• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Manhattan restaurant featured in 'Seinfeld' discriminates against the disabled

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,678
Location
So. CA
Manhattan restaurant featured in 'Seinfeld' discriminates against the disabled: lawsuit

Carolyn Coleman, 68, who uses a wheelchair, says Tom's Restaurant discriminates against the disabled because it has 'steps at the entrance.' The lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court seeks more than $30,000 in damages.

BY DAREH GREGORIAN NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Friday, August 15, 2014, 7:46 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/seinfeld-restaurant-discriminates-disabled-lawsuit-article-1.1905369

A Manhattan restaurant made famous by “Seinfeld” has nada, nada, nada access for the handicapped, court papers charge.

In a suit filed in Manhattan Federal Court, Carolyn Coleman, 68, who uses a wheelchair, says Tom’s Restaurant — scene of countless chats between Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer — discriminates against the disabled because it has “steps at the entrance.” The suit seeks more than $30,000 in damages and a court order to bring the restaurant into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
 
That's just a storefront begging for a ramp.



There's been a step there for many years and I bet that plenty of wheelchairs have made it up and over.

 
Does the restaurant have the rights to make changes the public sidewalk? If they are not allowed to change the sidewalk elevation for landing and ramp then it is technically infeasable. They may be caught between the city and the feds.

Note it looks like that there may be a case against the city as well for excessive cross slope on the sidewalks.

In existing enviroments barrier removal is not easy and never inexpensive.
 
CFR 4.1.1 (5) General exceptions. Unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features?

Restaurant does not own the sidewalk that appears to have been altered by the city. No issue next door at the coffee shops sidewalk.

Could the entrance doors be recessed into the restaurant and a ramp be made from the sidewalk, maybe! Is the building owner responsible for the area beyond the wall face in NYC?

pc1
 
I have the same issue with my office entrance. I have attempted to raise the public sidewalk 6 inches but have been deterred by the Public Works department.
 
Pcinspector1 said:
Could the entrance doors be recessed into the restaurant and a ramp be made from the sidewalk, maybe! Is the building owner responsible for the area beyond the wall face in NYC?

pc1
Click to expand...
Likely not feasible as would involve major structural changes to lower the floor, headroom issues below in the basement and 6 -7 ft ramp plus 5x5 landing at door would eat up a significant portion of the small dining area.
 
This is a problem in many cities and if it is a small business it would take up quite a bit of interior floor space to put the ramp inside the building. Therefore the DOJ does recognize these issues and may not require the business to comply.

Seating and services are provided on the outside of the buildings so access is provided for the services. There maybe a temporary/portable ramp that is used provide access when needed and within the scope of barrier removal achievement.

(d) Relationship to alterations requirements of subpart D of this part.

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, measures taken to comply with the barrier removal requirements of this section shall comply with the applicable requirements for alterations in Sec.36.402 and Sec..36.404 -36.406 of this part for the element being altered. The path of travel requirements of Sec.36.403 shall not apply to measures taken solely to comply with the barrier removal requirements of this section.

(2) If, as a result of compliance with the alterations requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the measures required to remove a barrier would not be readily achievable, a public accommodation may take other readily achievable measures to remove the barrier that do not fully comply with the specified requirements. Such measures include, for example, providing a ramp with a steeper slope or widening a doorway to a narrower width than that mandated by the alterations requirements. No measure shall be taken, however, that poses a significant risk to the health or safety of individuals with disabilities or others.



(e) Portable ramps. Portable ramps should be used to comply with this section only when installation of a permanent ramp is not readily achievable. In order to avoid any significant risk to the health or safety of individuals with disabilities or others in using portable ramps, due consideration shall be given to safety features such as nonslip surfaces, railings, anchoring, and strength of materials

http://www.ada.gov/reachingout/t3regl4.html

 
The city won't allow them to put a ramp on city property, yet they allow them to put tables outside. I guess more tables bring in more tax dollars, but a ramp wouldn't bring any.
 
I am not aware of any city that will not allow you to construct an accessible ramp in the ROW if that is what it will take to provide access to your building. I have seen it done in many places.
 
JPohling said:
I am not aware of any city that will not allow you to construct an accessible ramp in the ROW if that is what it will take to provide access to your building. I have seen it done in many places.
Click to expand...
Very true and especially in this case with the sidewalk area being so wide the rent protruding into it would still allow sufficient space and the sidewalk to pass by the ramp. It's been done many places without any problems at all especially when wide sidewalks exist.
 
Paul Sweet said:
The city won't allow them to put a ramp on city property, yet they allow them to put tables outside. I guess more tables bring in more tax dollars, but a ramp wouldn't bring any.
Click to expand...
That's probably very true Paul.

If you take the clientele, subtract the small percentage of official, handicapped users, subtract from that those that actually need the ramp, factor in that every meal contains just a small profit compared to expenses, take out the money the additional tables provide, add the cost of the ramp...well, you can see the ramp really can't even conceivably pay for itself. Additional seating can, however.

Brent.
 
And then the question is.....did they add bathroom fixtures when they added the outdoor tables? (increased OL)...And then those would be accessible, even if the entrance was not.....I am sure the business didn't make any money from the Seinfeld craze and still can't afford to comply...We moved our meeting location for our state organization to a place more accessible because the first one was unwilling to make changes....
 
There is both short and long term "green" in "blue" if you look beyond the up front cost.

It does add "cents" to your bottom line if you want to "serve" the public.
 
It adds cents, but costs dollars.

There is no positive monetary return on Accessible spending.

If you can prove it, I'm open to correction. Unsupported opinion articles do not count.

Brent
 
Not arguing the code, just the claim that accessibility retrofits can offset costs through their use.

The energy code is also very arguable.

Brent.
 
MASSDRIVER said:
Not arguing the code, just the claim that accessibility retrofits can offset costs through their use. The energy code is also very arguable.

Brent.
Click to expand...
Very true, look at the Griffin/USGBC litigation in New york City, class action dismissed but it showed that green buildings concumed more energy than older buildings. In Houston:

USA Today said:
The Houston Independent School District took a big step in 2007 toward becoming environmentally friendly by designing two new schools to meet a coveted "green" standard set by a private-builders' group.The nation's seventh-largest school district added features such as automated light sensors and a heat-reflecting roof, in hopes of minimizing energy use.

But the schools are not operating as promised.

Thompson Elementary ranked 205th out of 239 Houston schools in a report last year for the district that showed each school's energy cost per student. Walnut Bend Elementary ranked 155th. A third "green" school, built in 2010, ranked 46th in the report, which a local utility did for the district to find ways of cutting energy costs.¹
Click to expand...
¹ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/10/green-schools-construction-leed/1753823/
 
steveray said:
Sprinklers typically don't recoup their costs either....Noone is railing against them right now.....(flame suit on)
Click to expand...
I don't think there has ever been a price reduction argument on that, just a life safety debate maybe. Apples and oranges.

Brent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top