Disabled file lawsuits in droves to force ADA compliance

[itman4622]

Disabled file lawsuits in droves to force ADA compliance

http://www.ocala.com/news/20161001/disabled-file-lawsuits-in-droves-to-force-ada-compliance

Litigators force ADA compliance, but often collect hefty legal fees, leaving some business owners wondering about the motivation behind the lawsuits.
Paul Cakmis said his 43rd Street Deli has gone nearly 35 years at several locations without a complaint about accessibility from disabled customers, but now he is out $32,000 in renovations and attorney costs after the restaurant was one of 10 businesses sued by a local woman this year under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Nine of those lawsuits and another five from a Monroe County resident were filed against Gainesville businesses this year over ADA compliance. Both of the plaintiffs also filed lawsuits against businesses in other jurisdictions.

Such ADA Title III lawsuits over accommodations in public places and businesses have proliferated nationwide in recent years, especially in South Florida, where nearly one in every five of the cases originates. Businesses have accused plaintiffs' attorneys of creating a cottage industry of drive-by lawsuits to collect fees with no real motivation to improve access for the disabled. Many of the cases are from a handful of attorneys and disabled clients who have filed hundreds of lawsuits.

Advocates for the disabled say the right to sue is necessary to ensure equal access to businesses that have had 26 years to comply with the law.

Wendy Deleo filed nine lawsuits against Gainesville businesses in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Florida and one against a Reddick business in the Middle District between Feb. 3 and Sept. 7.

According to the lawsuits, Deleo is an Alachua County resident with total bilateral vestibular dysfunction, which is damage to the inner ear that causes balance and vision problems, who uses a walker for mobility.

She sued nine restaurants and a convenience store over issues such as a lack of designated handicapped parking spaces, too-narrow aisles, a lack of grab bars in restrooms and not enough clear floor space to maneuver.

The lawsuits included no other identifying information about Deleo and a message left at a residence with a listing for a Wendy Deleo was not returned. Her attorney, Debi Gheorge-Alten of Coral Springs, did not return a call for comment.

Deleo voluntarily dismissed several of the lawsuits and the case files don't indicate if the businesses came into compliance or paid a settlement to her attorney. Several businesses did not return calls or declined to comment.

Golden Buddha Restaurant is fighting back in court, accusing Deleo of fraud for saying a water heater is blocking access to the women’s restroom. They say it doesn't, and accuse her of being solicited by and colluding with her attorney to visit multiple facilities solely for the purpose of litigation.

The judge ordered the case to mediation.

come away from that with an emotional cost.”

 

[mark handler]

And this comes as a surprise?
Businesses have been warned for 30 years, there is no such thing as grandfathering....

 

[jar546]

35 years in business at several locations and never though about ADA compliance? $32K is a gift.

 

[jar546]

itman4622

You say you are from the EU, your first post is a link and your IP is Vietnam. How are you?

 

[e hilton]

And this comes as a surprise?
Businesses have been warned for 30 years, there is no such thing as grandfathering....

Agreed, but the point of the OP, and i agree, is the greediness of the litigant. If they wanted action they could have contacted the local tv station and done an expose. Most businesses would have complied, those who resisted would be … assimilated.

 

[tbz]

itman4622

You say you are from the EU, your first post is a link and your IP is Vietnam. How are you?

Though I believe there is a need for Access, I have to disagree with the private litigation for a federal access requirement.

IMO the process should be:

1. File a compliant with the DOJ
   1. ADA Compliant system online.
   2. Backup would be mail in.
2. DOJ should respond to complaint within 30 days with
   1. notifying the person that complained by mail that they received complaint
   2. notify the business or entity of the complaint filed against them
      1. This can all be done automated, the person filing enters the correct information online
      2. the online system asks for all the information, both sides information
      3. the online automated system then prints and mails the complaint to both parties
         1. No interaction by Government employee yet, should only take days
      4. The business is then been served with a valid access compliant which they can then take up with an access professional and then answer the compliant to the DOJ within lets say 30-90 days of the mailing, pending the fraction filed.
   3. Then the business has been notified

I can't walk that well (need new hip, heart condition wont allow surgery, and nor can I access more than a few places that I know aren't compliant with ADA that have been in a family business for 100 plus years. I don't feel I or anyone else has the right to sue for money over the access, this is a personal feeling. I do believe they should be informed that they need to look at access for all, but a lot of these places are historical, though not on a register for historical.

What astonishes me more than anything is that we all work in the field of codes and standards everyday yet you all think people that have small mom and pop deli's, general stores, ice-cream stands and hotdog shacks, not to mention the antique shop or hair salon have a clue at all about building codes or that of ADA. Why would they, ADA is not a local or state requirement, its federal and you don't have to file a ADA compliance certificate with the DOJ when you run a long time family business or open one business.

If the professional Architectural firm you hire does not point it out and you are in a Jurisdiction that doesn't have or enforce parallel requirements for compliance, why would the small business have a clue........................

Without a way to inform the business owner that they need to take a real look at something that no local inspector enforces or local fire inspector doing an annual inspection if the jurisdiction even requires, enforces, sorry I don't agree, personal law suits for access for money, nope, I have to disagree for a first time notification.

If the business has been notified by a formal compliant filed through a DOJ system, and it has been a year since that notification, then game on.

But thinking people that are running small business and rent a location or have been in a location for 70- plus years have a clue about a 30 year old federal law, I don't buy it.

As for me, I just go to the places that have access and those that don't, well I go else where, but I miss the 100 year old general store with the counter and bar stools, because renovating the old building was way to costly for the mom/pop business to spend to meet ADA, thus forced to close doors and the building sits vacant because its stuck between historical status and to high a reno cost for anyone to move in and make a go of such a small space.

That is not what ADA imo is about,

Just a Tuesday rant, and JAR, I would be concerned about the link from original post ....

 

[JCraver]

My Tuesday rant is much shorter - I still can't believe it's legal. Force a guy to spend money to accommodate another guy, in a place the first guy owns. It's nonsense on its face.

This problem should have been solved by the market, not the government. All the problems with the ADA and enforcement of it are because the gov't decided to stick its nose where it didn't belong.

 

[Paul Sweet]

The problem is that the ADA was written as an extension of the 1964 Civil Rights act, and set up so enforcement would be by lawsuits. It was easy to comply with the original Civil Rights act - just take down the "White" and "Colored" signs. It wasn't necessary to spend thousands to rework entrances, enlarge restrooms, install elevators, etc. Compliance is especially difficult for older buildings downtown in hilly cities where making the entrance or restrooms accessible would require taking out sales or seating space, meaning less income to pay for this extra expense.

 

[Msradell]

My Tuesday rant is much shorter - I still can't believe it's legal. Force a guy to spend money to accommodate another guy, in a place the first guy owns. It's nonsense on its face.

This problem should have been solved by the market, not the government. All the problems with the ADA and enforcement of it are because the gov't decided to stick its nose where it didn't belong.

Where are you coming from? The government forces things much less important such as setting racial quotas based on problems in the past even though today everyone is treated equally etc. I became disabled a while ago and I can't even begin to tell you how frustrating it is to not be able to get into someplace because of a step, a curb or a narrow doorway. I'm not worried about the picky points of a meteor at the wrong height or things like that, I just want access, is that asking too much?

I hope someday you will be able to experience what it's like to not get into the restaurant used to go to or find a parking space where you can put the ramp down on your van so you can get out of it in the parking lot. Having a business of any type make reasonable accommodations should be a no-brainer yet many businesses don't see it that way nor do many people.

 

[ICE]

ADA is a great idea that went horribly wrong. Creating an accessible built environment is a laudable endeavor. Sneaking up on businesses that exist in a not so accessible built environment is cruel.
Recently I was asked about a case where an antique store owner was sued for $10K because the parking lot did not comply. The lady has been there for thirty years. It is a stand alone building with parking for twenty cars. She couldn’t remember a time when there was more than five cars in the lot. Well $10K was a deal breaker so she shuttered the business and put the property up for sale. The question came from a potential buyer that planned to fence the property and renovate at a later date. The buyer wanted to know if he would be on the hook for the $10k if he bought the building.

A friend owns thirty-seven burger joints and a few fine dining establishments. He was sued for $4500 over some access issue at one of his stores. Now he didn’t become wealthy enough to buy a mansion on the ocean just so he would have a place to park his yacht……and meek enough to be intimidated by a crooked lawyer with a sleazy client. He made it clear that they sued the wrong person. The scumbag folded up like a cheap suit and went hunting for an easy target. It was never about access. That’s a common thread with all of the lawsuits…money. Give them money and they slink back into the shadows without a care about access improvement.

When I see you folks saying that all of these business people have had thirty years to bend over and ignored the opportunity to burn money so now they deserve to pay a crook for absolutely nothing.…..I wonder what went wrong with you.

 

[tbz]

Where are you coming from? The government forces things much less important such as setting racial quotas based on problems in the past even though today everyone is treated equally etc. I became disabled a while ago and I can't even begin to tell you how frustrating it is to not be able to get into someplace because of a step, a curb or a narrow doorway. I'm not worried about the picky points of a meteor at the wrong height or things like that, I just want access, is that asking too much?

I hope someday you will be able to experience what it's like to not get into the restaurant used to go to or find a parking space where you can put the ramp down on your van so you can get out of it in the parking lot. Having a business of any type make reasonable accommodations should be a no-brainer yet many businesses don't see it that way nor do many people.

MSradell,

Though I am not wheel chair bound, with my current hip issue I can't walk up stairs that easy, nor can I walk long distances or even sit in a booth, chair only.

But I have to disagree with making older established places bound to renovating just for accessibility to the location, which prior to 92 has not changed anything.

When a place is renovated, then possibly yes, new codes and requirements, change of business, not owner, but business, one business moves out and then a new one moves in, I can see it, but disagree.

But without a local AHJ enforcing the requirements on the change over, nothing will ever get dissimilated down to the not knowing public new business owner.

When you apply for an ESN does the IRS send you a notice to make sure your business complies with the DOJ's ADA requirements? Not to my knowledge, so the government entity that enforces the law, does not even inform new business owners that this requirement is out there. They just need to know this.....is the common answer...and tough if you don't.

A sign saying you can't come in is one thing, not being able to walk in because of an issue I physically have, like my bound hip is another.

I just see it as over stepping, but that is just me.

 

[JCraver]

Where are you coming from? The government forces things much less important such as setting racial quotas based on problems in the past even though today everyone is treated equally etc. I became disabled a while ago and I can't even begin to tell you how frustrating it is to not be able to get into someplace because of a step, a curb or a narrow doorway. I'm not worried about the picky points of a meteor at the wrong height or things like that, I just want access, is that asking too much?

I hope someday you will be able to experience what it's like to not get into the restaurant used to go to or find a parking space where you can put the ramp down on your van so you can get out of it in the parking lot. Having a business of any type make reasonable accommodations should be a no-brainer yet many businesses don't see it that way nor do many people.

Just because the government forces other people to do other things, doesn't make everything the government forces everyone to do right.....




I didn't/don't mean any offense to anyone who is disabled, and I'm 100% fully on board with making government-funded, truly public spaces/places accessible. Curb cuts, public sidewalks and public parking lots, gov't funded transit, gov't funded parks and other spaces - whatever is built with taxpayer dollars should all be designed and built with accessibility in mind. No argument. Everyone can use it, so everyone has a part in paying for it.

My beef is when it extends to PRIVATE property. To force a private landowner to spend his own money to modify a building he paid for with his own labor to accommodate someone else is wrong, in my opinion. It's as simple as that.

 

[mtlogcabin]

I have visited about 6 national parks that have new or updated rest rooms and none of them met accessibility requirements.. Go into any government building and/or school and you will find plenty of accessibility issues.

When we do fire inspections on apartments we inform the owner/manager that they should replace round door knobs with lever ones along the egress path. We are clear that it is a recommendation and not a requirement that we can enforce. We also tell them to check with their accountants about a possible tax credit for the ADA upgrades. Some have done the upgrades some have not.

 

[ADAguy]

MSradell,

Though I am not wheel chair bound, with my current hip issue I can't walk up stairs that easy, nor can I walk long distances or even sit in a booth, chair only.

But I have to disagree with making older established places bound to renovating just for accessibility to the location, which prior to 92 has not changed anything.

When a place is renovated, then possibly yes, new codes and requirements, change of business, not owner, but business, one business moves out and then a new one moves in, I can see it, but disagree.

But without a local AHJ enforcing the requirements on the change over, nothing will ever get dissimilated down to the not knowing public new business owner.

When you apply for an ESN does the IRS send you a notice to make sure your business complies with the DOJ's ADA requirements? Not to my knowledge, so the government entity that enforces the law, does not even inform new business owners that this requirement is out there. They just need to know this.....is the common answer...and tough if you don't.

A sign saying you can't come in is one thing, not being able to walk in because of an issue I physically have, like my bound hip is another.

I just see it as over stepping, but that is just me.

Your are right as t0 the failure to inform business owners on a recurring basis. If that had been done years ago the issue would have been minimized.
AHJs in CA have wavered over the AHJs being responsible for federal law relative to pre-ADA structures and to investigation of post ADA permitted new and altered construction. Businesses change hands constantly with little due diiligence by buyers. Recent Supreme court ruling may reduce suits by requiring greater proof of standing, we shall see.

 

[ICE]

I believe ADA is a great idea that went wrong.

I believe that ADA was a bad idea that got worse.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The ADA is not the problem with the multiple lawsuits being filed by one person and the attorney. It is the states that have permitted through their laws that enable people to seek monetary damages/awards based on a civil rights law where their disability was not negatively impacted by the portion of the law that is in violation. Example: A hearing impaired person list the placement of the restroom mirror is 1" higher than permitted, or the lack of a ramp into the facility. Neither of the 2 items will prevent him/her from accessing the business or the ability to use the mirror in the restroom. Therefore their civil rights where not denied.

https://www.ada.gov/smbusgd.pdf

In recognition that many small businesses can not afford to make significant physical changes to their stores or places of business to provide accessibility to wheelchair users and other people with disabilities, the ADA has requirements for existing facilities built before 1993 that are less strict than for ones built after early 1993 or modified after early 1992

While it is not possible for many businesses, especially small businesses, to make their facilities fully accessible, there is much that can be done without much difficulty or expense to improve accessibility. Therefore, the ADA requires that accessibility be improved without taking on excessive expenses that could harm the business.
If you own or operate a business that serves the public you must remove physical “barriers” that are “readily achievable,” which means easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense. The “readily achievable” requirement is based on the size and resources of the business. So larger businesses with more resources are expected to take a more active role in removing barriers than small businesses. The ADA also recognizes that economic conditions vary. When a business has resources to remove barriers, it is expected to do so; but when profits are down, barrier removal may be reduced or delayed. Barrier removal is an ongoing obligation -- you are expected to remove barriers in the future as resources become available

 

[Msradell]

The ADA is not the problem with the multiple lawsuits being filed by one person and the attorney. It is the states that have permitted through their laws that enable people to seek monetary damages/awards based on a civil rights law where their disability was not negatively impacted by the portion of the law that is in violation. Example: A hearing impaired person list the placement of the restroom mirror is 1" higher than permitted, or the lack of a ramp into the facility. Neither of the 2 items will prevent him/her from accessing the business or the ability to use the mirror in the restroom. Therefore their civil rights where not denied.

I certainly agree that many of the lawsuits while sighting something that is in conflict with the ADA requirements are not something that prevents someone from accessing the business or partaking in something that the business sells. The problem also isn't the fact that states allow people to sue when their ADA rights have been violated because in reality they have no other recourse!

The biggest problem is that while the ADA is overall very good there is no mechanism to force compliance with it! States should have the ability to force compliance. Something that none of them do! At least here in Kentucky ADA requirements are not Req nor followed up on even with new construction. The drawings are checked to see that there ADA compliant but there is no inspection in the field to ensure that the requirements are met! I can cite one incident near where I live where the drawings were correct but when they paved and stripes the parking lot they put a parking space directly in front of the ramp up to the sidewalk! That obviously with it should have been noted and corrections Req prior to giving the business of its CoO!

 

[mtlogcabin]

That obviously with it should have been noted and corrections Req prior to giving the business of its CoO!

I agree 100% it is a violation even within the building codes. The point I was trying to make is the older buildings/businesses under these lawsuits are expected to meet the requirements of a newly constructed building. The ADA has taken this into account where the courts do not seem to be aware that the ADA acknowledges that buildings before 1993 and small businesses may never be able to meet all of the requirements within the ADA.

IMHO Barrier Removal, Easily Accomplished, Without much Difficulty and Expense is providing a lot of flexibility with regards to cost and timeframe for older existing buildings. Every time there is a new owner of a building or a new tenant is when the clock starts ticking on their timeframe for barrier removals. So not every owner/tenant has had 29 years to comply as many have stated on this site.

https://www.ada.gov/checktxt.htm

The process of determining what changes are readily achievable is not a one-time effort; access should be re-evaluated annually. Barrier removal that might be difficult to carry out now may be readily achievable later. Tax incentives are available to help absorb costs over several years.

 

[Yikes]

The news article's title should rearrange the words to emphasize what's really important:

Disabled force ADA compliance to file lawsuits in droves​

 

[tbz]

When technicalities are used in lieu of reality for monitory gain, rather than reason of true need and become greed, is what they call looking for loopholes to earn profit, not progress.

I have no problem calling out those that apply this and claim one thing, but clearly is no better than a hustler or swindler, as the intent is monitory gain, nothing else for such minor infractions done in massive form.

And those that see no issue with the use of the tactic and look the other way claiming they should know better for the sake of progress, are clearly in my book no different than the crazed mob in the old west looking to hang someone for stealing a loaf of bread for the 1st time to feed their family. Simply does the punishment fit the so-called claimed crime.

Personally, though business runs on money, it is the pursuit of being kind, helpful and the love of the interaction of what small business is built on first and foremost. As the major majority of those small businesses who are hit with these types of assaults, and the tactics are nothing more than an assault, are just out to make a living day to day to help improve their community and family with the services they provide, and those assaulted by these tactics are not out to violate someone's rights intentionally 99% of the time, nor do they even know a technicality even exists.

A tyrant using good intent for a cause not true, personal monitory gain, makes the good intent seen as nothing more than an assault on true human rights, and makes the good intent useless.

Thus, those that are most true about the need for the removal of barriers, should be the ones leading the way and most vocal about these prolific shams in the name of progress, and they aren't, they are the most silent, and in return force the majority of us to see it as an overreach and sham, rather than an improvement on a quality of life.

Just a Thursday morning thought on the topic - Cheers....

 

[redeyedfly]

I have a love/hate relationship with the scumbag lawyers.

On the hate side, they are really only after money and don't care at all about actual accessibility. This is proven by the fractions of inches on clearances they use to extort money from property owners.

On the love side, if they weren't out there, no one would be paying attention.

 

[ADAguy]

SEE People v. Potter Handy, Cities of San Francisco/Los Angles seeking to end this Ponzi scheme.
The case is an interesting reflection of their belief that they are doing what the law allows.
Lets hope the courts agree and end their extortion tactics.

 

[Msradell]

SEE People v. Potter Handy, Cities of San Francisco/Los Angles seeking to end this Ponzi scheme.
The case is an interesting reflection of their belief that they are doing what the law allows.
Lets hope the courts agree and end their extortion tactics.

I think there needs to be a midpoint here, some of these lawsuits need to happen to force compliance otherwise the ADA will never be enforced!

 

[mtlogcabin]

some of these lawsuits need to happen to force compliance otherwise the ADA will never be enforced!

I agree but model it after the DOJ where the plaintiff cannot receive a monetary reward for just filing a complaint.
Amend the state laws that allows monetary compensation to be payed out after compliance is met.