Disabled man wins ADA judgment against Corner Bakery Cafe

[mark handler]

Disabled man wins ADA judgment against Corner Bakery Cafe chain

Sep 8, 2015, 2:03pm PDT

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/09/08/disabled-man-wins-ada-judgment-against-corner.html

Cash register counters at the Corner Bakery Cafe chain violate the Americans With Disabilities Act because they are too high for a wheelchair user, a federal judge ruled last week.

The company has a cafe in Natomas and one is expected to open in Elk Grove in November. There are about 190 locations nationwide.

A U.S. District Court judge in Santa Ana sided with plaintiff Gilbert Salinas, a paraplegic who filed an ADA complaint after he visited a Corner Bakery Cafe in Long Beach in April 2013. When Salinas approached the 46-inch counter to pay, he discovered it was too high for his use. His wife paid, but Salinas alleges in his lawsuit the experience “was frustrating and somewhat embarrassing.”

The restaurant chain contends in court documents that a second, 34-inch counter located on the customer side of the counter does comply with the ADA. The law requires a portion of the counter to be at least 36-inches in length and a maximum height of 36 inches from the floor.

The problem is that employees still have to reach over the higher counter to use the lower, said Mark Potter, a San Diego lawyer who represents Salinas. Potter is the same lawyer who represents another disabled man who uses a wheelchair and is a frequent ADA-plaintiff, Fair Oaks lawyer Scott Johnson.

U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney agreed the lower counter meets the requirements, but because the cashier stands behind the higher counter, “all transactions “necessarily occur over that higher counter.” He granted summary judgment to the plaintiff Aug. 31.

California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act entitles Salinas to $4,000 for the violation, Carney ruled when he granted summary judgment in the plaintiff's favor on Aug. 31. Because Salinas was deterred from visiting the restaurant at least one time after the lawsuit was filed — putting the restaurant on notice of the non-compliant counter — Carney added an additional $4,000 to the award, bringing the total to $8,000.

Corner Bakery Cafe did not return calls and emails requesting comment. An appeal had not been filed before the Labor Day holiday.

Four bills pending final legislative approval this week seek to offer new protections for businesses that try to comply with the law.

 

[ICE]

When it ends up before a judge the judge thinks, "I'm an important person" "I have an important job" "I work in a Hall Of Justice and they let me wear a robe" "This must be some important issue before me today" "I better look serious....gosh it's getting tougher to pull this off day in and day out" "I hope the new clubs are in".

The judge should have ripped the sue happy azzhole a new one. What's the deal here? A 46" counter is a humiliating experience? Do you count change with your nose? You can't be handed a bag of doughnuts? A special counter is required for less than 1% of the population? Get outa here and stay out. Buy doughnuts somewhere else. If you can't do that without the life altering humiliation of a 46" counter, quit eating doughnuts or order them from Amazon and please use the link here at the forum.

It's too bad that the mainstream media pretty much ignores this. I suppose they are worried that they will appear insensitive to the plight of the people confined to wheelchairs. My guess is that the average layman has no knowledge of the ADA folly beyond all of the asinine ramps. Obviously the plaintiff was able to get in the bakery. For 99.999% of the citizens out there, that's the end of the story. Tell them that the bakery had to pay $8000.00 because the wheelchair guy was embarrassed by the 46" high counter and they will rebel.

The most damnable part of this is that the counter is at 36" but the back of it is at 46". The donut purveyer isn't in a wheelchair so why the Hell would that matter. "the transaction took place over a 46" counter". Talk about splitting hairs. There will come a day when these sleazy bastards pay for what they are doing. That includes the judge.

If I were still in business and got sued I would train my dog to pi$$ on wheelchairs. He would be a wonderful greeter.

 

[Yikes]

This is an interesting one. They are saying that CBC 11B-904.4 is not a safe harbor after all.

The court case claimed it was not possible for the cashier to reach over the 46" counter to place the receipt on the 34" high counter.

The wheelchair-using customer was able to complete his part of the transaction, but the the employee was not within the reach range of the customer's 34" high counter to complete their part of the transaction. If that's the case, then wouldn't the discrimination be against the employee, because the design did not accommodate his/her short stature?

 

[ADAguy]

Ever heard of height impaired individuals, "Little People" have rights too (smiling).

It's not all just about 'wheelers"

It doesn't mention when the business opened or was remodeled.

Starbucks had to pay for a similar occurrance, even if they were larger and could afford to correct their counters.

 

[ICE]

Ever heard of height impaired individuals, "Little People" have rights too (smiling). It's not all just about 'wheelers"

And everybody gets a trophy just for showing up.

 

[conarb]

Ever heard of height impaired individuals, "Little People" have rights too (smiling).

What about the tall people? It must be “frustrating and somewhat embarrassing.” for them to stoop down to be like the little people.

 

[ADAguy]

That's why ADA requires hi-lo fountains, urinals and sinks "duh" equal opportunity for all except for doorway clear height minimums (people are getting taller).

 

[mtlogcabin]

The restaurant chain contends in court documents that a second, 34-inch counter located on the customer side of the counter does comply with the ADA.

Sounds like a hi/lo counter was provided but the judge did not like the design.

There is no depth or width limits for the accessible counter so why the ruling against it I do not know.

 

[ADAguy]

Wonder who the opposing SME's were in this case?