Disability Rights Lawyer Targets Burger Stand, Forces It To Close

[conarb]

Looks like Mr. Johnson is getting sued himself for some pretty despicable acts.

 

[Rider Rick]

What goes around comes around.

 

[brudgers]

I support ADA but I think you are the problem.

I support ADA and think you're an idiot...so long as we're sharing meaningless insults.

 

[Rider Rick]

I support ADA and think you're an idiot...so long as we're sharing meaningless insults.

I must of hit a nerve.

 

[ICE]

I must of hit a nerve.

Well if anybody has nerve, it's brudgers.

 

[Rider Rick]

Well if anybody has nerve, it's brudgers.

Thanks Tiger.

 

[ICE]

A few years ago a reporter did a study in downtown San Francisco, something like 90% of the cars parked downtown had handicap placards or license plates, this is a significant drop in income to the city. The problem here is physicians giving these things to anybody who wants them, I could easily get one if I wanted, but consider it unethical. Twenty years ago I had a red temporary placard while I was going through cancer radiation, with colon and bladder damage I was always pulling into service stations parking on sidewalks wherever I could to race into the rest rooms. The doctors wanted to issue me a permanent blue placard but I refused, not wanting to be labeled inferior.

Now that's aiming at a nerve.

 

[ICE]

Originally Posted by ICE Well if anybody has nerve, it's brudgers.

Thanks Tiger.

No need to thank me. It's not like I gave him any of mine. (nerve that is)

Some days it takes all I've got just to walk into the jungle. (nerve that is)

 

[jar546]

I see the skin is thick in this thread. Very nice!

 

[brudgers]

I must of hit a nerve.

Hardly. Non-compliance is the problem. Damages provisions such as California's actually provide the only practical mechanism for creating it. In true free market fashion, it creates economic disincentives to offset the economic incentives of non-compliance.

 

[jar546]

Hardly. Non-compliance is the problem. Damages provisions such as California's actually provide the only practical mechanism for creating it. In true free market fashion, it creates economic disincentives to offset the economic incentives of non-compliance.

I agree. The DOJ is not proactive in enforcement. They are strictly reactive and they lack the capabilities to provide enforcement at the level required. Therefore, the only incentive for compliance is through the threat of litigation. Even with proactive enforcement of Ch 11 of the IBC and the ANSI A117.1 in PA, accessibility is still fought by property owners and design professionals. The "on your honor" system of self regulation through design professionals and owners simply does not work.

On the other end, the property owners should only be liable for the items that were required to be made accessible under the law.

 

[mtlogcabin]

California's ADA law is equal to extortion. Send a letter out that claims a violation. Pay me and I won't sue.

The ADA never intended all existing buildings in 1992 to be 100% compliant 20 years later. So get off the box

 

[brudgers]

California's ADA law is equal to extortion. Send a letter out that claims a violation. Pay me and I won't sue. The ADA never intended all existing buildings in 1992 to be 100% compliant 20 years later. So get off the box

The ADA requires businesses to actively engage in the removal of architectural barriers. It requires building owner's to do the same.

If burger boy had set aside $100 a month for upgrades when the law came into effect, he'd have made the changes years ago.

He even could have pursued a tax break for it.

But he chose to ignore the law instead.

Now he's whining.

Someone, pass me a tissue.

 

[pwood]

California's ADA law is equal to extortion. Send a letter out that claims a violation. Pay me and I won't sue. The ADA never intended all existing buildings in 1992 to be 100% compliant 20 years later. So get off the box

demand letters have been banned with a new bill from the lawmakers.

 

[mark handler]

demand letters have been banned with a new bill from the lawmakers.

But is not retroactive, and does not prevent a lawsuit. It just changes the rules and fines.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The ADA requires businesses to actively engage in the removal of architectural barriers.

You seem to forget the "readily achievable" part. Money is not the only thing to consider and at some point it is no longer needed or required. Unfortunatley some items like drinking fountains, pay telephones, and benches will simply be removed and never replaced.

A small businees may not have the space to expand a restroom to meet ADA without impacting their sales. The ADA recognizes these situations not being "readily achievable" and therefore not required to comply. How do I determine what is readily achievable?

“Readily achievable” means easily accomplishable and able to be carried

out without much difficulty or expense. Determining if barrier removal is

readily achievable is, by necessity, a case-by-case judgment. Factors to

consider include:

1) The nature and cost of the action;

2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved; the

number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses

and resources; legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe

operation, including crime prevention measures; or any other

impact of the action on 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.

If the public accommodation is a facility that is owned or operated by a

parent entity that conducts operations at many different sites, you must

consider the resources of both the local facility and the parent entity to

determine if removal of a particular barrier is “readily achievable.” The

administrative and fiscal relationship between the local facility and the

parent entity must also be considered in evaluating what resources are

available for any particular act of barrier removal.

 

[brudgers]

Over the course of twenty years, anyone can remodel a restroom.

 

[fatboy]

Thanks that posting.......sounds reasonable. That being the case, pardon the pun, why are these small businesses settling with this jerk? Of course it is that cost of the business having to litigate it. Another example of why "loser pays all expenses" would make sense. This jerk has nothing better to do than file suits where he represents himself, where the businesses would have to retain Counsel.

 

[brudgers]

Thanks that posting.......sounds reasonable. That being the case, pardon the pun, why are these small businesses settling with this jerk? Of course it is that cost of the business having to litigate it. Another example of why "loser pays all expenses" would make sense. This jerk has nothing better to do than file suits where he represents himself, where the businesses would have to retain Counsel.

Ironically, accessibility is a cost of doing business, too.

 

[Rio]

Hardly. Non-compliance is the problem. Damages provisions such as California's actually provide the only practical mechanism for creating it. In true free market fashion, it creates economic disincentives to offset the economic incentives of non-compliance.

Nothing free market about it: As MtlogCabin pointed out many times it's nothing more than legal extortion. A more appropriate name for the legislation should have been 'The Trial Lawyers full employment act'.

 

[brudgers]

Nothing free market about it: As MtlogCabin pointed out many times it's nothing more than legal extortion. A more appropriate name for the legislation should have been 'The Trial Lawyers full employment act'.

It's just one business offering a business proposition to another...that's the free market.