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

[mjesse]

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.

I can accept that. Seems reasonable.

 

[mark handler]

Noncompling Double door

 

[mark handler]

Hollister has argued that it complies with the law because the stores include side doors disguised as shuttered windows that are wheelchair accessible. Plaintiffs say those doors often are blocked with tables stacked with merchandise.

Two newer stores, in Aurora and at Flatiron Crossing, are wheelchair accessible.

The U.S. Justice Department has also weighed in on the case, noting that the Hollister stores were built long after the ADA was enacted and that the entrances violated both the spirit and letter of the law. Justice officials criticized the company for relegating people in wheelchairs to separate side entrances.

The corporation is unabashed about its exclusionary efforts. In 2006, Abercrombie CEO Mike Jeffries told Salon that his stores specifically don’t market to teens who are overweight, unattractive or outliers among their peers.

“Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong.

 

[JPohling]

Which, if you have seen a picture of Jeffries its actually hilarious. There is actually a movement to specifically provide A/F branded clothes to the homeless.

 

[Span]

Don't know when will the ADA group badger beach cities to provide ramps into ocean.

 

[JPohling]

we have access to the water on plank type walkways and balloon tire wheelchairs are available for public use.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

Hollister has argued that it complies with the law because the stores include side doors disguised as shuttered windows that are wheelchair accessible. Plaintiffs say those doors often are blocked with tables stacked with merchandise.

Move the clothes

Brent.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Mike Jeffries told Salon that his stores specifically don’t market to teens who are overweight, unattractive or outliers among their peers. “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong.

Wow someone who is honest about their marketing strategy and desired customer base. There is nothing discriminatory about his statement and should not influence an ADA lawsuit.

and that the entrances violated both the spirit and letter of the law

I would disagree since the accessible entrance was in the area it meant the intent of the law (to provide access in the same area) The blocking the entrance with clothes and other merchandise. I agree guilty.

 

[MASSDRIVER]

The blocking the entrance with clothes and other merchandise. I agree guilty.

Blocking an entrance with clothing is not a violation of anyone's civil rights, unless of course it was promptly followed by a good firehosing. I would classify it more as a numbskull employee or set of employees that are battling HUA syndrome.

Must everything be made more than it is?

Brent

 

[mark handler]

Don't know when will the ADA group badger beach cities to provide ramps into ocean.

Ne careful what you ask for

 

[Msradell]

One judge one mans opinion. I bet the results might be different if it was a jury trail

You are probably correct. If it had gone to a jury, Hollister not only would have had to correct the entrances but they probably also would have had to done faster and been hit with a massive payment to the class that filed the lawsuit. That is unless the jury was made up of 21-year-old or younger surfers!

 

[gjmaia]

I have been to their mall stores while taking my kids shopping,.............as I walked (up) in, I tried to understand how they were permitted, and then saw the accessible route, and thought it was quite clever, as there were ramps up to the "porch" level just inside, but the store was generally at the accessible entrance level.

a couple thoughts and questions come to mind like: Why are BCO's not held accountable for thier actions?,........how soon before the AF architects are sued?, (if they haven't been already), how about the local architect on the fit up projects?

Personally, I would put some blame on the interior designer for not putting SOME MORE emphasis on the accessible route/entrance,...........as I believe just a little effort would have resulted in a completely different outcome here

 

[globe trekker]

Why are BCO's not held accountable for thier actions?,........how soon before the AF architects are sued?, (if they haven't beenalready), how about the local architect on the fit up projects?

In some locations the BCO's & BO's are not allowed to enforce the ADA. When trying to

enforce either the Building Codes, ANSI A117.1, or the 2010 ADA SAD, they are

(sometimes) reigned in by "the powers that be ". (READ: personal experience)

FWIW, the BCO's & BO's ARE held accountable. Held accountable to remain employed

in that location!

Remember, ..the squeaky wheel gets the grease!

.

 

[mjesse]

a couple thoughts and questions come to mind like: Why are BCO's not held accountable for thier actions?,........how soon before the AF architects are sued?, (if they haven't been already), how about the local architect on the fit up projects?

As stated in several posts above, poor design does not necessarily equal Code violation.

The Codes have been written in a way that allows such a design, provided an accessible entrance is nearby. You even state "(I) thought it was quite clever"

If the accessible entrance is provided as permitted in the Code, the architects and BO's can/shall approve it.

 

[mtlogcabin]

If they had 3 entrances at the front of this store and the center one was not accessible and the other 2 where would that be a violation of the ADA. Please provide a specific section that clarifies which doors have to be accessible and which do not. I do not see anything in the ADA that mentions a "main entrance" they just talk about entrances.

 

[gjmaia]

As stated in several posts above, poor design does not necessarily equal Code violation.The Codes have been written in a way that allows such a design, provided an accessible entrance is nearby. You even state "(I) thought it was quite clever"

If the accessible entrance is provided as permitted in the Code, the architects and BO's can/shall approve it.

sorry I was not clear,.............i guess my point is that all on the thread tend to agree that the condition is generally code compliant, so the suit was brought forward for "compliant but bad design"? and the defendant lost,.....do they now go after their architects for bad design?

 

[mtlogcabin]

sorry I was not clear,.............i guess my point is that all on the thread tend to agree that the condition is generally code compliant, so the suit was brought forward for "compliant but bad design"? and the defendant lost,.....do they now go after their architects for bad design?

Depends on which court you go through

[h=1]Liability under the ADA – Architects & Contractors[/h]The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC 12181 et seq. prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in the design and construction of public accommodations and commercial facilities.

Examples of such facilities include sports arenas, stadiums, movie theaters, and hotels. The law clearly holds owners and operators of inaccessible facilities liable. This article will discuss whether the liability extends to architects or contractors who design and/or build an inaccessible facility they do not own or operate.

Federal courts, including the Eight and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, have addressed the issue of liability for architects and contractors and have reached different conclusions. The cases have centered around two provisions in the ADA. Section 302 which provides that owners and operators of public accommodations are liable for discrimination against people with disabilities and Section 303 which states the failure to design and construct public accommodations and commercial facilities that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities is discriminatory.

The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in US v. Days Inns of America, Inc., 151 F. 3d 822 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1249 (1999), and three district courts Johanson v. Huizenga Holdings, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 1175 (S.D. Fla. 1997); US v. Days Inns of America, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 1080 (C.D. Ill. 1998); and US V Ellerbe Becket, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 1262 (D. Minn. 1997), have held that architects and contractors are potentially liable under the ADA reasoning that Section 302 which applies to owners and operators does not limit Section 303 which deals with the design and construction of public accommodations and commercial facilities. In other words, these courts believe that parties who do not own, lease or operate a facility built with inaccessible features may be held liable for failure to design and/or construct an accessible facility.

Once the Eight Circuit found that Section 302 does not limit and define who may be liable under Section 303, it reviewed Section 303 and found it was silent on the question of who is liable. The Eight Circuit then looked to the position taken by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the executive agency responsible for enforcing the ADA. The Court cited DOJ’s Technical Assistance Manual Section III-5.1000 which provides an example of a newly constructed facility that does not comply with the ADA and states that any of the entities involved in the design and construction, including the architect and the construction contractor, may all be held liable.

The Ninth Circuit Court in Lonberg v. Sanborn Theaters, Inc., 259 F. 3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2001, and two district courts Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Ellerbe Becket Architects & Engineers, 945 F. Supp. 1 (D. D.C. 1996); US v Days Inns of America, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Ky. 1998) have taken the opposite view and have held that parties must own, lease or operate a facility to be subject to the design and construct liability in Section 303. These courts looked at the structure of the language of the entire ADA and found that each title was set up the same way. First are the definitions, next is the rule of liability, and then actions that constitute discrimination. Thus, the Ninth Circuit and the two district courts found that Section 302 sets forth a rule of liability that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by certain individuals and Section 303 sets forth actions by these individuals that constitute the discrimination. In other words, Under the ADA only owners and operators are liable for the design and construction of a facility that was built in violation of the ADA.

Since courts have decided the liability issue differently, architects and contractors need to keep in mind that they may be liable under the ADA for the design and construction of facilities that violate the ADA. The risk may depend on the project’s location. Is it in the Eight Circuit, Ninth Circuit or a district that has not weighed in on the issue to date? Be careful because sometimes a court may hear a case and the decision is unpublished sand therefore not well know. For example, in 2004 the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington held in Marshall v. Cafaro Co., that the ADA does not provide a statutory basis for claims against design professionals. The court sited Lonberg in its decision.

Finally, architects and contractors must keep in mind that they may have liability for failure to design and/or build compliant facilities based on the terms of the contract with the owner or tort law in the state the project is located. For example, even in a location where the court has determined an architect is not liable under the ADA, the architect may still be liable if the contract mandates the work to comply with the ADA. Also, if an owner is held liable because his new building was designed and built in violation of the ADA, the owner may pursue an action against his architect and/or contractor.

The answer to who is liable is complicated and can be expensive if a party is drawn into a court case. The best course of action an architect or builder can take is to ensure that the design and/or construction complies with the ADA.

One of the reasons I do not let court decisions influence accessibility decisions within the construction phase. The court is looking at civil rights violations I look at the code and does it meet the requirements and the intent of the code. Two very different applications of similar rules.

 

[mark handler]

The intent of the code is that the buildings be accessible

If the buildings were designed per the IBC and ANSI 117, you would not have the lawsuits

And no that does not include segrigated "accessible and colored only" entries in the side or rear

 

[mjesse]

The intent of the code is that the buildings be accessibleIf the buildings were designed per the IBC and ANSI 117, you would not have the lawsuits

And no that does not include segrigated "accessible and colored only" entries in the side or rear

Keep race-baiting Mark, and your arguments lose credibility.

If you don't agree that additional entries located nearby should be permitted, lobby for a Code change that states the primary entrance should be the only entrance, and accessible to all.

Since you like to be the pessimist, currently the Code allows for design that "excludes" some persons of differing mobility from the main entry.

 

[mark handler]

Keep race-baiting Mark, and your arguments lose credibility.

You not I are trying so hard to find justification for discrimination.

Discrimination is discrimination.

 

[mjesse]

You not I are trying so hard to find justification for discrimination.Discrimination is discrimination.

You'll find discrimination in anything if you look hard enough, life is not fair.

Should every automobile come with hand controls since I cant move my legs?

Should all Motorcycles have three wheels since my legs won't support me.

I wanted to climb half-dome in Yosemite NP, but they didn't make it accessible for me.

My neighbor weighs 500# and can't fit in an airplane seat, is that discriminatory? She can't help it she's "different"

My dad lost his thumbs in 'Nam, and the Vietnamese restaurant keeps delivering chopsticks with his take-out. Outrageous.

You don't like the current laws that allow for "discrimination" as you see it, that doesn't mean BO's can deny a plan based on a perceived civil rights violation.

We very clearly disagree, and I can see your point completely. But I would have to allow the A&F entry if submitted, BECAUSE IT MEETS CODE.

 

[mark handler]

. But I would have to allow the A&F entry if submitted, BECAUSE IT MEETS CODE.

In your opinion, but as the court pointed out, you would be wrong.

That case, A&F, discriminated.

Side and rear entries might be okay in existing buildings but not in new building or as a company policy

 

[mark handler]

Learn from the mistakes of others.

The lack of signage directing those in wheelchairs to the other entrance effectively prevents them from using it: You can't see the button unless you know it's there and know what to look for.

The alternative entrance was either locked or was impossible to use because of displays.

In this day of pilfering and shoplifting, how many nondepartment stores have multiple public entrances......not exits, entrances.

We are not talking about an existing nonaccessible building, we are talking about, on a corporate level, intentionally building obstacles preventing access, and knowingly circumventing the code.

 

[mark handler]

Whaaaaaaaaaa Abercrombie & Fitch earnings fall 30% on weak demand

Abercrombie's shares tumble 18% as the company and other teen retailers struggle with weak sales in the latest quarter.

Abercrombie & Fitch earnings fall 30% on weak demand - latimes.com