• 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

Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,709
Location
So. CA
Pa. man files class action suit against Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations

August 13, 2013 9:16 AM

By JON CAMPISI

Pa. man files class action suit against Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations | Pennsylvania Record

A Pennsylvania man has filed a class action lawsuit against Modell’s Sporting Goods over

allegations that the retailer has been violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

David Cornelsen, who is suing on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair to get around because he lost the use of his legs.

In the complaint, Cornelsen claims the Modell’s store in Willow Grove, Pa. lacks handicapped accessible parking and does not have an ADA compliant restroom.

The plaintiff says he visited the Montgomery County store in late June to purchase Philadelphia Phillies paraphernalia.

Cornelsen claims that during his visit to the Willow Grove Modell’s location, he had difficulty accessing the men’s room because of the force required by him to open the door and because the door’s closing mechanism was not adjusted to allow for the door to remain open long enough for him to get inside with his wheelchair.

The plaintiff also says he was unable to use the men’s urinal because of its “excessive height,” and that he was unable to wash his hands due to the fact that the pipes under the sink were not properly covered, which would have raised the risk of Cornelsen burning himself.

The paper towel dispenser was also allegedly unreachable by a wheelchair-bound customer.

The law firm retained by Cornelsen, Brodsky & Smith, subsequently hired professional building experts to investigate the alleged ADA violations, the complaint states, and the investigations, which are still ongoing, have thus far identified multiple Modell’s locations that are apparently in serious violation of the ADA.

The list includes Modell’s stores throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. A number of Philadelphia locations made the list.

Modell’s has discriminated against Cornelsen and other handicapped people why denying them access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its places of public accommodation or commercial facilities in violation of the ADA, the complaint states.

“Defendant has been and continues to be required to remove architectural barriers to the physically disabled where such removal is readily achievable for its places of public accommodation …,” the lawsuit reads.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, arguing that that would be a “fair and efficient” way of adjudicating the claims.

“Because the damages suffered by the individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class individually to redress the wrongs done to them,” the suit reads.

The class is believed to be in the thousands, the complaint states.

Cornelsen, the suit says, intends to visit various Modell’s stores he has not yet been to for the purpose of “availing himself of the goods and services offered to the public at such stores, and to ensure that those stores cease evading their responsibilities under federal and state law.”

In addition to the ADA count, the suit also accuses the defendant of violating the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and minimum statutory damages to for each class member.

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 9 at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Brodsky & Smith attorneys Jordan Schatz and Jason L. Brodsky.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-04632-NIQA.
 
mark handler said:
Pa. man files class action suit against Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violationsAugust 13, 2013 9:16 AM

By JON CAMPISI

Pa. man files class action suit against Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations | Pennsylvania Record

A Pennsylvania man has filed a class action lawsuit against Modell’s Sporting Goods over

allegations that the retailer has been violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

David Cornelsen, who is suing on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair to get around because he lost the use of his legs.

In the complaint, Cornelsen claims the Modell’s store in Willow Grove, Pa. lacks handicapped accessible parking and does not have an ADA compliant restroom.

The plaintiff says he visited the Montgomery County store in late June to purchase Philadelphia Phillies paraphernalia.

Cornelsen claims that during his visit to the Willow Grove Modell’s location, he had difficulty accessing the men’s room because of the force required by him to open the door and because the door’s closing mechanism was not adjusted to allow for the door to remain open long enough for him to get inside with his wheelchair.

Sounds moderatly legit. Solution? Inform management door needs adjusting, promise to come back and check.

The plaintiff also says he was unable to use the men’s urinal because of its “excessive height,” and that he was unable to wash his hands due to the fact that the pipes under the sink were not properly covered, which would have raised the risk of Cornelsen burning himself.

What business does he have trying to use a urinal, of any height, while in a wheelchair? The toilet is there for your convenient use. John Holmes probably couldn't **** into a urinal from a wheelchair.

The paper towel dispenser was also allegedly unreachable by a wheelchair-bound customer.

was it 72" AFF?

The law firm retained by Cornelsen, Brodsky & Smith, subsequently hired professional building experts to investigate the alleged ADA violations, the complaint states, and the investigations, which are still ongoing, have thus far identified multiple Modell’s locations that are apparently in serious violation of the ADA.

Serious, probably meaning "not so serious"

The list includes Modell’s stores throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. A number of Philadelphia locations made the list.

Found us some lawsuit money

Modell’s has discriminated against Cornelsen and other handicapped people why denying them access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its places of public accommodation or commercial facilities in violation of the ADA, the complaint states.

“Defendant has been and continues to be required to remove architectural barriers to the physically disabled where such removal is readily achievable for its places of public accommodation …,” the lawsuit reads.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, arguing that that would be a “fair and efficient” way of adjudicating the claims.

Found me some lawsuit money

“Because the damages suffered by the individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class individually to redress the wrongs done to them,” the suit reads.

Almost like nothing was damaged at all, and I want to see some coinage

The class is believed to be in the thousands, the complaint states.

Cornelsen, the suit says, intends to visit various Modell’s stores he has not yet been to for the purpose of “availing himself of the goods and services offered to the public at such stores, and to ensure that those stores cease evading their responsibilities under federal and state law.”

In addition to the ADA count, the suit also accuses the defendant of violating the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and minimum statutory damages to for each class member.

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 9 at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Brodsky & Smith attorneys Jordan Schatz and Jason L. Brodsky.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-04632-NIQA.
This crap needs to stop. It diminishes the the actual problems that need to be fixed.

Brent.
 
MASSDRIVER said:
This crap needs to stop. It diminishes the the actual problems that need to be fixed. Brent.
Been the law for over twenty years, when are people going to get it......when it hits their pocketbook.....
 
mark handler said:
Been the law for over twenty years, when are people going to get it......when it hits their pocketbook.....
Doesn't make it right Tater.

ADA shakedowns are a menace, and unethical. That is my position. Proper course of action would be an inspection by a properly appointed building official, A notice of correction, a reasonable time for correction, a reinspection with a hopefully compliant business, and a minimum of fuss.

These examples of lawsuits are reprehensible and my negative comments (and appropriate positive responses) will follow each one. With as much respect and open-mindedness as I can muster.

Brent.
 
Msradell said:
+1 You would think by now businesses would have learned!
Learned what? Sounds like some light maintenance on behalf of the business would resolve the issue, meanwhile the "customer" could use some education on use of toilet facilities, and possibly some situational awareness.

Like, "if I don't see a wrap around a plumbing waste I could..."

1. Just turn on the cold water.

2. Turn a little so I don't burn myself on the unprotected pipe, which is obviously unprotected, because I can see it, and am aware of it, Yep, there it is. Gonna go tell my lawyer.

3. Make sure the water is running super hot enough to melt lead, and stick my legs right up against it, cause that's how I roll.

Brent.
 
MASSDRIVER said:
A notice of correction, a reasonable time for correction, a reinspection with a hopefully compliant business, and a minimum of fuss.
So you need to get out there and do it.....
 
MASSDRIVER said:
Learned what? Sounds like some light maintenance on behalf of the business would resolve the issue, meanwhile the "customer" could use some education on use of toilet facilities, and possibly some situational awareness.Like, "if I don't see a wrap around a plumbing waste I could..."

1. Just turn on the cold water.

2. Turn a little so I don't burn myself on the unprotected pipe, which is obviously unprotected, because I can see it, and am aware of it, Yep, there it is. Gonna go tell my lawyer.

3. Make sure the water is running super hot enough to melt lead, and stick my legs right up against it, cause that's how I roll. Brent.
So you are saying everyone but the disabled can use hot water?

So it is the wheelchair users fault?.....?
 
MASSDRIVER said:
Doesn't make it right Tater.ADA shakedowns are a menace, and unethical. That is my position. Proper course of action would be an inspection by a properly appointed building official, A notice of correction, a reasonable time for correction, a reinspection with a hopefully compliant business, and a minimum of fuss.

These examples of lawsuits are reprehensible and my negative comments (and appropriate positive responses) will follow each one. With as much respect and open-mindedness as I can muster.

Brent.
Not so fast there, Spanky. Not quite as easy as you think and since this is in PA, I am pretty well versed with the issues at hand. Twenty years is a long time to realize that you need to be compliant. Many of these stores were built and fit out within the past 20 years. Code compliance has only been stepped up in PA since 2004. Architects are fully aware of the requirements but know that the DOJ is reactive and not proactive so they get complacent and no one verifies compliance not to mention most RDP's don't visit the job site and some just do what the owners want even if it violates ADA. I have witnessed it time and time again.

Modell's had every opportunity to do it right from the beginning for the past 20 years but chose not to in a reactive enforcement environment which means they did what they wanted to do, not what was required because they knew they could get away with it.

The only way this is going to work and get their attention is through bad publicity and their pocketbook, otherwise they don't give a crap and have proven that with their history of noncompliance.

Also, what legal right does a local official have to walk into a business that has been existing for years and force them to renovate to today's standards? The DOJ does not have the capability to handle all of the violations in the US.
 
mark handler said:
So you are saying everyone but the disabled can use hot water?So it is the wheelchair users fault?.....?
If he has the wherwithal to see that a pipe is unprotected, enough that he can bring a lawsuit to bear and list that very thing as uncompliant, then yes, it is the wheelchairs user's fault if he were to get burned. Just because you are in a wheelchair does not mean you are retarded ( I assume). If you can notice danger, then you can avoid it. See, that's just like "normal people".

Maybe the building standard should be that there is no hot water so nobody can get scalded. That way the bar is lowered for everybody.

Brent.
 
jar546 said:
Not so fast there, Spanky. Not quite as easy as you think and since this is in PA, I am pretty well versed with the issues at hand. Twenty years is a long time to realize that you need to be compliant. Many of these stores were built and fit out within the past 20 years. Code compliance has only been stepped up in PA since 2004. Architects are fully aware of the requirements but know that the DOJ is reactive and not proactive so they get complacent and no one verifies compliance not to mention most RDP's don't visit the job site and some just do what the owners want even if it violates ADA. I have witnessed it time and time again.Modell's had every opportunity to do it right from the beginning for the past 20 years but chose not to in a reactive enforcement environment which means they did what they wanted to do, not what was required because they knew they could get away with it.

The only way this is going to work and get their attention is through bad publicity and their pocketbook, otherwise they don't give a crap and have proven that with their history of noncompliance.

Also, what legal right does a local official have to walk into a business that has been existing for years and force them to renovate to today's standards? The DOJ does not have the capability to handle all of the violations in the US.
Let's first ask, since you are well versed and I am not (seriously) is it possible that they were in compliance when the place was built, but because of more recent changes are now no longer compliant. An example would be the stupid yellow dot mats now required to installed in walkways?

Secondly, there are code inspections of different orders already in place so I don't understand the "legal right to renovate" quip. The health department has the authority to inspect, fine, and red tag, the fire department inspects and issues citations for sprinklers, occupancy, exit barriers and hazardous conditions, and here in California it has been required that masonry buildings be reinforced, soft story buildings be seismically stabilized, as well as other "renovations" that have been legally required under threat of condemnation.

I am specifically against anyone getting sued for "discrimination" or "violation of civil rights" because of minor, rediculous ADA violations.

Brent.
 
MASSDRIVER said:
Let's first ask, since you are well versed and I am not (seriously) is it possible that they were in compliance when the place was built, but because of more recent changes are now no longer compliant. An example would be the stupid yellow dot mats now required to installed in walkways?Secondly, there are code inspections of different orders already in place so I don't understand the "legal right to renovate" quip. The health department has the authority to inspect, fine, and red tag, the fire department inspects and issues citations for sprinklers, occupancy, exit barriers and hazardous conditions, and here in California it has been required that masonry buildings be reinforced, soft story buildings be seismically stabilized, as well as other "renovations" that have been legally required under threat of condemnation.

I am specifically against anyone getting sued for "discrimination" or "violation of civil rights" because of minor, rediculous ADA violations.

Brent.
If you compiled under the 1994 ADA, you comply under the 2010 ADASAD.

That is in the scoping of the 2010 ADASAD.

You do not need to "update" to the new standards, just because.

The problem is when the ramp or building never complied.

Even the building code does not make you update everything at once, or at each code change.

When changes are made the need to be made accessible.
 
The plaintiff also says he was unable to use the men’s urinal because of its “excessive height,” a
Was there only one urinal in the room? If so it was code compliant. To my knowledge the ADA does not tell you how many WC or urinals need to meet ADA requirements, that comes from the building code. In fact the building code does not require urinals to be installed. They are permitted in lieu of the total number of WC required

1109.2 Toilet and bathing facilities

Exceptions:

4. Where no more than one urinal is provided in a toilet room or bathing room, the urinal is not required to be accessible .

Hot water is not required in a public restroom so yes the option to not provide for everyone is already in the plumbing code. (UPC)
 
In this case you can comply to the IBC and still be sued for ADA, a civil rights law.

It goes back to the separate but equal laws of the south, Whites only....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would advise MASSDRIVER to never attempt work in Cali. you would be expelled. That is the same kind of attitude that keeps these lawsuits coming.
 
Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations

JPohling said:
I would advise MASSDRIVER to never attempt work in Cali. you would be expelled. That is the same kind of attitude that keeps these lawsuits coming.
That's a bit harsh but there is some truth to it. I don't think it's intentional as much as it is a lack of being well versed in that particular area of the code. Give the man lumber and he knows framing for sure

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jar546 said:
That's a bit harsh but there is some truth to it. I don't think it's intentional as much as it is a lack of being well versed in that particular area of the code. Give the man lumber and he knows framing for sureSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Actually that's where I live work and play. I spent a fair amount of time doing resteraunts and workout facilities and have no problem building and complying with ADA.

This is still America and my attitude has nothing to do with this discussion. As long as I as a builder comply then I'm golden. And free to express my attitude. (In general. I'm not implying freedom of speech extends to this forum).

Mark Handler posts about Ada lawsuits and supports them in an editorial manor, in a positive light. I on the other hand view them negatively. My posts in this regard are advasarial not toward Mark, but towards the issue posted. I wish to keep in civil, but they will be in conflict with his editorial opinion.

I support the California efforts to eliminate or at least minimize predatory litigation. Look at CALCASP efforts in this regard.

Also, I know it's law, but I am against the civil rights angle of prosecution. I know it's there but don't agree, the same way I don't believe in gun control laws. I think they are wrong and misguided.

Again, America, freedom of speech, freedom of attitude, but I comply.

Brent
 
In that case, I would stick to framing what the RDP's have designed and not worry about it. There is certainly freedom of speech here. There are definitely some unscrupulous people that file lawsuits for profit, but typically the lawsuits that are filed are based upon valid issues. The codes have been in place that would prevent these lawsuits if people would design and build to them. If they dont then sue them! Thats the only way many disabled feel is the only way to implement change at this point.
 
MASSDRIVER said:
What article are you referring too? Could you link it and post what's in accurate? Here is what I'm reffering to; http://www.norcalcasp.com/NorCal_CASP_FAQs.pdfBrent
If you want to quote CA stuff:

Where urinals are provided, at least one shall have a clear floor space 30 inches by 48 inches in front of the urinal to allow forward approach. This clear space shall comply with Section 1118B.4

The that's not what this thread is about

The incorrectness i was commenting about was that News reports are notoriously incorrect....

You focused in on one item in the article and claim the plaintiff is an a**hole for filing a multifaceted lawsuit.
 
mark handler said:
If you want to quote CA stuff:Where urinals are provided, at least one shall have a clear floor space 30 inches by 48 inches in front of the urinal to allow forward approach. This clear space shall comply with Section 1118B.4

The that's not what this thread is about

The incorrectness i was commenting about was that News reports are notoriously incorrect....

You focused in on one item in the article and claim the plaintiff is an a**hole for filing a multifaceted lawsuit.
Mark, you and I are on the same page. I would not so much say that the report was incorrect, as incomplete, possibly misleading. The news report makes it sound like this poor individual was actively prevented from using a bathroom and that a vast cartel had conspired to keep him from taking a whiz in a 6 foot tall urinal by a door hydraulically sealed that only Chuck Norris could open, mounted the paper towel dispenser to the ceiling, then purposely pushed his legs into a burning hot pipe. Wait... he doesn't have legs.

Since I questioned the validity of most of the complaints, I'm curious how you managed to single out "one item".

So I have some questions, and a few observations.

Having done a little research, I see there is no such animal as a "wheelchair accessible urinal". Just a requirement that there be a set amount of clear space around and in front of a rim not higher than 17" AFF. The news report offered no specifics as to the actual height of the urinal.

The man has no legs. Apparently (again, an incomplete report) he does not use prosthetics. So we are going with wheelchair bound. There is no mention of the availability of an accessible toilet. I find it a far stretch to believe the restroom had a urinal but no toilet. Was that toilet occupied? Welcome to Equality-World, where sometimes a brother has to wait. With or without legs.

Right now I am sitting in a chair with my butt about 18" AFF. I can reach over and out comfortably maybe 5 feet up. Wheelchairs are higher still. When was the last time you saw a towel dispenser mounted higher than eye-level?

The guy was never burned or harmed in any way. Basically, he had a hard time getting the door open, tried to use a fixture not designed for his use, then noticed a few minor things that need to get fixed. Did he bring any of this to the attention of the store management? Again, story does not say. Looks to me he went right to guns, and is looking for a payout. That's where I am at with him.

READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING PLEASE!

I am not against accessibility standards and compliance for those of us out there that have to deal with physical limitations. Furthermore, I do not wish their lives to be more difficult than it already is. I simply think that this is code enforcement territory, not litigation territory. It is not a violation of someones civil rights if there is a cover missing from the p-trap or you have to wait for the toilet to open up. There IS NO COMPARISON OF THE DISABLED TO RACIAL OR GENDER DISCRIMINATION. PERIOD. Want to know why?

What special construction or fixtures does a black man or any women need to access and patronize a facility, or use a restroom, that a white male can do without. Answer: None.

How many pages is an ADA compliance manual?

But that's OK, because this society deemed it appropriate and compassionate to ease the lives of the disabled.

Brent.
 
Top