• 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.

Disabled man sues gas station over alleged ADA violations

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,883
Location
So. CA
10/6/2010 8:00 PM By Michelle Massey, East Texas Bureau

SHERMAN-A disabled Texas man has filed a lawsuit against a gas station claiming the business is not in compliance with the American with Disabilities Act's Accessibility Standards.

Acting as his own attorney, Enoch S. Doyle filed suit against Chapmon Inc., Ebenezer International and Does 1 through 20 on Sept. 28 in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division.

Doyle states the Shell Service Station located on E. 14th St. in Plano has failed to provide the minimum legally required access for accommodating disabled people. He argues the station is "illegal, degrading and humiliating."

According to his complaint, the shopping area has merchandise protruding into the aisles, payment transactions are conducted more than 36 inches from the floor, there is no disabled parking and there are pot holes and uneven surfaces in the parking lot.

Further, he states the restroom has several violations including lack of grab bars, lack of floor space and a mirror located more 40 inches from the floor.

The defendants are accused of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, violating Texas regulations and statutes and general negligence.

Doyle is asking the court to issue an injunction to prevent the defendants from further discrimination, for an award of actual damages of $25,000 and statutory damages of $100 per violation, and for an award of litigation expenses and costs.

U.S. District Judge Richard A. Schell is assigned to the case.

Case No. 4:10-cv-00511

http://fwix.com/houston/share/c3b960b130/disabled_man_sues_gas_station_over_alleged_ada_violations
 
I just attended a meeting at a local business.

No H.C. parking.

No Curb cuts.

Etc.

That's why litigation is required.
 
This is normal everywhere. Bathrooms are locked or always out of order, and not available to the public at many gas stations. Besides being an ADA violation; it the responsibility of the local AHJ to enforce any requirements for public facilities; and the local AHJs do not enforce their own accessibility requirements.

People should start filing formal written complaints with the AHJ; and, follow up the complaint. If the municipalities don't enforce their code requirements; they should be taken to court also; and the newspapers, and the State Attorney Generals Office.

People shouldn't have to go to court with ADA complaints; but, they have no choice when the municipalities willfully refuse to enforce their own codes.

Uncle Bob
 
We are not the ailse police. nor the pothole police nor even the bathroom police.

101.2 Scope.

The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures.

If it was okay when the building was finaled it is okay today. We have no jurisdiction over the day to day operations of a building nor can we make a business comply with accessibilty if no work is being done that requires a permit and if it does it is limited to a maximun 20% of the cost of the work.

He argues the station is "illegal, degrading and humiliating."
Click to expand...
Unless it is the only station in town he is free to patronize any other gas station he chooses and spend his money on a business that supports accessibility.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Unless it is the only station in town he is free to patronize any other gas station he chooses and spend his money on a business that supports accessibility.
Click to expand...
And free to sue those who don't.
 
JBI said:
His actual mistake is representing himself. The DOJ is authorized to prosecute violations of ADA.
Click to expand...
DOJ usually mediates and rarely imposes penalties.

In other words, there's no incentive towards compliance without private suits.
 
The ADA act is one of the most horrible pieces of legislation ever passed by the congress. If they really wanted to increase accessibility they would have made a provision to allow the business being sued to come into compliance before getting hammered by a lawsuit. These lawsuits are oftentimes settled and the problem is never disclosed, much less remedied.
 
Accessibility features were required in the UBC even prior to the 1979 edition. The two biggest issues were that the building departments were not uniformly enforcing the code and there was more money to be made by the attorneys in suing as opposed to working through the code change process to enhance the provisions
 
mtlogcabin said:
But he can't personally gain from it in all fifty states like he can in Texas and California. That's my objection to the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Without punitive damages, the time value of money creates an economic incentive for non-compliance.

Punitive damages are the only practical economic disincentive for non-compliance. In other words, it's the best of the two alternatives.
 
mtlogcabin said:
But he can't personally gain from it in all fifty states like he can in Texas and California. That's my objection to the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
mtlogcabin -

Exactly. I am opposed to the possible 'personal gain angle' that is involved.

CA has now added another layer of legislation requiring a Certified Accessibility Specialist in building departments due to the numerous (sometimes frivolous) lawsuits filed by repeat complaintants. I wonder how many other times this guy has filed a lawsuit against a business?

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with the ADA accessiblility provisions but, if the building hasn't been remodeled, there isn't much I can do about it. My response would be to meet the customer in an accessible location and assist them as much as possible in conducting their business. It is known as reasonable accommodation. As to the parking lot, that is the responsibility of the station owner.

Sue, in sunny chilly CA
 
Alias said:
Exactly. I am opposed to the possible 'personal gain angle' that is involved.
Click to expand...
So am I.

That is to say that I am opposed to the personal financial gain made through non-compliance with accessibility requirements.
 
I to am against personal gain, We have an attorney and a disabled person going around to the business, filing a lawsuit for non-compliance then settling for X amount of money with the promise to fix it in the future
 
David Henderson said:
I to am against personal gain, We have an attorney and a disabled person going around to the business, filing a lawsuit for non-compliance then settling for X amount of money with the promise to fix it in the future
Click to expand...
The business owner is experiencing personal gain through noncompliance.
 
brudgers said:
The business owner is experiencing personal gain through noncompliance.
Click to expand...
Regardless, the attorney and cohort are without standing in most situations. The federal appeals court has issued a statement that this individual is to cease these types of often frivolous suites or be cited for contempt of court. The lawyer is simply seeking places to place lawsuits so he can settle the case for only a few tens of thousands of dollars (plus court fees, of course). To defend a case, it often costs at least $60,000. Taking a settlement of half that fills the pockets and keeps the lawyer out of trouble with the courts. THAT is legal extortion.

Sure, if the owner intentionally deprives individuals of their right to access by discrimination - either active or constructed - then they deserve to be notified and pay for the costs associated with the corrective action necessary. Usually, if you let someone know that there is a problem, they'll seek to fix it anyway. For those without disabilities, it's often a surprise to know that this or that thing doesn't afford access. Its a different language to them and they need educating. If people discriminate, they should be informed of their mistake. If they continue they should be punished. But the little lawyer who is suing well intentioned people is practicing his own form of discrimination and it's socio-economically based. People who can't afford to push back are the losers. It's often cheaper to give in to corrupt practices than to fight for your position.

Now, I'll step off the soap box for the next person. . . .
 
Many businesses are seeing $10,000 or more in net revenue from non-compliance.

Because of the time value of money, in the absence of damages there is an economic incentive to delay compliance until forced to comply.

Some people are surprised that they need a building permit, doesn't mean they're not required.

As a matter of fact, many departments double fees for work without a permit as a disincentive.
 
Brudgers said:
Many businesses are seeing $10,000 or more in net revenue from non-compliance.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense, you are stating that businesses that don't comply obtain more profitable business than those that do? I think you must mean that businesses that do comply spend so much money complying that based upon the time value of money they make $10,000 a year less than those that don't comply. Increasing the costs for all for the benefit of a few has been turned aound into profiteering for a few.

Wikipedia said:
On signing the measure, George H. W. Bush said: I know there may have been concerns that the ADA may be too vague or too costly, or may lead endlessly to litigation. But I want to reassure you right now that my administration and the United States Congress have carefully crafted this Act. We've all been determined to ensure that it gives flexibility, particularly in terms of the timetable of implementation; and we've been committed to containing the costs that may be incurred.... Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.¹
Click to expand...
It appears that the concept of "flexibility" as well as cost containment has been lost to totalitarianism and profiteering.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top