• 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.

Disability-access lawsuits spark calls for legislation

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,895
Location
So. CA
Disability-access lawsuits spark calls for legislation

http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_29072613/disability-access-lawsuits-spark-calls-legislation

A recent string of lawsuits targeting Minnesota businesses that allegedly are out of step with state and federal accessibility standards has business leaders and some disability advocates calling for new legislation.

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce is working with the State Council on Disability and other groups to draft a proposal they plan to present during the 2016 legislative session. They hope to give business owners an opportunity to bring their facilities into compliance with the Minnesota Human Rights Act before a lawsuit could proceed.

More than 100 such lawsuits have been filed in Minnesota over the past year, the Chamber says, creating financial hardships for business owners who have to pay settlements, retrofit their businesses or both.

The nonprofit Disability Support Alliance, a Minnesota group whose members are named as plaintiffs in many of the lawsuits, opposes such changes to the law, arguing that business owners have had plenty of time to ensure they're in compliance. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990.

"It's a very delicate balancing act," said Margot Imdieke, accessibility specialist with the State Council on Disability. "We don't want to do anything that's going to diminish our ability, as people with disabilities, to correct violations. ... But we want to see a process created."

A similar bill, which would apply to lawsuits citing the federal ADA, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in October by Rep.Ted Poe, R-Texas. In a news release, Poe's office said the intention of the bill is to "curb frivolous lawsuits filed by cash-hungry attorneys and plaintiffs that abuse the ADA."

But Melanie Davis, executive director of the DSA, said her group is simply highlighting the state's lax enforcement of accessibility standards.

"It's been overlooked for a very long time," said Davis, who is herself disabled. "What's the point of a law that's not enforced?"

Beth Kadoun, vice president of tax and fiscal policy for the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, said many business owners don't realize they're out of compliance -- until a lawsuit is filed.

"This is a pretty technical area of the law," Kadoun said.

Kadoun added that litigation costs quickly add up for small business owners. Many choose just to settle.

Restaurateur Stephanie Shimp, co-owner of the Groveland Tap, said she believed the St. Paul restaurant was ADA- and MHRA-compliant when she found herself a defendant in one of the DSA's lawsuits last summer. As with the DSA's other suits, the one against Groveland Tap was filed by the group's attorney, Paul Hansmeier of Minneapolis.

The complaint alleged Groveland Tap was inaccessible to DSA member Eric Wong, who uses a wheelchair, "due to the presence of two steps at the entrance, and the lack of a ramp."

"It was quite a surprise," Shimp said. "We had no prior warning."

Shimp added that Groveland Tap has kept a portable ramp on its premises for several years. It is put in place at a customer's request. A permanent ramp would block the sidewalk outside the building, she said.

Rather than fight a costly legal battle over the allegation, Shimp settled with Hansmeier and the DSA for between $5,000 and $10,000.

"They came to us with an amount in mind," Shimp said. "From a business perspective, settling just becomes easier, which is really a shame."

The restaurant now has a sign out front that lets patrons know the ramp is available, she added.

Shimp and other defendant business owners speculate that Hansmeier's real aim is to pressure them into agreeing to a cash settlement so he can collect a fee on it, rather than to ensure the accessibility issue is addressed.

Hansmeier, who is under investigation by the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board, declined to comment.

Davis, of the DSA, makes no secret of the fact that her group is funded by the proceeds from these lawsuits, but she says DSA's members deserve to be compensated for the inconvenience they've suffered.

"The damage is done," Davis said. "We are sick and tired of waiting for access."

Nick Woltman can be reached at 651-228-5189. Follow him at twitter.com/nickwoltman.
 
More than 100 such lawsuits have been filed in Minnesota over the past year, the Chamber says, creating financial hardships for business owners who have to pay settlements, retrofit their businesses or both.
It doesn't take much to get the good people of Minnesota riled up. At least they have choices. They can pay the bandit or they can pay the bandit and retrofit the business.

The complaint alleged Groveland Tap was inaccessible to DSA member Eric Wong, who uses a wheelchair, "due to the presence of two steps at the entrance, and the lack of a ramp."
The Groveland Tap wasn't inaccessible to Eric Wong because there are two steps. The Groveland Tap is inaccessible to Eric Wong because Eric Wong is in the less than one tenth of one percent demographic that occupy a wheelchair.

Shimp added that Groveland Tap has kept a portable ramp on its premises for several years. It is put in place at a customer's request. A permanent ramp would block the sidewalk outside the building, she said.
That's almost the damnable part of the story. Here the restaurant keeps a ramp available but that is not acceptable because it is different than how all of the rest of the people enter the restaurant. Well Mr. Wong I hate to belabor the obvious but you are different than those people. That the restaurant took any measure to accommodate you is all that matters.

Here's the damnable part:

The restaurant now has a sign out front that lets patrons know the ramp is available, she added.
Eric and his lawyer grab the restaurant's money ....then go away like the whole thing never even happened.

Davis, of the DSA, makes no secret of the fact that her group is funded by the proceeds from these lawsuits, but she says DSA's members deserve to be compensated for the inconvenience they've suffered.
That's right Mel....your paycheck is tainted money.

"The damage is done," Davis said. "We are sick and tired of waiting for access."
Not so tired of waiting that you won't walk away with the money and let the barrier stay. That is all the proof that anyone needs that the entire boondoggle is a scam.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mtlogcabin said:
Maybe that is an indication the law should be repealed.
Does this scam happen in Big Sky Country? How about Colorado and Alaska? New York city?
 
ICE said:
Does this scam happen in Big Sky Country? How about Colorado and Alaska? New York city?
Why do you say it's a scam? Just because an individual has to sue in order to get a business to comply with the law you think it's a scam? If the business had really cared they would've already corrected any problems since the law has been in effect for 25 years!
 
If the business had really cared they would've already corrected any problems since the law has been in effect for 25 years!
Are you obedient to all the laws that have been in effect for the past 25 years? Lawyers, architects, contractors and code officials who work with this stuff everyday can't keep up with all the codes, standards, ES reports and manufactures installation instructions to ensure compliance. Accessibility laws have good intentions. The problem is not all intentions can be met in all existing buildings. One size does not fit all.
 
Does this scam happen in Big Sky Country?
Fair Housing is pretty active throughout the state suing developers. There are no financial rewards for people to sue in Montana over and above what the DOJ allows that I am aware of.
 
Back
Top