• 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.

Businesses scramble to comply

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,892
Location
So. CA
Businesses scramble to comply with orders for disability access

http://www.lajollalight.com/2011/12/14/businesses-scramble-to-comply-with-orders-for-disability-access/

By Dave Schwab

daves@lajollalight.com

If your business isn’t ADA-compliant — it ought to be.

Several La Jolla merchants were not and have been called on it. It cost them dearly both in time and money.

Mitch’s Surf Shop and a handful of other Village businesses acted recently to become ADA compliant in the wake of an enforcement sweep initiated by a disabled activist.

More than a year ago, Theodore Pinnock, a disabled African-American attorney with a reputation for conducting unannounced ADA-compliance sweeps, paid a visit to La Jolla citing at least two businesses, WindanSea Veterinary Clinic at 6911 La Jolla Blvd. and Kathleen Buoymaster Inc., an interior design studio at 6933 La Jolla Blvd., for being non-ADA compliant.

Mitch’s at 631 Pearl St. was closed Sept. 26 to Oct. 1 to install a wheelchair ramp, and for parking lot reconstruction to provide disabled parking space to accommodate vans and other large vehicles in front of the shop.

Signed into law in 1990, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a wide-ranging measure intended to make facilities more accessible to people with disabilities. The act has typically led public and private entities to install curb ramps, rails in restrooms, etc.

Discussing the ADA case against Mitch’s, attorney Amy Vanderbilt representing Amy Greenberg, who is disabled, said “My client, in a wheelchair, could not access Mitch’s because there was simply no accessible path of travel to the entrance. When cars were parked in the parking spaces, they blocked the walkway to the business. Inside, there was no wheelchair access to the surfboard display.”

Vanderbilt said the modifications made by Mitch’s as a result of the lawsuit benefit both the disabled and business communities.

“Now there is one more surf shop available to people with disabilities and Mitch’s just expanded its client base,” she said. “As they say in the disabled community, ‘If you live long enough, you’ll be one of us.’ ”

Attorney James O’Neil, who represented Mitch’s Surf Shop, doesn’t dispute the wisdom or mandate of the ADA Act. But takes issue with how it’s being applied and enforced.

He pointed out that ADA modifications, depending on their complexity, can cost $20,000 or more, and legal penalties have also gotten much stiffer for non-compliance. “It started out as a $200 fine per condition,” he said. “That has now gone to $4,000 per condition. The standards are very tight. Even if you’re off by an inch, you don’t meet the standards.”

And, O’Neil noted there are a great many reasons for businesses not being ADA compliant. “Some people may buy an old building not realizing it’s not compliant,” he said. “I think the law should be changed so that before a person can be sued for ADA non-compliance, a letter be required to be sent informing them of their non-compliance, and giving them X number of days to comply.”

O’Neil noted there are many businesses in La Jolla that are unaware of being ADA non-compliant. “I can hardly walk down a block in La Jolla without spotting what appear to be non-compliant conditions,” he said. “Many of these are very small, but that doesn’t mean a lawsuit can’t be filed to contest them.”

Because ADA-accessibility laws apply to commercial property owners as well as businesses, Vandeveld cautioned people shouldn’t wait until they’re sued to provide disabled access to their facilities.
 
The standards are very tight. Even if you’re off by an inch, you don’t meet the standards.
Of course, that's not much of a defense for the fact that his shop didn't even have an accessible parking space delineated.
 
“I think the law should be changed so that before a person can be sued for ADA non-compliance, a letter be required to be sent informing them of their non-compliance, and giving them X number of days to comply.”
I think the law should be changed so that before a police officer issues a person a speeding ticket, a letter be required and sent informing them of their non-compliance and giving them X number of days to comply.
 
And before they obtain a business license, they should be tested on their knowledge of ADA, IBC, IPC, IMC, NEC, AIA, and BFD.
 
beach said:
And before they obtain a business license, they should be tested on their knowledge of ADA, IBC, IPC, IMC, NEC, AIA, and BFD.
Well requiring knowledge of ADA for a business license does make sense and would be cheaper than getting lawyers involved. It would also probably improve voluntary compliance. It certainly would end the whining.
 
You can be the first in the country to do it! And you can take full credit for the idea..... the test might be a little tough on the gardeners, mobile car wash, window washers, house cleaners, junk haulers, etc. but everyone should know all of the ADA requirements.
 
Open a business school teaching regulatory compliance since having such a high expectation for accessibility issues certainly means you must comply with all other possible rules and regulations issued by whatever beauacracy du jour for taxes, labor, environmental, fair employment, communication, registration and on and on and on. I will be your first student. Of course, if you miss one issue and I get fined, I will sue you for errors and omissions.
 
brudgers said:
I think the law should be changed so that before a police officer issues a person a speeding ticket, a letter be required and sent informing them of their non-compliance and giving them X number of days to comply.
Actually, in California before the state went broke by overspending it used to be the case that if one had a good driving record, the ticket wouldn't be charged if one went to a class. One could do this once a year. Now, as in the case of the ADA, we've all become nothing more than sources of revenue for the government and the lawyers that support the politicians that passed these laws.

If the goal is to get everyone into compliance then something along the lines of a small fine and the opportunity to remedy the situation along with more reasonable requirements would make sense. As it stands the problem doesn't have to be fixed as long as the plaintiff gets their extortion money.
 
I haven't been to traffic school in years, I didn't know they stopped it. If you went to traffic school, they also took the violation off of your driving record, if I remember.... it actually cost more to go to traffic school than it was to pay the fine, but at least it wasn't on your record and the insurance co. couldn't raise your rate because of it.
 
Traffic school still exists and it's still a way to keep a ticket off of your record if your record is good enough but now you have to pay the ticket in addition to paying for the traffic school.
 
brudgers said:
Well requiring knowledge of ADA for a business license does make sense and would be cheaper than getting lawyers involved. It would also probably improve voluntary compliance. It certainly would end the whining.
Dream on Brudgers. The whining will never cease. People are anarchists at heart and just want to do what they want to do, not what is required. IMHO.

Carol
 
ewenme said:
Dream on Brudgers. The whining will never cease. People are anarchists at heart and just want to do what they want to do, not what is required. IMHO.Carol
I have a hard time thinking of big box stores and corporate food chains as anarchist at heart because they continually, and purposely, design/install accessibility barriers in new construction. In my experience, corporate designers act as if they have never heard of Chapters 10 & 11 in the IBC, the ANSI A117.1, or let alone ADA/DOJ when I make my comments. I have other words to describe the motives which lie in their heart, but they are not appropriate for this discussion.

I have no wonderment about why someone would sue a national chain for discrimination against their disability. Whether or not the general lack of concern stems from a cost-analysis logic for the economic loss of one booth versus a discrimination lawsuit, the continuous response I see is that there is no desire or effort to remove these barriers, or at a minimum provide compliant facilities. At best, it is a systemic and pervasive corporate culture, IMHO.
 
Back
Top