• 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.

In Marshall, Minn., Main Street is rising up against flurry of disability suits

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,895
Location
So. CA
In Marshall, Minn., Main Street is rising up against flurry of disability suits

Nonprofit has sued businesses from Marshall to St. Paul

By Matt McKinney Star Tribune

http://www.startribune.com/in-marshall-minn-main-street-is-rising-up-against-a-flurry-of-disability-lawsuits/304065531/

MARSHALL, Minn. – Cal Brink was tired of the lawsuits that just kept coming. Since the first suit claiming lack of disability access was filed more than a year ago, businesses in this southwest Minnesota town of nearly 14,000 people have been worried that they, too, would be hit.

Nine lawsuits have been filed here so far by the Disability Support Alliance, a nonprofit group formed last summer, including one against the only bowling alley in town. The owner said he will soon close rather than pay the DSA’s $5,500 settlement offer or make the $20,000 of changes needed to comply with the Americans with *Disabilities Act.

“Nobody fights them, because it’s going to cost you more to fight,” said Brink, executive director of the local Chamber of Commerce.

Now Marshall is fighting back. Working in concert with the Minnesota State Council on Disability, Brink developed an access audit for local businesses, allowing them to develop a plan to fix ADA issues and potentially to ward off litigation.

The plan has won the attention of the state Department of Human Rights, which hopes it could be used in other communities hit by serial litigation.

But Eric Wong, who uses a wheelchair and is one of DSA’s four members, doesn’t think Marshall area businesses should get more time to comply with the ADA. His group “is currently in the process of producing a voluntary mass settlement agreement for those businesses in Marshall that are ready to confess to their crime, fully comply … and pay the damages/restitution that they are liable for under the law,” Wong said in an e-mail.

He’s calling the agreement the Marshall Plan, and Wong plans to roll it out across the state.

Disability advocates say DSA’s lawsuits are more about winning cash settlements than making changes that would add ramps, widen aisles and allow wheelchair access.

The alliance and its attorney, Paul Hansmeier, have filed nearly 60 disability access lawsuits against businesses across the state.

“If someone’s going to get mad for not following the law, I don’t know how to respond to it,” Hansmeier said.

Wong, who has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which makes it uncomfortable to sit in his chair for long periods of time, was equally unapologetic, calling DSA’s work community service.

“The lawsuits will stop when there is no more access crime to prosecute,” he said by e-mail. Many businesses “fail to understand that … we are now a zero tolerance state.”

Bruce Shover, who has owned Marshall Bowl for 22 years, said he doesn’t want to close his business, but “I just can’t continue doing what I’m doing.” When disabled bowlers have asked to use the lanes in the past, Shover said, he has accommodated them with portable ramps.

Ethical violations

Hansmeier has been sanctioned across the country for his involvement in a separate series of lawsuits. In those cases, Hansmeier and two partners in the Chicago-based Prenda Law firm sued 16,000 men, accusing them of illegally downloading copyrighted porn. The suits threatened to publicly name the men unless they settled, a tactic that *netted $15 million, a partner told Forbes magazine.

A federal judge sanctioned Prenda in 2013, characterizing the firm as a “porno-trolling collective.” The judge referred the case for criminal prosecution, and suggested the principals should be disbarred.

The firm dissolved itself after the ruling.

Hansmeier registered the Disability Support Alliance in Minnesota in July 2014 and listed himself as the *nonprofit’s agent. Its members, all of whom live with a disability, include Wong, of Minneapolis, and three Marshall residents.

Two months after it was created, the group filed its first lawsuit. “The DSA will be proud to be the first in the nation to successfully bring criminal charges against those who choose to ignore the ADA and violate our right to live free of unlawful access discrimination,” Wong said this week. He cited the state Human Rights Act, which, unlike the ADA, gives plaintiffs the authority to file a criminal misdemeanor charge, punishable by up to 90 days in jail, a $1,000 fine, or both.

Wong said the DSA’s mission goes beyond access, with hopes of running its own personal care assistance services company and a wheelchair manufacturer.

Lawsuits have been filed against the Applebee’s restaurants in Shakopee and Mankato, against the Muddy Pig in St. Paul, and against businesses in Rochester, Watertown and Minneapolis. The chief judge of Hennepin County District Court said the suits raise the specter of serial litigation and ordered all of the Minneapolis suits to be handled by one judge.

Most businesses settle, but the Chatterbox Cafe in south Minneapolis went to trial last month. Its attorney, Susan Minsberg, said the April 13 trial lasted a few hours. A judge’s ruling is pending.

The issue was the pub’s front entrance, which has a 6-inch step. A side entrance was navigable for wheelchairs, Minsberg said, but it was not technically ADA compliant. Even after fixes were made, the lawsuit continued.

“Why don’t they call the Minnesota State Council on Disability? Call PACER, or Courage Center?,” Minsberg said, saying those groups negotiate better disability access, typically without lawsuits. “Minnesota is so forward thinking on issues like this. This isn’t about access.”

The ADA, passed 25 years ago, has spawned serial litigation in other states, especially California, said Peter Berg, of the Great Lakes ADA Center, based in Chicago. Still, the law has been around long enough that businesses should have made efforts by now to comply, he said. There’s no grandfather clause that allows old buildings to remain inaccessible.

Pamela Hoopes, legal director of the Minnesota Disability Law Center, a private nonprofit that offers free legal services for the disabled, said access problems remain.

In a typical case, Hoopes said, they talk to businesses rather than sue them. “That’s a better use of everyone’s resources,” she said.

Marshall’s solution

In Marshall, the DSA campaign has sharply divided the disabled community.

“From the very beginning, I had reservations,” about the DSA, said Chelsie Hermsen, who uses a wheelchair and was initially invited to join DSA. “Is it even legal?”

Friend Tashauna Swanson, who also uses a wheelchair, said she’s always found it easy to get around Marshall. When she’s had a problem, business owners accommodate her. If there’s anything good to come out of the DSA case, she said, maybe it will spark a broader conversation.

Brink, the head of the local chamber, has been working with the Minnesota State Council on Disability and local businesses to pre-empt lawsuits by offering better access. To date, 21 business have done audits.

“What Marshall is doing is fantastic,” said Margot Imdieke Cross, of the State Council on Disability.

Three weeks ago, Brink got a call that members of DSA were going business to business with Hansmeier and taking videos. Worried, Brink rushed to meet them, sitting down at their lunch table at the Wooden Nickel, a local restaurant, to explain the audit plan.

Hansmeier hasn’t sued any businesses in Marshall recently, but last week he filed a suit against a Mankato bar.

Meanwhile, Hansmeier’s former law partner from Prenda Law, John Steele, recently started a new practice in Illinois. It’s called “Accessibility Law Group.” He filed his first ADA suit April 30.

Staff writer Dan Browning contributed to this report.
 
Notice how the article refers to the lack of accessibility as a crime or criminal act instead of a civil rights violation.

ready to confess to their crime,
“The lawsuits will stop when there is no more access crime to prosecute,”
“The DSA will be proud to be the first in the nation to successfully bring criminal charges against those who choose to ignore the ADA and violate our right to live free of unlawful access discrimination,”
An accessibility (ADA) violation is not a criminal act or a crime in Minnesota unless the state laws allows for imprisonment for failure to comply.

A private organization can not bring "criminal charges" against anyone. Only the government can do that. All they can do is file a civil lawsuit to seek monetary settlement and include a request for a court ordered compliance with accessibility laws

2014 Minnesota Statutes

Resources



609.02 DEFINITIONS.

Subdivision 1.Crime.

"Crime" means conduct which is prohibited by statute and for which the actor may be sentenced to imprisonment, with or without a fine.





 
I saw the same thing but it looks like MN law allows a violation to be a criminal charge. Wow.
 
Need more info on crime definition; usually there are varying degrees such as infraction, misdemeanor, and felony. If the building access law is based on building code enabling law format, most likely the "crime" is an "infraction" that usually is just a penalty fine for first offense. Someone from Minnesota on the Forum that can clarify?
 
jdfruit said:
Need more info on crime definition; usually there are varying degrees such as infraction, misdemeanor, and felony. If the building access law is based on building code enabling law format, most likely the "crime" is an "infraction" that usually is just a penalty fine for first offense. Someone from Minnesota on the Forum that can clarify?
JD:

The law firm has been sanctioned many times for blackmailing but I see where they are coming from, read Minnesota Human Rights Act §363A.30(4).

\ said:
Subd. 4.Unfair discriminatory practice a misdemeanor.In addition to all other remedies provided under this chapter, every person who commits an unfair discriminatory act as set forth in section 363A.11, or aids, abets, incites, compels, or coerces another to do so, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
From a legal standpoint their is a huge difference between the state bringing an action under their Human Rights Code and an individual bringing a civil action, in fact it's against bar rules for an attorney to threaten criminal or administrative sanctions to obtain a civil result, were I the attorney for Marshall the first thing I would do is file a complaint with the Minnesota State Bar seeking disbarment of the attorneys in the law firm. BTW, there is no prohibition against an attorney actually filing a complaint with the State Attorney's General office to attempt to affect change, the prohibition is against an attorney threatening to file the compliant. An example the City Attorney for an AHJ cannot threaten to turn a bad contractor into the state License Board or the District Attorney but he can actually do it. These prohibitions are built into legal cannons to prevent attorneys from blackmailing people, which is exactly what most Disability Attorneys do. I've discussed these disability laws with other attorneys many times at lunch, their opinions are all that this is a matter that the state bar should take up and the legal industry should be cleansed of these blackmailers. The problem for this law firm is that if they trun Marshall into the Attorney's General office to prosecute under §363A.30(4) there is no way they and/or their client can make any money, which is what all Civil Rights Law is about.
 
Here is §363A.30, but I want to emphasize that it is not a civil right of action, it can only be enforced by a District Attorney. In a civil action you can allege a criminal statute to bolster your civil case but judges pay little attention to it since it is not enforceable by a civil court of law. Courts sitting in civil matters cannot enforce criminal sanctions, only civil damages (which are monetary damages). It is common for DAs to prosecute criminal matters and convict people, then the damaged parties file a civil action for damages using the criminal conviction as evidence of the wrong that caused the damages. In a famous case OJ was found innocent in a criminal case, but in a subsequent civil case on the same matters was found liable for monetary damages. One reason is that in a criminal case the defendant must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil case the burden is a preponderance of the evidence, so to prove a criminal case against Marshall there would have to be 100% certainty, in a civil case there would only have to be 51%.

Just so you know, these attorneys could get a civil judgment against Marshall, if Marshall refused to pay or make the accommodations required by the judgment, the court could order them to do so and hold them in contempt if they refused, he could then award monetary sanctions. In any event the attorney must either: 1) Get a DA to prosecute §363A.30(4), or 2) File a civil lawsuit alleging a violation of §363A.30(4), in the former criminal sanctions could be imposed, in the latter monetary damages could be awarded. In my opinion he is trying to blackmail the city by threatening criminal action to achieve a civil result and should be reported to the state bar for violating an ethical canon. Also, ADA is federal law enforceable in federal courts, §363A.30 is state law enforceable in state courts.
 
This is what I see as the gnarled mess:

ADA violations in Minnesota are federal jurisdiction only.

The State of Minnesota "human rights" laws include disabled access as a violation of statute (reads very similar to the ADA anti discrimination language) and violation is a misdemeanor.

There is no apparent time certain in State statute for correcting construction found to be access barriers. Presumably; any time certain to comply will be negotiated as part of a settlement agreement.

If the access barriers are "building code" and were required at time of construction, then code compliance procedures are to be used, not the human rights laws [363A.11(b)]

The non-profit "DSA" is filing criminal charges that are the sole province of the District Attorney in the City or County having jurisdiction or the State Attorney General.

This will be quite interesting to follow for how the situation plays out.
 
JD, nice analysis.

If we send a few thousand of our CA attorrneys to Minn (which must be short on "knowledgeable" attorneys) Minn might realize how fortunate they are to only have one DSA at the momment.

As a state however, aren't they free to write in-state definitions and "crime" descriptions as they see fit to do"
 
Re; state criminal laws:

As I understand it; the various States, D.C., and territories (Puerto Rico for example) are empowered by the Constitution to write their own State/District/Territory Constitution and laws to govern commerce, penal, criminal, civil, government, transportation, and local militia with the caveat that those laws cannot be in conflict with national constitution and federal laws.
 
So what is the enforced accessibility law in MN? Or did I miss that? Just want to understand, the Feds are the only enforcement agency on the ADA I think, so the state would have to adopt the ADA and rename it the MN accessibility code or similar or come up with there own law. Then they would presumably have an enforcement arm for that law. I assume that like most accessibility codes for construction they are regulated at time of permit, and the existing business would need to deal with the state for ongoing compliance. And when all else fails be investigated by the Feds for ADA problems and/or the state for state regulation problems. How does the state allow just ol' any attorney to enforce its laws? Color me confused!
 
Sifu, thanks for being a member of the confused with me. I did some digging and Minnesota has a bit of different approach in that their State Statutes have anti discrimination laws that are very similar to ADA but their violation language indicates misdemeanor offense versus most other states using "civil" for monetary damages with injunction to perform corrections and not offend again. I am definitely going to follow this Minnesota cas to learn something.
 
Sifu:

Didn't you read the Minnesota statute I linked above? In Minnesota it is enforced by a District Attorney, so someone files a complaint with a DA's office and that office determines if it's worthwhile prosecuting, DAs tend to shy away from minor matters, prosecuting things like this doesn't get them reelected, I used to have friends in the DA's office here, they love murder cases and things that make headlines to get them reelected, I would think prosecuting a §363A.30(4) complaint might get them more negative votes than positive votes; however you never know, there may be a DA who has a personal interest in disability law or civil rights law in general that might prosecute, but if a lot of people are harmed by the DA's prosecution they will stay away from it fearing loss of votes. On the other hand if disability activist groups start their obnoxious campaigns, surrounding his office, blocking his doorways with their wheelchairs, he may prosecute.
 
Back
Top