ohio-based Abercrombie & Fitch Co., on behalf of several Colorado customers.

In March the district court for Colorado ordered company executives to comply with disability advocates but according to The Colorado Independent the two parties failed to reach an agreement and the steps remained a problem.

The long-running case originally grew from complaints filed against two Hollister stores in Colorado by the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Julie Farrar, 45, one of the plaintiffs in the four-year dispute, said she visited the Orchard Town Center store, which has since closed, to buy items for her 12-year-old daughter but her wheelchair couldn’t make it up the steps.

Lawyers for the Equal Rights Center, a national civil-rights organization, found similar access problems at Abercrombie & Fitch and Hollister stores in nine States and filed a similar lawsuit in November 2009 in Maryland.

In 2012 the Colorado-focused case grew into a class-action suit targeting the 248 Hollister stores across the U.S. that feature imitation porch steps as a main entrance.

Despite the uproar, Hollister vigorously defended the use of stairs in its stores.

A company spokesman said that the raised entrances were designed to create 'an entry to a house in Southern California that you would walk up onto the porch or walk down into the porch, to enter, like you would do at a beach house.'

The firm argued that it complies with the law because the stores include side doors disguised as shuttered windows that are wheelchair accessible.

However plaintiffs said these doors are often are blocked with tables stacked with merchandise and they should not be made to enter through an 'inferior' entrance.

Ms Farrar, who was born without a sacrum - the triangular bone at the bottom of the spine - told The Colorado Independent: 'I would never go through a side door. It’s not something I would do. I’m philosophically opposed to that.

'These stores are designed to look shuttered and hidden, as if to keep out the riffraff. I want people to know that, as a society, we have evolved over the past 25 years.

'Despite the fact that [Hollister] market beauty and athleticism as a stereotype, the reality is they still need the rest of us people who are short, chubby and maybe with acne and wheelchairs.'

In March U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel agreed that Hollister’s inaccessible porches violate the American with Disabilities Act, also known as the ADA.

The 23-year-old law prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and governmental activities.

Judge Daniel ruled that customers who use wheelchairs must be entitled to the same experience as all other customers.

He suggested that Hollister could flatten out its entrance ways and remove the steps or install wheelchair-accessible ramps.

Commenting on the ruling, a spokesman for Hollister told MailOnline 'We are surprised by the Judge’s decision that the Hollister entrances are not compliant with the ADA.

'We’ve maintained throughout the litigation, and continue to maintain, that the stores comply with the ADA and allow access to all patrons.

'Beyond that, we want all of our customers to have a positive experience when shopping in our stores. While we reserve the right to appeal the underlying legal issue, we are currently working with the court and the plaintiffs to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.'

Hollister, like all of the Abercrombie brands, markets its clothing as a lifestyle, its main inspiration being Southern California's beach and surf scene. The website explains that it is the 'coolest destination for genuine SoCal style clothes for guys and girls.'

And a 2013 report to shareholders reads: 'It’s all about hot lifeguards and beautiful beaches… Young and fun, with a sense of humor, Hollister never takes itself too seriously. Hollister’s laid-back lifestyle and All-American image is timeless and effortlessly cool.'

The U.S. Justice Department has also weighed in on the discrimination case. It highlighted that the Hollister stores were built long after the ADA came into play and therefore the entrances violate both the 'spirit and letter of the law.'
 
mark handler said:
Once again BO's allowing new stores to circumvent the Accessibility laws
The firm argued that it complies with the law because the stores include side doors disguised as shuttered windows that are wheelchair accessible.



Federal ruling aside, does the second entrance meet the requirements?

Additionally, does a revolving door meet the same criteria if secondary doors are installed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mark handler said:
Once again BO's allowing new stores to circumvent the Accessibility laws
Lets see the 2003 IBC only required 50% of entrances to be accessible. The 2006 raised that to 60% of all entrances.

If they installed an accessible entrance on each side of the raised entrance and met the 60% requirement in the 2006 and later editions is the BO circumventing the ADA? No he is properly enforcing the building code.

I don't view it any different than a revolving door or a turnstile where an alternative is provided.
 
Additionally, does a revolving door meet the same criteria if secondary doors are installed

A walk thorugh door is required when a revolving door is installed

1008.1.4 Special doors. Special doors and security grilles

shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1008.1.4.1

through 1008.1.4.5.

1008.1.4.1 Revolving doors. Revolving doors shall

comply with the following:

1. Each revolving door shall be capable of collapsing

into a bookfold position with parallel egress paths

providing an aggregate width of 36 inches (914

mm).

2. A revolving door shall not be located within 10

feet (3048 mm) of the foot of or top of stairs or

escalators. A dispersal area shall be provided

between the stairs or escalators and the revolving

doors.

3. The revolutions per minute (rpm) for a revolving

door shall not exceed those shown in Table

1008.1.4.1.

4. Each revolving door shall have a side-hinged

swinging door which complies with Section

1008.1 in the same wall and within 10 feet (3048

mm) of the revolving door.

5. Revolving doors shall not be part of an accessible

route required by Section 1007 and Chapter 11.
 
At a minimum....they would have to have directional signage.....under 2003....Do they step back down on the inside? What would allow that part of the store to be inaccessible?
 
mtlogcabin said:
Lets see the 2003 IBC only required 50% of entrances to be accessible. The 2006 raised that to 60% of all entrances. If they installed an accessible entrance on each side of the raised entrance and met the 60% requirement in the 2006 and later editions is the BO circumventing the ADA? No he is properly enforcing the building code.

I don't view it any different than a revolving door or a turnstile where an alternative is provided.
You read some sections and not others:

1104.5 Location.

Accessible routes shall coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path.

So, wheelchair users need to enter the side door where the business removed the colored only signs
 
mtlogcabin said:
Lets see the 2003 IBC only required 50% of entrances to be accessible. The 2006 raised that to 60% of all entrances. If they installed an accessible entrance on each side of the raised entrance and met the 60% requirement in the 2006 and later editions is the BO circumventing the ADA? No he is properly enforcing the building code.

I don't view it any different than a revolving door or a turnstile where an alternative is provided.
Agreed, assuming the above is met, I would have to approve it without circumventing anything.
 
mjesse said:
Agreed, assuming the above is met, I would have to approve it without circumventing anything.
And that is why we have the lawsuits, lack of education.

You read some sections and not others:

1104.5 Location.

Accessible routes shall coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path.
 
It would depend on how far off the side it was to me (Sorry Mark)...If they flanked the non accessible entrance, I might be OK (have to approve it)..... if everything else was met and my concerns from post #6 were met..
 
steveray said:
It would depend on how far off the side it was to me (Sorry Mark)...If they flanked the non accessible entrance, I might be OK (have to approve it)..... if everything else was met and my concerns from post #6 were met..
You don't need to apologize to me.

It is the disabled vet or the 85 year old mother you need to apologize to.

A side entry might be okay in an existing nonconforming building, but most of

the Abercrombie & Fitch/Hollister Co. stores were built after the ADA went into effect
 
mark handler said:
Not a side entryYou learn nothing from the court
Unless you have specific information that hasn't been shared, there is no way to say that "SIDE" isn't the same as - "coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path"



No one said "on the OTHER side, or AROUND the side of the building" SIDE may very well mean be-SIDE...as in next to...as in "THE SAME AREA" as required by Code.
 
mark handler said:
Not a side entryYou learn nothing from the court
One judge one mans opinion. I bet the results might be different if it was a jury trail

You are right I don't apply the code requirements based upon court decisions.

The fact that a person has an attitude of "'I would never go through a side door. It’s not something I would do. I’m philosophically opposed to that". I don't care what they are "philosophically oppose to" , the entrances are less than 6 ft apart. Hardly a side door in my opinion.



They where never denied access, they where never made to use the back door. There is no such thing as equal for all, it will never happen.
 
mark handler said:
If you ever wonder why the lawsuits, look in the mirror...
So sue me :devil

Seriously though, this discussion proves that WE are far from finding the "right" answer.

These issues quickly dissolve into the likes of politics and religion; I'm right-You're wrong-We all lose.
 
mjesse said:
We all lose.
No, Not all of us lose, Someone out there, obviously not you, will be educated by this, provide proper access and prevent a lawsuit
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mark handler said:
No, Not all of us loose, Someone out there, obviously not you, will be educated by this, provide proper access and prevent a lawsuit
Let me educate you first on the proper spelling of the word "lose"

Loose, is what one of your screws is.

You have my respect Mark, you are far more knowledgeable than most on issues regarding the ADA. You are the "go-to" guy on these issues for the forum.

Lest you believe I cannot be educated, please enlighten me. Are revolving doors still allowed? Are monument stairs still allowed? What distance from these is acceptable to have an accessible entry? I really don't know.
 
New or existing? Historic?

Are revolving doors still allowed? Yes, if there are compliant swinging doors

Read the code:

4. Each revolving door shall have a side-hinged swinging door which complies with Section 1008.1 in the same wall and within 10 feet of the revolving door.

Are monument stairs still allowed?

Yes, if there is an accessible entry element, lift, ramp or elevator withing the proximity of the stair

What distance from these is acceptable to have an accessible entry? Case by case basis, and depends on the code, but sending someone to the side or rear of a building MAY not be accessible, as identified in the case in post #1
 
mark handler said:
Case by case basis, and depends on the code, but sending someone to the side or rear of a building MAY not be accessible, as identified in the case in post #1
Excellent.

In the photo in your original post, there appears to be a doorway of some sort just to the right of the porch structure. Would this doorway be within an acceptable distance, and therefore permissible under the current Codes?
 
mjesse said:
Excellent.In the photo in your original post, there appears to be a doorway of some sort just to the right of the porch structure. Would this doorway be within an acceptable distance, and therefore permissible under the current Codes?
I do not have all the facts, it looks like a display window to me.

There is no visible signage directing a disabled user to that door.

I might accept it if there were signage inside and out and if i arrived in the same space inside, as the main door. But only if the building were existing. I would prefer seeing a ramp leading to the platform so that the disabled could enter through the same doors. Truly equal access.
 
Top