• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Attorney Couple Defends ADA Lawsuits as Civil Rights Push

The requirement for leasing agents to notify tenants as to whether/or not a CASp survey has been performed is a start.

But as I have said before, include a notice in business renewals and require proof of compliance when new licenses are issued and businesses sold.

Failure to comply with the "2013 code" vs the ADA now allows Code Compliance officers to investigate non-code compliance and fine the business owners (smiling) more money for cities, no?

What say you to that AHJ Mark H.?
 
ADAguy said:
The requirement for leasing agents to notify tenants as to whether/or not a CASp survey has been performed is a start. But as I have said before, include a notice in business renewals and require proof of compliance when new licenses are issued and businesses sold.

Failure to comply with the "2013 code" vs the ADA now allows Code Compliance officers to investigate non-code compliance and fine the business owners (smiling) more money for cities, no?

What say you to that AHJ Mark H.?
Click to expand...
Cities are not in it for the money.

Cities will only invesigate CBC compliance Complaints, not ADA.

there is no CBC/state requirement of retroactive compliance with the accessibility requirements of the CBC
 
There is a new provision for alterations "path of travel", kinda sorta like one code edition back safe harbor but you gotta upgrade retroactive for existing conditions.

11B-202.4

Exception

2. If the following elements of a path of travel have been constructed or altered in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the immediately preceding edition of the California Building Code, it shall not be required to retrofit such elements to reflect the incremental changes in this code solely because of an alteration to an area served by those elements of the path of travel:

1. A primary entrance to the building or facility,

2. Toilet and bathing facilities serving the area,

3. Drinking fountains serving the area,

4. Public telephones serving the area, and

5. Signs.
 
It looks like my fishing expedition isn't getting many bites

Rephrasing the issue: Given that there is a general requirement in ADA to remove access barriers and hardly any existing buildings have done or attempted to remove barriers. What kind of system should be put in place to enforce ADA in lieu of current enforcement by lawsuit?

Suggestion box still open for business
 
mjesse: good critique. There are no real statistics available that are compiled to show the numbers of buildings that have done or attempted barrier removals. My statement is based on anecdotal experience.

Now; do you have a suggestion on how to get this country out of the federal lawsuit mess?
 
jdfruit said:
There is a new provision for alterations "path of travel", kinda sorta like one code edition back safe harbor but you gotta upgrade retroactive for existing conditions.11B-202.4

Exception

2. If the following elements of a path of travel have been constructed or altered in compliance with the accessibility requirements of the immediately preceding edition of the California Building Code, it shall not be required to retrofit such elements to reflect the incremental changes in this code solely because of an alteration to an area served by those elements of the path of travel:

1. A primary entrance to the building or facility,

2. Toilet and bathing facilities serving the area,

3. Drinking fountains serving the area,

4. Public telephones serving the area, and

5. Signs.
Click to expand...
But only when submitting for a permit

I, as a BO, cannot require a property owner to upgrade the property if the Property owner does not apply for a permit

A BO, as we disscussed, cannot enforce the ADA
 
jdfruit said:
Now; do you have a suggestion on how to get this country out of the federal lawsuit mess?
Click to expand...
Lawsuits are profitable for some. Capitalism is king. In this country, spilling hot coffee on your own lap could be viewed as an easy ticket to a life of riches.

Accessibility suits are the new slip-n-fall, ambulance chaser targets of days gone by. All that's missing are the infomercials.

- "Have you been discriminated against by a flight of stairs or a narrow aisle?" - "I'm attorney Peter Francis Geraci"

Changing the rule of law which currently allows the extortion payouts is the best start. Folks smarter than I have stated similar methods above.

. The intent of the regulations is noble.

. Mandated benevolence is a slippery slope.

. Altruism can exist without threat of suit.

. Building violations are not a civil rights issue
 
Do you have a suggestion on how to get this country out of the federal lawsuit mess?
Click to expand...
The Feds created it, it is the Feds responsibility not local or state governments

Any rights given by a government can be rescinded by the same government.

I don't loose sleep over an existing building that does not keep up with a "civil rights" law.

Personally I believe the DOJ has a fair process for investigating and mediating ADA violations before they initiate a lawsuit as a last resort of achieving compliance.

CA has given that responsibility to individuals and encouraged them to actively seek out a potential violation through a monetary minimum reward system
 
mtlogcabin said:
CA has given that responsibility to individuals and encouraged them to actively seek out a potential violation through a monetary minimum reward system
Click to expand...
because the feds won't deal with it

But, remember the CA access laws predate the ADA
 
jdfruit said:
Do you have a suggestion on how to get this country out of the federal lawsuit mess?
Click to expand...
No I don't, but if there is access, there is no litigation

How can i avoid a speeding ticket, don't speed
 
Regarding the "civil rights" law aspect, the law is not a building code.

The ADASAD and it's predecessor standards are not law.

They are standards that show how to comply with the law.

The "civil rights" aspect is to provide equal access to all.
 
mjesse said:
spilling hot coffee on your own lap could be viewed as an easy ticket to a life of riches
Click to expand...
Who hasn't spilled coffee in their lap? How many of you suffered third degree burns? This woman did. There is no reason for coffee to be just below the boiling point. McDonalds found that out the hard way. Their coffee is still too hot.
 
ICE said:
Who hasn't spilled coffee in their lap? How many of you suffered third degree burns? This woman did. There is no reason for coffee to be just below the boiling point. McDonalds found that out the hard way. Their coffee is still too hot.
Click to expand...
Relative? Maybe girlfriend? I have had pizza burn the roof of my mouth too, but I don't think I should be paid for it....I think I should learn from it and move on...
 
because the feds won't deal with it
Click to expand...
So

That does not make it a states responsibility

They won't deal with a lot of issues and then sue the states when they try.

Are CA access laws a "civil right" under the states laws or are they just a vehicle to force property/business to make provisions for a select portion of the population.

As I have stated just because a state adopted a law does not mean they can't rescind it or choose not to enforce it.

People should be careful blindly accepting the "it is the law" rebuttal when a challenge or question raised on a given subject does not have an easy answer.
 
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.

Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.

The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.

No one will ever know the final ending to this case.

The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting. Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 
Unruh Civil Rights Act enacted in 1959

codified as California Civil Code section 51

"All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever."

The act allows plaintiffs to claim treble damages with a minimum of $4000 per access violation plus attorneys fees

NOT enforced by the Cities

And No it is not ..."just a vehicle to force property/business to make provisions for a select portion of the population...." passed in the year 1959
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Picking up a couple of cogent "real world conditions" from the rants prior.

Feds won't deal with it and it is not a State enforcement issue.

Now take a look from the national view and put out a possible solution. Here are a couple of options that Shirley will get opinions but hopefully a well thought critique for pro/con on the issue:

1. National ADA enforcement by the Feds (whatever agency you may think appropriate) to make the hesitant population comply with the law.

2, National over ride on State Codes to make the ADA standards the "code" including the "ongoing obligation to remove access barriers".

3. Keep lawsuit enforcement and get lawsuit abuse reform at every State and Fed court to make access barrier removal required and limit the monetary gain by plaintiffs and blood s*** oops Lawyers.

4. Keep lawsuit enforcement and up the "bounty" to really scare the s**t out of the whole country so everyone knows the law and will do something about it.

5. Turn the whole mess over to non-profit corps and orgs so they can provide the services and construction necessary to get disabled access in the built environment.

Suggestion box still open for business.
 
The act allows plaintiffs to claim treble damages with a minimum of $4000 per access violation plus attorneys fees
Click to expand...
Was that part of the 1959 passage?

I bet not, So when did the $4,000 per violation become law and why? Was it because the state did not have the manpower to enforce what it adopted. Maybe it was just easier to shift the enforcement to those that are affected and give them a finacial insentive to actively seek out a violation no matter how large or small and not have to proof they where actually denied equal access because of a the center of the water closet was off by 1/2 inch.

Murphy's law just seems rampant within all levels of government

unintended-consequences.png
 
mtlogcabin

All laws and fines are amended

A speeding ticket from the 1950 is not the same as 2015

When does not matter. The intent of finesare a deterant
 
How do they prevail against existing building in CA. If the defendants violation was not intentional and the building was existing. Safe harbor would come into play on existing buildings

"To prevail on a section 51 claim, a plaintiff must plead and prove that the defendant’s violation was intentional, unless the action is predicated on a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act."
 
The intent of finesare a deterant
Click to expand...
In the case of CA Unruh Civil Rights Act the demand letters and minimum $4,000 collection by anybody with a disability is not a deterrent to prevent a crime it is simply a civil forfeiture which essentialy puts those abusing the system as nothing more than a private policing agency operating on commission
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top