Eliminate predatory ADA lawsuits

[Alias]

SueIt is not your job to enforce the ADA.

I know it's hard, and I too get frustrated at times.

Mark -

I know, I am just trying to educate at this point.

 

[brudgers]

Rick, Well said. There are too many cases here in CA (see Mark Handler's posts) of one person literally going down the sidewalk at a mall or shopping area and then calling an attorney to file lawsuits against 5, 13, 20, or more businesses in ONE day. I think that this qualifies as harassment. Use the money to modify the building to meet ADA rather than to line the pockets of lawyers and their clients. No wonder CA is losing businesses left and right, it's all the litigation.

Yeah, we need to end illegal discrimination more slowly. Twenty years is practically overnight.

 

[Coug Dad]

Joe the barber has been going to his shop for 30 years. He knows how to cut hair. He is not an architect, lawyer or ADA consultant. He cuts hair and has done so without any accessibility complaints. He doesn't realize he is discriminating against anyone. Is it that unreasonable that the law provide for someone at least tell Joe he might have an accessibility issue before hauling him into court?

 

[brudgers]

Joe the barber has been going to his shop for 30 years. He knows how to cut hair. He is not an architect, lawyer or ADA consultant. He cuts hair and has done so without any accessibility complaints. He doesn't realize he is discriminating against anyone. Is it that unreasonable that the law provide for someone at least tell Joe he might have an accessibility issue before hauling him into court?

Joe the Barber is a fiction of your imagination because Joe is licensed by his state [http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/] and probably has a municipal occupational license...heck, I bet that some time in the past twenty years Joe even noticed an accessible parking space or two when he was out buying English Muffins for the missus. Real world Joe's have heard of ADA.

They just doesn't want to bother complying because it will cost them money and the risk of getting sued is so low.

And in a classic case of misdirection, this is California law, and not ADA.

 

[mark handler]

And in a classic case of misdirection, this is California law, and not ADA.

NOT, JUST A CA THING

A father of a child with multiple disabilities complained that a Virginia barber refused to cut his son’s hair because of his disabilities. The owner of the barber shop dismissed the barber involved, placed the manager on an unpaid leave of absence, and required the manager to attend a customer relations course at a local community college. The owner also agreed to pay the child’s father $5,000.

http://www.ada.gov/octdec02.htm

IT'S A CIVIL RIGHTS THING

 

[Coug Dad]

Refusal of service is different than determining what is readily acheivable and technically feasible for architectural barriers. My opinions on notification only apply to architctural barriers.

 

[mark handler]

Refusal of service is different than determining what is readily acheivable and technically feasible for architectural barriers. My opinions on notification only apply to architctural barriers.

If they know the building is not accessible, it is still a denial of service, and a violation of rights.

If you own, operate, lease, or lease to a business that serves the public, then, you are covered by the ADA and have obligations for existing facilities as well as for compliance when a facility is altered or a new facility is constructed. Existing facilities are not exempted by "grandfather provisions"

 

[brudgers]

NOT, JUST A CA THING A father of a child with multiple disabilities complained that a Virginia barber refused to cut his son’s hair because of his disabilities. The owner of the barber shop dismissed the barber involved, placed the manager on an unpaid leave of absence, and required the manager to attend a customer relations course at a local community college. The owner also agreed to pay the child’s father $5,000. http://www.ada.gov/octdec02.htm IT'S A CIVIL RIGHTS THING

I agree ADA is Civil Rights. The "frivolous lawsuit" crap is not about ADA however, it is about California law.

And shows why it takes teeth to get compliance.

 

[brudgers]

Refusal of service is different than determining what is readily acheivable and technically feasible for architectural barriers. My opinions on notification only apply to architctural barriers.

Most violations are for things that are readily achievable and technically feasible. Unless one ignores twenty years of willful noncompliance.

 

[Alias]

If they know the building is not accessible, it is still a denial of service, and a violation of rights.If you own, operate, lease, or lease to a business that serves the public, then, you are covered by the ADA and have obligations for existing facilities as well as for compliance when a facility is altered or a new facility is constructed. Existing facilities are not exempted by "grandfather provisions"

Every day I see folks in wheelchairs, on scooters, with walkers, etc. around town here. As an affordable part of CA, we have a lot of folks who are seniors or disabled. I am genuinely shocked that we don't have a slew of lawsuits because they can't get into the bathrooms, buildings, etc. of some businesses. I just keep hammering away with the fact that the business needs to meet ADA regulations no matter when the building was built.

 

[Alias]

Joe the barber has been going to his shop for 30 years. He knows how to cut hair. He is not an architect, lawyer or ADA consultant. He cuts hair and has done so without any accessibility complaints. He doesn't realize he is discriminating against anyone. Is it that unreasonable that the law provide for someone at least tell Joe he might have an accessibility issue before hauling him into court?

I have several 'Joe the barbers' here. Most of them are 'good ol' boys' who utter 'we've always done it this way'. Sometimes, it doesn't matter who they are, they just aren't going to do the work to bring the building into compliance. I just tell 'em that if they don't change, there is the possibility of a lawsuit...........and leave.

 

[mtlogcabin]

As an affordable part of CA, we have a lot of folks who are seniors or disabled

A difference in how we where raised and what we believe. Some will just take their business elsewhere, some don't believe in making others meet their individual needs, and some are just gratefull for the life they have no matter how difficult it may be for them.

 

[brudgers]

A difference in how we where raised and what we believe. Some will just

say "tough ****" and others will say, "there but for the grace of god."

 

[Alias]

Yeah, we need to end illegal discrimination more slowly. Twenty years is practically overnight.

brudgers,

If you parse my comments correctly, you will read that I am advocating for the ADA requirements. What I strenuously object to are a few greedy people trying to make a buck off of legitimate business owners by filing lawsuits that drain the business of funds needed to bring the building into compliance with ADA.

 

[brudgers]

brudgers, If you parse my comments correctly, you will read that I am advocating for the ADA requirements. What I strenuously object to are a few greedy people trying to make a buck off of legitimate business owners by filing lawsuits that drain the business of funds needed to bring the building into compliance with ADA.

Those business owners are not in compliance because compliance costs them money. The greed goes both ways.

The law however does not.

After 20 years, there's no excuse for noncompliance.

And the fact that suits still need to be filed to create compliance shows where the bulk of the greed lies.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Those business owners are not in compliance because compliance costs them money.

or they are lazy or just don't care

And the fact that suits still need to be filed to create compliance shows where the bulk of the greed lies.

It is not all about greed. Some are just ignorant of all the requirements. ADA is typical of the federal goverment. Adopt a law and provide no pro-active enforcement mechanism much like illegal imigration.

 

[KZQuixote]

Those business owners are not in compliance because compliance costs them money. The greed goes both ways.

The law however does not.

After 20 years, there's no excuse for noncompliance.

And the fact that suits still need to be filed to create compliance shows where the bulk of the greed lies.

These suits don't need to be filed at all! How many of the defendants are willing to go the the expense and liability of defending their rights to conduct a business without the vigilantes/mercenaries harassing them without any thought of improving the rights on the handicapped? Frankly, this system has evolved/devolved as the best system the vigilantes could get passed to keep the fever pitch high.

This thread was started as a report about a state legislator who had a desire to assure the rights of the handicapped are preserved without creating or supporting the totally false industry of "Compliance Specialist"

What could be wrong with that intention?

Bill

 

[conarb]

The greed goes both ways.

In 2002 I went into a building department to buy two permits, both for $60,000, one was for voluntary ADA compliance in a Catholic Church, the other for window replacement in a private home, after the issuance of the permits I noticed that the fees for the ADA compliance were almost exactly double the fees for the private home and asked why, I was told that the church was a commercial enterprise and fees were double for commercial as opposed to residential. Maybe the AHJs should waive fees for ADA compliance talk about greed. I always hire architects, especially if ADA is involved, maybe the greedy architects should do ADA work pro bono since it's such a financial burden on small businesses.

As for another greedy group, do you realize that there is a whole profession of ADA Compliance Consultants, can you believe that a whole industry has popped up profiteering of businesses, talk about greed!

 

[mark handler]

maybe the greedy architects should do ADA work pro bono since it's such a financial burden on small businesses.

Dick,

It is easy so to discount the services of others, Perhaps greedy contractors should provide free windows to low income homeowners becase of a financial burden.

Or contractors that charge $150 it install a $14 sign....

 

[brudgers]

It is not all about greed. Some are just ignorant of all the requirements. ADA is typical of the federal goverment. Adopt a law and provide no pro-active enforcement mechanism much like illegal imigration.

Ignorance is never an excuse. Ignorance after twenty years, isn't even entertaining.

 

[brudgers]

These suits don't need to be filed at all! How many of the defendants are willing to go the the expense and liability of defending their rights to conduct a business without the vigilantes/mercenaries harassing them without any thought of improving the rights on the handicapped? Frankly, this system has evolved/devolved as the best system the vigilantes could get passed to keep the fever pitch high. This thread was started as a report about a state legislator who had a desire to assure the rights of the handicapped are preserved without creating or supporting the totally false industry of "Compliance Specialist" What could be wrong with that intention? Bill

What is wrong is that it places the blame for the current situation on the wrong side. The only reason that someone can file ten suits a day on a single block is because everybody has bet that they won't get caught failing to comply.

To put it in perspective, most of those businesses have accountants to keep them out of trouble.

They have lawyers too.

It's not that they are unaware, just that they don't see compliance as an necessary expense.

And when the cost of being caught is only doing what should have already been done, it is no surprise that nothing is done without a suit.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Ignorance is never an excuse

I did not say it was an excuse I said it is a fact just as sure a fact you do not know all the tax laws you have to comply with or traffic laws or a number of other laws. Ignorance is not a defense but it is real

 

[brudgers]

I did not say it was an excuse I said it is a fact just as sure a fact you do not know all the tax laws you have to comply with or traffic laws or a number of other laws. Ignorance is not a defense but it is real

And it is just as relevant as it is in tax law...you plead ignorant and you take your lumps when you get caught.

 

[Alias]

These suits don't need to be filed at all! How many of the defendants are willing to go the the expense and liability of defending their rights to conduct a business without the vigilantes/mercenaries harassing them without any thought of improving the rights on the handicapped? Frankly, this system has evolved/devolved as the best system the vigilantes could get passed to keep the fever pitch high.This thread was started as a report about a state legislator who had a desire to assure the rights of the handicapped are preserved without creating or supporting the totally false industry of "Compliance Specialist"

What could be wrong with that intention?

Bill

Bill -

Exactly.

It is costing the businesses, taxpayers, and the general public a lot of money to fight these predatory lawsuits. These lawsuits have spawned a new industry here in CA in the form of Accessibility Specialists.

Here in CA, it is required that ALL building departments have a 1:2 ratio of Certified CASp (CA Accessibility Specialist) for every jurisdiction. I did a little digging, and it costs $500 to apply, $800 for the test, and $300 for the certificate for a grand total of $1600. So, as a department of 1 at 3/4 time, I am supposed to shell out $1600 to take this test? Not gonna happen, my training budget is $800 for the entire year.