Parking in Reserved spaces?

[JPohling]

I had a new question posed to me that I have not received before. I do not believe that it is governed by any code language, but I was wondering if anyone has encountered this situation before. 100% occupied private office building in CA with more accessible parking spaces than is code required. Parking is at a premium here for regular parkers. Most every tenant has a quantity of reserved spaces in their leases and the spaces are designated as reserved with the tenants name and the terminology "reserved" at each parking space.

There are many people with disabled placards and the disabled spaces fill up early in the am. The folks with disabled placards that show up for work mid-morning have no designated accessible spaces to park in because they are filled. The question that I have received from building management is this..................Several of the disabled people that show up and the accessible spaces are filled claim that they are entitled to park in any space they so desire irregardless of if they are marked as reserved. So they park in the closest reserved space to the building entry.

I do not believe that there is any code language that would address this situation. Have any of you encountered this? I absolutely do not believe that this is true, proper, and or acceptable on private property where these spaces are actually reserved for individual tenants thru lease language. I say warn them once and then tow them if they repeat. I believe this to be a building management issue as well as an HR issue for the offending parkers company. What say you?

 

[JBI]

It is a civil matter and 'between the parties' involved.

 

[cda]

I hate assigned parking, more at retail, than office setting.

Yes sounds like a management problem.

I think on city streets, that handicapp have a little more leeway, on where they can park.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Several of the disabled people that show up and the accessible spaces are filled claim that they are entitled to park in any space they so desire irregardless of if they are marked as reserved.

Yep the entitlement mentality of I will take what I believe I am entitled to instead of going through the proper channels.

The disabled employees within the building should ask for reasonable accommodations based on their need and a "reserved" space could be assigned to each one individually. This would not have to be a "disabled" size parking space for wheel chairs or other walking aids where not needed.

 

[cda]

Good idea Mtl

Might be an education thing also, people might think laws that apply on city streets applies on private property.

Maybe also check handicapp tags against who is actually driving???

 

[ICE]

The issue has nothing to do with ADA. Assigning them special parking spaces means taking assigned parking from someone else. They should find a job where the parking lot is large enough for all of the employees.

 

[mtlogcabin]

[h=1]ICE​

What starts in one court is only a matter of time before it works its way across the country.

I think it is referred to as case law

Court case expands employees’ ADA parking rights[/h] Cielo Lutino | November 13, 2013

Before last month, employees had to show that a reasonable work accommodation, such as the provision of handicapped parking spaces, was linked to the performance of essential job functions if they wanted to file a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That changed when the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in an employee’s favor in Feist v. Louisiana, 2013 US App. LEXIS 19133, expanding on employees’ ADA parking obligations.

A recent court case is expected to have significant repercussions, broadening employers’ obligations to provide accessible parking. From taberandrew.

​

The suit, brought by Pauline G. Feist, a former assistant attorney general for the State of Louisiana, was an appeal of a federal trial court’s ruling. Feist had alleged that her employer, the Louisiana Department of Justice (LDOJ), violated the ADA when it failed to grant her request for a free, on-site parking space. Feist, who suffers from osteoarthritis of the knee, had placed the request because of her medical condition. The district court denied her claim, characterizing it as unreasonable. Where lawyers park their cars have no bearing on their ability to cross-examine a witness, draft a client’s will, or file a motion.

But according to the Fifth Circuit, the lower court erred in its ruling when it applied an erroneous standard: Whether an accommodation is reasonable does not depend on whether it helps an employee perform the essential functions of her job. The Fifth Circuit did not, however, provide an opinion as to whether Feist’s request to the LDOJ was reasonable. It remanded that issue to the district court, which must retry the suit under the corrected standard.

The ruling from the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit, which also includes federal district courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, was surprising and cautionary, given its traditional pro-business leanings. Employers — even those beyond the three states covered by the Fifth Circuit — may wish to more carefully consider accommodation requests that address workplace access.

In light of the ruling, law firm Ford & Harrison LLP recommends that employers review their existing ADA parking policies and procedures to ensure that they are not limited to those that only facilitate staff’s ability to perform a position’s essential functions. Employers are encouraged to continue engaging in an interactive process with disabled workers who require or request accommodation. Employers may also wish to consider offering additional training to human resources personnel or managers to ensure that they understand the new ruling.

Because the Fifth Circuit refused to determine whether Feist’s request was reasonable, however, the parameters of the new ruling are still uncertain, leaving employers unsure about the extent to which they’re obligated to accommodate disabled staff.

http://www.myparkingpermit.com/blog/employees-ada-parking-rights/

 

[conarb]

ICE​What starts in one court is only a matter of time before it works its way across the country.

I think it is referred to as case law

The way it works is the 5th Circuit has ruled which means that it is 'mandatory authority' within it's jurisdiction, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, so it is the law in courts in those three states only, within the courts in all other states it is only "persuasive authority", which means that cases in all other states, while not governed by the ruling, their judges may be persuaded to follow the reasoning of the 5th Circuit in deciding this case. Should a similar situation arise in another case within another Circuit and that Circuit rules differently then there is grounds for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court which almost always takes cases when there is a conflict in the Circuits.

We had a building code case directly on point, the same 5th Circuit ruled that once a government agency adopted the code into law copyright protection disappeared, a similar case arose in another Circuit and the other Circuit honored the copyright protection of the ICBO and the SBC, as is normal procedure the guy disseminating the code free appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis of a conflict between the Circuits, unbelievably the court refused certiorari, so now we have the unbelievable situation of the code being free in three states and copyright protected in 47 states.

 

[mtlogcabin]

The way it works is the 5th Circuit has ruled which means that it is 'mandatory authority' within it's jurisdiction, Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, so it is the law in courts in those three states only, within the courts in all other states it is only "persuasive authority", which means that cases in all other states, while not governed by the ruling, their judges may be persuaded to follow the reasoning of the 5th Circuit in deciding this case. Should a similar situation arise in another case within another Circuit and that Circuit rules differently then there is grounds for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court which almost always takes cases when there is a conflict in the Circuits.

We had a building code case directly on point, the same 5th Circuit ruled that once a government agency adopted the code into law copyright protection disappeared, a similar case arose in another Circuit and the other Circuit honored the copyright protection of the ICBO and the SBC, as is normal procedure the guy disseminating the code free appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis of a conflict between the Circuits, unbelievably the court refused certiorari, so now we have the unbelievable situation of the code being free in three states and copyright protected in 47 states.

Thanks for the explanation on how the courts work. I remember the SBC loosing in the copyright case in the 5th circuit when I was in Fl

 

[conarb]

Mountain Man:

Kind of shows us how much importance the courts attach to building code issues, or copyright issues. If their lack of interest was copyright I have to wonder if they would consider it again now that intellectual property has become such a big issue.