Louisiana McDonald's, Domino's, and Church's Chicken sued

[mark handler]

Louisiana McDonald's, Domino's, and Church's Chicken sued over alleged lack of accessibility

11/1/2011 3:58 PM By Michelle Keahey

http://www.louisianarecord.com/news/239403-mcdonalds-dominos-and-churchs-chicken-sued-over-alleged-lack-of-accessibility

A woman with spina bifida has filed a lawsuit against several New Orleans fast food restaurants on claims they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by being inaccessible or having significant architectural barriers for individuals with disabilities.

Tasha Herbert is suing owners of Church's Chicken Restaurant located on St. Claude Avenue, McDonald's Restaurant also located on St. Claude Avenue and Domino's Pizza located on Franklin Avenue in New Orleans.

She filed three separate suites on Oct. 11 in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

In one complaint, Herbert states that Church's Chicken has toilet stalls that are an improper size arrangement, with improper height of the mirrors and grab-bars. The restaurant's counters also exceed 36" allegedly in violation of the ADA.

McDonald's is accused of having a ramp that is not level or has an excessive slope and restroom grab-bars that are at an improper height.

Herbert accuses all the restaurants of not having van accessible spaces for disabled use, no compliant accessible route from the parking area to the restaurant and parking spaces that are not properly marked, including signs at improper heights.

In each case, Herbert is asking the Court to enter an order directing the restaurant to alter the facility to make it accessible and for an award of attorney's fees and court costs.

Herbert is represented by Andrew D. Bizer of The Bizer Law Firm in New Orleans.

Case Nos. 2:11-cv-02553; 2:11-cv-02557; 2:11-cv-02558

 

[Keystone]

I sympathize and understand the necessity of accessibility but with that said I offer the following -

1. Has Tasha Herbert asked verbally or by letter anyone of these locations to address an ADA issue prior to filing a lawsuit?

2. Is she now considered an expert witness or a cashcow? Opps, hopefully I don't get sued for slander.

 

[north star]

* * * *

"alleged" cash cow!

* * * *

 

[mtlogcabin]

In each case, Herbert is asking the Court to enter an order directing the restaurant to alter the facility to make it accessible and for an award of attorney's fees and court costs.

That is reasonable and within the intent of the ADA. Other states have enacted laws which permit the use of ADA laws for a personal cash cow venue

 

[brudgers]

That is reasonable and within the intent of the ADA. Other states have enacted laws which permit the use of ADA laws for a personal cash cow venue

While those that don't provide financial incentives for enforcement permit the breaking of ADA laws for a personal cash cow venue.

 

[gbhammer]

It seems to me that Miss Herbert is going about things in a very reasonable way. There is no indication what so ever that she wants to profit any way by the compliance of these businesses other than to be able to use their establishments in the most comfortable manner her disability will allow, just as any person without a disability might.

I say go Tasha GO.

On the flip side not every business owner is a villain for improper compliance, in most of the cases mentioned it seemed as though they tried to comply, and botched the job.

 

[mtlogcabin]

While those that don't provide financial incentives for enforcement permit the breaking of ADA laws for a personal cash cow venue.

No they just let the feds enforce the civil right laws they enacted.

There is no "breaking of the law" until an individuals rights are denied. If a business never has a sight impaired person enter their building and no tactile signs are present who's civil rights are violated?

 

[Examiner]

And those fast foods want to charge you for water in a cup. I have not seen one new or old building design by these food chains that completely comply with accessibility. They have a stock plan, a set building price and do not want to change. If she gets them to clean up and make the changes she should not eat there anymore. They will be watching and waiting to serve her food.

 

[gbhammer]

I am not a rose colored glasses kind of guy, but again not everyone is a villain nor is every martyr a saint.

 

[Mule]

I don't know how they regulate accessibility in other States but in Texas every commercial building new or remodeled with a valuation of at least $50,000 must be submitted for review for ADA and Accessibility standards. After the completion a State inspector comes out and verifies compliance.

 

[brudgers]

No they just let the feds enforce the civil right laws they enacted. There is no "breaking of the law" until an individuals rights are denied. If a business never has a sight impaired person enter their building and no tactile signs are present who's civil rights are violated?

Right. So long as you don't hit anyone, who was harmed by your drunk driving?

 

[pmarx]

Right. So long as you don't hit anyone, who was harmed by your drunk driving?

Well technically no one I suppose but maybe what you should have gone for was it's still a "crime" even if you don't get caught.

 

[peach]

Lack of accessible features is not a crime.. it's a civil rights violation.

Whether or not the building official did their job is also not a crime.. it may be negligence.. a tort.

Serial plaintiffs shouldn't be awarded anything; if the court deems the structure needed to be brought into compliance, that should be the judgement of the court.. fix it!

Punitive damage plaintiff awards for this (or anything including malpractice) just continues to fuel the fire. Compliance is the issue.

IF the plaintiff soiled herself because she couldn't use a restroom because it lacks accessibility is a separate question - if she's a crusader with a tape measure, well.. getting compliance is her real issue.

 

[Keystone]

Bravo to Peach, well said.