• 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 Lawsuits Against Small Businesses Soar

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,893
Location
So. CA
Disability Lawsuits Against Small Businesses Soar

Federal Ruling and New Guidelines Allow ‘Testers’ to Go to Court

http://online.wsj.com/articles/disabled-access-new-legal-push-1413411545

Arbetter Hot Dogs in Miami was sued for allegedly not providing proper access for the disabled. ANGEL VALENTIN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By ANGUS LOTEN

Oct. 15, 2014 6:19 p.m. ET

Small-business owners face a growing number of disabled-access lawsuits in the wake of a recent appeals-court ruling giving rise to disabled “testers,” as well as the release of detailed federal specifications for curb ramps, self-opening doors and other standards.

For the year through June 30, plaintiffs filed 1,939 lawsuits under a section of the federal disability law setting out accessibility requirements for businesses and other public places. That’s up nearly 55% from 1,254 over the year-earlier period, according to Washington, D.C.-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP, which reviewed court records.

Many of the lawsuits originated in California, New York and Florida, and most end in quick settlements, often of less than $10,000. Last year, 2,719 such lawsuits were up 9% from 2,495 in 2012, according to the law firm’s latest count.

Among those sued last year was Dave Arbetter ’s Miami restaurant, Arbetter Hot Dogs, a 1,000-square-foot luncheonette that his family has owned and operated since the 1960s. In November, a disabled customer, Alan Rigerman, filed a lawsuit against the hot dog shop in U.S. District Court in Miami. Mr. Rigerman said he was “denied full, safe and equal access” because the 60-year-old building lacked fixed floor mats and accessible restrooms, among 28 other alleged violations, according to the complaint.

“I’ve never been sued in my life, it was a complete shock,” said Mr. Arbetter, a 50-year-old Florida native who runs the business with his sister, Jill Arbetter.

Ronald E. Stern, a lawyer for Mr. Rigerman, the disabled plaintiff, said all businesses have a legal obligation to make their hotels and restaurants compliant. “You have to adhere to the law, and this is one of the very few practical laws that Congress enacted where you can see the benefit to the disabled,” said Mr. Stern. In addition to his lawsuit against the hot dog shop, Mr. Rigerman this year sued a gym as well as a hotel, court records show. Those lawsuits were combined, and are scheduled for trial next year, Mr. Stern said.

Mr. Rigerman, who walks with a cane, said the hot dog shop “needed to make some kind of a ramp for people with wheelchairs,” and needed “to have a rail someone can hold on to, to go up the stairs. I let my lawyer tell them” they should make the changes, he said.

The U.S. government also files lawsuits against businesses, among other enforcement measures. In August, for instance, the Justice Department proposed new rules that would require small movie theaters to provide closed captioning and audio descriptions of films.
 
mark handler said:
Among those sued last year was Dave Arbetter ’s Miami restaurant, Arbetter Hot Dogs, a 1,000-square-foot luncheonette that his family has owned and operated since the 1960s. In November, a disabled customer, Alan Rigerman, filed a lawsuit against the hot dog shop in U.S. District Court in Miami. Mr. Rigerman said he was “denied full, safe and equal access” because the 60-year-old building lacked fixed floor mats and accessible restrooms, among 28 other alleged violations, according to the complaint.
~50 years. Half a century, and people of all shapes, sizes, etc. have managed to get in and out of there just fine...
 
JCraver said:
~50 years. Half a century, and people of all shapes, sizes, etc. have managed to get in and out of there just fine...
You Don't Know that, many may-not have been able "to get in and out of there, just fine". How many potential customers have been denied access....

Some are happy to discriminate, as long as they can remain in business.....
 
8747 Sw 40th St, Miami, FL 3316

Do a Google Earth search and go to street view and just click and it will take you right inside with a 360 degree view, You can see the violations and interior of the restaurant. The restrooms will never meet ADA without losing a substantial portion of his dining and kitchen area.

So in order to be un-happy and non discriminatory I guess maybe he should just close his business

A ramp would be an easy fix and I agree this should have been done years ago
 
mark handler said:
You Don't Know that, many may-not have been able "to get in and out of there, just fine". How many potential customers have been denied access.... Some are happy to discriminate, as long as they can remain in business.....
And some are happy to just be able to stay in business. 28 violations = more money than I want to guess at.

*Not trying to start an argument. I just found it interesting that for 50 years, it wasn't a big enough problem at this location for anyone to complain about.
 
mark handler said:
You Don't Know that, many may-not have been able "to get in and out of there, just fine". How many potential customers have been denied access.... Some are happy to discriminate, as long as they can remain in business.....
We all discriminate every day, all the time, it's important to discriminate between good and bad, profitable, and non-profitable. A business owner may not have the money to comply, or just make the business decision that the additional business gained through compliance is not worth the expense involved to be compliant.

"Some are happy to discriminate, as long as they can remain in business....", isn't it better to discriminate than go out of business? The Civil Rights laws are the most discriminatory laws ever passed, they discriminate against some people for the benefit of others.

An important lesson I learned in law school was in Constitutional Law, the classroom was tiered like in The Paper Chase classroom and the professor was walking through the tiers distributing the midterm exams, as students opened their exams there were audible gasps from students, a couple of girls started crying, the professor turned around and said: "What's wrong, not fair?" Several students said yes, the exam had one question, completely unrelated to anything we had studied or even law. The professor said: 'This is to teach you that the law isn't fair, it isn't fair because life isn't fair, laws are written by legislatures who are paid by business and other interests to write them or simply to get votes, there is nothing fair about them. Now get to work and write me a good exam, remember 33% of you are going to flunk out, and that is fair." It took some quick thinking to figure out how to write a 5 hour exam on the fairness of laws in the context of the constitution.
 
mark handler said:
You Don't Know that, many may-not have been able "to get in and out of there, just fine". How many potential customers have been denied access.... Some are happy to discriminate, as long as they can remain in business.....
bullshlt

Brent
 
There is a big difference between denying (refusing) to allow someone access and not providing something to allow that access to be easier to a specific individual

A business owner does not intentionally deny access to to specific individuals just because they do not choose to follow a specific law or are unaware of their responsibilities under the law

Are you personally aware of all the laws you violate on a given day?
 
If you go to his home you probably won't find a ramp anywhere, throw carpets on the floor, a bathroom that's 5x8 with a tub, toilet and vanity, and no grab rails within sight.

Yet, when he leaves the house, he enters a world of discrimination.

It amazes me how people have a total lack of critical thought.

Brent.
 
When was the last time work was done on this building? If it was before ADA was enacted, is the owner required to make any accessibility upgrades?
 
Under barrier removal he was required to put a ramp in

As far a bathroom upgrades he would not know until the DOJ brought a lawsuit. It amazes me how some can sit in an office 3,000 miles away and declare what others should or could have been done and imply that those you are not in compliance with ADA are some how evil, discriminatory and out to bring some king of injustice upon the disabled of this world. I bet if as a business owner you had to choose between paying your taxes or installing a $2500 ramp you will pay your taxes every year

"Readily achievable"

What is readily achievable is determined on a case-by-case basis, relative to a particular business's resources and existing barriers. Something readily achievable for one business may not be readily achievable for the one next door, because of more limited resources or more difficult physical constraints. And, what is readily achievable when a business is doing well may not be readily achievable in a down cycle when business is slow. A barrier that cannot be removed when business is slow should be reevaluated when business improves.

If a business has more barriers than it can afford to remove all at once, it can spread the work out over time. Removing barriers is an ongoing responsibility, so you should reevaluate the barriers in your facility every year to determine which ones to remove.

Priorities

In evaluating what barriers need to be removed, you should give first priority to getting customers with disabilities in the door. The second priority is providing access to the areas where you provide goods and services to the public. The third priority is providing access to the restroom facilities that are provided for customers' use. Lastly, you should eliminate any other physical barriers you have.






[TABLE=width: 587]

[TR]

[TD=align: center]
moneycounter.jpg
[/TD]

[TD=width: 54%, align: center]
condiment.jpg
[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]


A woman using a wheelchair is buying a drink at a small grocery store. Adequate maneuvering space and a low, uncluttered counter make it possible for her to approach the sales counter.



[/TD]

[TD=width: 54%]


A woman using a scooter is selecting items from the condiment bar at a casual restaurant. Adequate maneuvering space and items placed within reach make it possible for her to serve herself.



[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]



Limits

The ADA does have limits for barrier removal. While stores may need to rearrange racks and shelves, restaurants may need to rearrange tables, and other businesses may need to rearrange furniture or potted plants in order to permit wheelchair access, businesses are not expected to reduce the amount of furniture or display racks to the extent that it results in a significant loss of selling or serving space.

In removing barriers, you never have to do more than is required under the standards for alterations (as discussed in lesson 3).

http://www.ada.gov/reachingout/lesson42.htm

 


Definition of "readily achievable" in section 36.104 of "ADA Title III Regulation 28 CFR Part 36"

www.ada.gov/reg3a.html






Readily achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable factors to be considered include --

(1) The nature and cost of the action needed under this part;

(2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved in the action; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate safety requirements that are necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention measures; or the impact otherwise of the action upon the operation of the site;

(3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the site or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity;

(4) If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and

(5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any parent corporation or entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the parent corporation or entity.





 
MASSDRIVER said:
Which means you get subjected to some kind of audit. Which takes time, energy, and money.

Brent.
Not to mention disclosing all of your financial information to the government.
 
Your point being?

Why him?

50 years of income, 25 years of the ADA and they didn't make a dime or pay any taxes each year? Ignorant of the law all that time? Head in the sand?

How often do you exceed the speed limit? Odds of being pulled over?

He has chosen to take chances for 25 years, judgement day is now at hand.
 
Back
Top