• 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 said:
Not all disabled are wheelchair usersand many wheelchair users can stand
Click to expand...
Yes sir, I know this, and it is exactly my point. The urinal can be used by those not bound to a chair. That is why the toilet is mandated.

Also, this plaintiff has no legs, making it particularly difficult to stand. I would say nigh impossible.

But I'm open minded and wish to learn. He may have devised a way to "stand" in his chair to take a leak in a urinal. If that's the case then bravo, he's a stud. Lap height of a wheelchair is 27 inches. So hey, benefit of the doubt; A urinal any higher than that may pose an Olympic-size challenge.

Brent.
 
I am really not sure what your point is? I understand you believe that these requirements should be enforced by the building codes and not by litigation. The problem is after 20-30 years of seeing the building code not being able to provide what the courts have required then the option is litigation. If you achieve greater success for your goal thru litigation then what do you suppose is going to happen. I attempt to provide facilities that do not allow litigation to be a possibility, or if it is brought, unsuccessful. This stuff really is not that difficult.
 
JPohling said:
I am really not sure what your point is? I understand you believe that these requirements should be enforced by the building codes and not by litigation. The problem is after 20-30 years of seeing the building code not being able to provide what the courts have required then the option is litigation. If you achieve greater success for your goal thru litigation then what do you suppose is going to happen. I attempt to provide facilities that do not allow litigation to be a possibility, or if it is brought, unsuccessful. This stuff really is not that difficult.
Click to expand...
My issue is with those that go strait to litigation. None of these reports mention the affected approaching the store management about corrections. Just WHAMMO...lawsuit.

I happen to know of a paraplegic man living in California who makes his living visiting stores, new and old, with the specific goal of finding ADA violations and bringing forth lawsuits. He does this and supplements that income by growing pot.

Now the question may be out there wondering why a business can go so long without compliance. I think it has to do with facilities being on the verge of compliance, like I suspect the businesses are in this article. Of the few disabled people I know personally, they simply blow past "inaccessibility" and most of these ADA requirements never cross there mind. I'm sure the vast majority operate similar to that.

So long story short, did this dude alert someone to the problem, with the legitimate goal of correcting the issue? Doesn't sound like it.

Sounds more like a greedy crusader looking for a settlement. Much like SWPP's vultures.

Brent.
 
So...........lets recap...........a disabled person whom is using the legal system to try and force accessibility requirements that have essentially been ignored by a large portion of the business community for decades is despicable and needs to die? Or is it also that he is growing a legal cash crop that he potentially uses to alleviate some of his and others ailments which is allowed under state law? After all, you did say that he "visits" these establishments correct?
 
JPohling said:
So...........lets recap...........a disabled person whom is using the legal system to try and force accessibility requirements that have essentially been ignored by a large portion of the business community for decades is despicable and needs to die? Or is it also that he is growing a legal cash crop that he potentially uses to alleviate some of his and others ailments which is allowed under state law? After all, you did say that he "visits" these establishments correct?
Click to expand...
I don't want to speak for Brent, but you're missing the point.

Litigation should not be step one. Although if it is, it might be viewed by some as profiteering.

To use an analogy I deal with quite often;

Resident calls the Village to complain about a neighbors flood light that stayed on all night.

My first question is always, "did you talk to your neighbor?"

The answer is almost always NO.

If folks would TALK to someone first, before lodging a complaint, calling the cops, or filing suit, the world would be a better place.

There are litigious vultures out there, and they show no signs of slowing down.

Often times these issues can be resolved by reasonable discussion, not lawsuits.

mj
 
Actually I believe you both are missing the point. I agree that there are several lawyers that will utilize disabled individuals to generate ridiculous numbers of lawsuits and letters of extortion to obtain settlements out of court which in turn provide no additional accessibility. These are crooks and are not to be condoned. Progress is being made in trying to reduce this, but can be very difficult. MASS mentioned that this individual visits each establishment looking to find violations and brings forth lawsuits to effect change. I can absolutely say for a fact that if I were to suddenly find myself injured and in a wheelchair that I would certainly use my experience in this matter and do exactly that. I would use my skills to attempt to improve access. There are many disabled persons that do not know the codes and cannot effectively do this. Unfortunately the ones that do are labeled as despicable people that need to die. If you found yourself disabled and unable to provide for your family but you knew the laws and you see that accessibility is still not progressing then I believe that this would be a viable option to feed your family and help out your fellow disabled comrades.
 
JPohling said:
Actually I believe you both are missing the point. I agree that there are several lawyers that will utilize disabled individuals to generate ridiculous numbers of lawsuits and letters of extortion to obtain settlements out of court which in turn provide no additional accessibility. These are crooks and are not to be condoned. Progress is being made in trying to reduce this, but can be very difficult. MASS mentioned that this individual visits each establishment looking to find violations and brings forth lawsuits to effect change. I can absolutely say for a fact that if I were to suddenly find myself injured and in a wheelchair that I would certainly use my experience in this matter and do exactly that. I would use my skills to attempt to improve access. There are many disabled persons that do not know the codes and cannot effectively do this. Unfortunately the ones that do are labeled as despicable people that need to die. If you found yourself disabled and unable to provide for your family but you knew the laws and you see that accessibility is still not progressing then I believe that this would be a viable option to feed your family and help out your fellow disabled comrades.
Click to expand...
I'm not going to comment past this post in this thread.

Your statement is one of the most vile positions I can think of. I can live with everything I said. All of it. My position is crystal clear, and you can warp it anyway you wish from here on out.

You have aspirations of glorified AMBULANCE CHASING, have at it. I'm popping smoke.

Brent.
 
OK, I'll try to recap to get to the core of this or at least I hope so because this is a pretty darn good thread.

1) Businesses have had 20 years to comply with ADA and newer buildings, especially those in the past few year have no excuse.

2) Many businesses and architects completely ignore ADA because in many areas there is no local enforcement so ADA is reactive and not proactive.

3) Many businesses simply choose ignorance to the law because it is reactive and no one is there to enforce it since the DOJ enforces it reactively and sparingly at that.

4) There are some individuals and attorneys who prey on non-ADA compliant businesses for the sole sake of generating income. I am against frivolous litigation for the record.

5) Many of these can quite possibly be settled with compliance after a discussion between the complainant and business without going to court right off the bat. (I believe this is the bone of contention with MASSDIRVER)

6) I can only wish that #5 was so easy. With the knowledge that this is a reactive enforcement and it takes litigation from someone to get them to make changes, I would guess that many businesses make a conscious, informed decision to skip out on ADA compliance in a gambling sort of way. The worst that can happen is that they would have to comply that's it. There is no penalty for non-compiance. Sort of like getting caught working without a permit and the only thing you have to do is take out a permit so it is worth it to risk it unless there was a large penalty for getting caught.

7) I don't see a happy medium in the mean time and until then, the only way we will se compliance is through the publicity of litigation which will cost companies money. Even today we get resistance from RDP's and owners for ADA compliance and frequently submit designs that are not ADA compliant. They know better but try anyway.

So basically I don't have a problem with immediate litigation because it is the only way the word is going to spread. Otherwise, it is still a risk worth taking for many businesses.
 
REVISE #2 to read

2) Many businesses, cities, building officials and architects completely ignore ADA because in many areas there is no local enforcement so ADA is reactive and not proactive.
 
mark handler said:
REVISE #2 to read2) Many businesses, cities, building officials and architects completely ignore ADA because in many areas there is no local enforcement so ADA is reactive and not proactive.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. I concur.
 
Many states,I know for example, Maryland Accessibility Code refers you to the 2010 ADAsad. And makes minor modifications.

There are others, use Google.
 
mark handler said:
Many states,I know for example, Maryland Accessibility Code refers you to the 2010 ADAsad. And makes minor modifications.There are others, use Google.
Click to expand...
Well all inspectors should find that out before they try enforcing Federal law, maybe they should try enforcing Federal drug and immigration law as well.
 
mark handler said:
REVISE #2 to read2) Many businesses, cities, building officials and architects completely ignore ADA because in many areas there is no local enforcement so ADA is reactive and not proactive.
Click to expand...
Cities and building officials are not ignoring the ADA if there is no adoption of it locally. In fact they can't legally enforce anything that has not been adopted by the AHJ. Do you expect a police officer to enforce zoning laws or public works development standards. How about federal EPA regs or OSHA rules? The same applies to ADA. Enforcement and who is responsible for it was written into the federal law. If you disagree with how it is being enforced by the DOJ then work to amend the law. Quit trying to make others culpable for the Federal Governments failure to do their job.
 
mtlogcabin said:
Cities and building officials are not ignoring the ADA if there is no adoption of it locally. In fact they can't legally enforce anything that has not been adopted by the AHJ. Do you expect a police officer to enforce zoning laws or public works development standards. How about federal EPA regs or OSHA rules? The same applies to ADA. Enforcement and who is responsible for it was written into the federal law. If you disagree with how it is being enforced by the DOJ then work to amend the law. Quit trying to make others culpable for the Federal Governments failure to do their job.
Click to expand...
All states have statutes requiring the coherence with the ADA

Many have there own access laws. If these were enforced, on just the buildings built since the enactment, you would not see the sunami of litigation.

If people would employ the disabled, you would not see the sunami of litigation

Employ a disabled vet
 
Many of the Modell's are in PA.

PA has been enforcing the IBC and ANSI A117.1 since April 9th of 2004. Before that, the department of L&I enforced ADA under the 1927 Fire & Panic Act after ADA became law 20 years ago.

If Modells was not compliant in the past 20 years it is because they bypassed L&I and simply ignored state law along with federal law.

Again, if the only consequence is doing what you were suppose to do anyway, it is worth the risk to not comply. It takes lawsuits to wake up some companies.
 
Wooohoooo!! I am a vile ambulance chaser. And I thought my explanation was so very concise and my position easily understood. This only reinforces the difficulty that the disabled have.......
 
All states have statutes requiring the coherence with the ADA
Click to expand...
Really

Printer Friendly Version
24.301.902 DISCLAIMER

(1) A building permit or certificate of occupancy issued by the state or a municipality or county must contain a statement that reads: "Compliance with the requirements of the state building code for physical accessibility to persons with disabilities does not necessarily guarantee compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Title 49, chapter 2, commonly known as the Montana Human Rights Act or other similar federal, state or local laws that mandate accessibility to commercial construction or multifamily housing."

History: 50-60-203, MCA; IMP, 50-60-201, MCA; NEW, 1997 MAR p. 2061, Eff. 11/18/97; TRANS, from Commerce, 2001 MAR p. 2301.

IBC and ANSI that is it.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top