• 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

Starbucks pickup counters discriminating against disabled?

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,709
Location
So. CA
Starbucks pickup counters discriminating against disabled?

Posted: Jun 17, 2013 10:47 AM PDT

Starbucks pickup counters discriminating against disabled? - KMSP-TV

by Lindsey LaBelle

LOS ANGELES -

Starbucks locations in California could be forced to lower all of their pickup counters in order to rectify alleged discrimination of individuals with disabilities.

United States District Court Judge Dean D. Pregerson ruled on Friday that a class action lawsuit filed against Starbucks Corporation may require lower pickup counters in all California stores with counters that exceed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) height requirement, alleging violations of the ADA and Unruh Civil Rights Act.

The plaintiffs contend that the higher counters, which are used to pass hot liquids, discriminate against disabled customers and pose safety risks. The ADA Accessibility Guide says a service counter cannot make the customer reach deeper than 20 inches, or higher than 44 inches.

According to the complaint, Starbucks has allegedly known about the problems with its counters since 2005, but "eight years later, hundreds of stores in California still have unlawful counters." Since then, Starbucks has supposedly continued to discriminate "against tens, if not, hundreds of thousands of disabled patrons in wheelchairs."

There are currently over 2,000 Starbucks locations in the state of California.

Vineet Dubey, the attorney representing the putative class action members, said, "It is an unfortunate reality that it often takes a class action lawsuit to force large-scale violators to address systematic abuses. We hope that Friday's ruling will expedite proceedings and ultimately force Starbucks to immediately lower the beverage pick-up counters at all of its coffee shops."

Starbucks allegedly created a common design for counter pieces that were made to fit in any store size in order to build stores quickly and inexpensively, and Starbucks uses these pieces in stores throughout the country. Starbucks contends the counter height issue did not result from a common design.
 
pickup counters TO THE LEFT

order counter TO THE RIGHT

DSC_2147.jpg
 
Does the height of the order counter meet ADA requirements? If so, why couldn't they just serve those with disabilities at that counter?
 
Msradell said:
Does the height of the order counter meet ADA requirements? If so, why couldn't they just serve those with disabilities at that counter?
Click to expand...
The height of the "order counter" was not the issue, you need to provide the "same" service not special service to all.

the barista does not know it is a disabled person getting the order. He/She just calls out the name on the cup.
 
Msradell said:
Does the height of the order counter meet ADA requirements? If so, why couldn't they just serve those with disabilities at that counter?
Click to expand...
But note all that "stuff" on the counter and in front of the counter, that is a violation of the clear space requirements..... clear space does include "stuff"
 
Federal judge says ADA class action against Starbucks can proceed, include all Calif. stores

June 19, 2013 9:30 AM

Federal judge says ADA class action against Starbucks can proceed, include all Calif. stores | Legal Newsline

By JESSICA M. KARMASEK

LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) — A federal judge ruled last week that a class action lawsuit against coffee giant Starbucks Corp., alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, may proceed.

Judge Dean Pregerson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California said in an order Friday that the lawsuit against Starbucks, which also alleges violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, also can include all California stores containing pickup counters in excess of the height permitted under the ADA.

The underlying class action was filed in May 2012, seeking to force Starbucks to lower the height of its pickup counters.

The complaint alleges that Starbucks has known about the problems with its counters since at least 2005, yet the company has continued to discriminate “against tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of disabled patrons in wheelchairs.”

In particular, the plaintiffs allege the higher counters discriminate against disabled customers and pose safety risks, since they are used to pass hot beverages, and sought to include all California stores in its lawsuit.

Starbucks countered that the plaintiffs only had standing to proceed against stores they had visited.

Pregerson rejected the company’s position, siding with the plaintiffs.

“It is an unfortunate reality that it often takes a class action lawsuit to force large-scale violators to address systematic abuses,” said Vineet Dubey, counsel representing the class members.

“We hope that Friday’s ruling will expedite proceedings and ultimately force Starbucks to immediately lower the beverage pick-up counters at all of its coffee shops.”

However, Starbucks President Cliff Burrows said in a video that the company already has taken steps to improve accessibility.

Specifically, he said the company has introduced a “lower-height hand-off plane” across the globe.

Dubey, in a statement Tuesday, said he was “surprised” to learn that Starbucks has introduced the lower hand-off counters.

The plaintiffs also claim that in order to build its stores more quickly and inexpensively, Starbucks created prefabricated modular pieces designed to adapt to any store size.

The company then used the pieces, including the high pickup counters, in stores throughout the country, they allege.

Starbucks has denied that the issue with the height of its pickup counters resulted from a common design.

From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by email at jessica@legalnewsline.com.
 
the pickup counter isn't an issue (or wasn't at final) at those that I've inspected.. the "stuff" can all be moved.
 
This movable stuff creates problem! The existing payment counter is obstructed. Are we responsible for inspections for ever?

The pick-up counter never was in compliance.
 
RJJ said:
This movable stuff creates problem! The existing payment counter is obstructed. Are we responsible for inspections for ever?The pick-up counter never was in compliance.
Click to expand...
Are you responsible if someone blocks an exit door?

It is a code violation.
 
In PA they hold us up with L&I inspection on ADA issues. Every few years they conduct a witch hut.

To answer your ? no we are not held responsible for other code violations.
 
If they won't move the stuff, it becomes a civil rights lawsuit which isn't our problem.
 
Starbucks and the ADA – more perilous settlements and temporary victories

Starbucks and the ADA – more perilous settlements and temporary victories « Accessibility Defense

June 18, 2013

By Richard Hunt

Starbucks has a long history of litigation about the height of its pickup counters. In 2003 Starbucks settled a claim by a California disabilities rights group concerning the height of its pickup counters. In 2011 Starbucks obtained the dismissal of another pickup counter height lawsuit, Chapman v. Starbucks, 2011 WL 66823 (E.D.Cal. 1022) based on mootness. The counter had been lowered to comply with the ADA requirements. In 2012 Starbucks settled a case that included counter height allegations in the Southern District of Florida. Access 4 All, Inc. v. Starbucks, Case No. 0:11-cv-61010 (S.D. Fla.). The settlement terms do not appear in the record, but most ADA settlements include remediation plus attorney’s fees, so it is a reasonable guess that Starbucks had to lower the counters in the 4 stores at issue. Just a few days ago, on June 5, 2013, a different District Court awarded Robert Cruz some $145,960.07 in attorney’s fees for his successful action against Starbucks concerning one Starbucks store. The Consent Decree in that case called for lowering the pickup counter. Cruz v. Starbucks Corporation, 2013 WL 2447862 (N.D. Cal. 2013) and see Docket 29-1 in the underlying case, 3:10-cv-01868.

Most recently, on June 14, 2013, a District Judge in the Central District of California granted an ADA plaintiff leave to amend to beef up allegations supporting a class action claim attacking the pickup counter height in all of the Starbucks stores in California. Vondersaar v. Starbucks, (Case No. 3:12-cv-5027 in the Central District of California) It remains to be seen whether the Plaintiff will be able to satisfy the District Court’s pleading concerns, but it also seems Starbucks has a long row to hoe before it can put the pickup counter height issue to rest. Even if it ultimately obtains a dismissal of the Vondersaar case, Starbucks will not have established any precedent with respect to counter heights, meaning that more lawsuits will be filed in the future.

These cases illustrate the difficulty and expense of handling ADA litigation without a long-term plan for ADA compliance. An early settlement or dismissal may resolve one case inexpensively, but since no legal precedent is set the next lawsuit may be just around the corner. If it isn’t possible to obtain an early dismissal, the costs of defense will mount at an extraordinary rate, particularly in class actions. ADA violations are like ticking time bombs waiting to go off, and the only sure way to avoid an explosion is to correct them before the next plaintiff comes along. Starbucks may have simply calculated that the delay in the expense of remediation it has obtained by waiting for lawsuits to trigger compliance is worth the cost of defending those lawsuits. Or perhaps it is busy remediating and just hasn’t had time since 2003 to finish the job. Regardless, the counter-height cases demonstrate once again why businesses hoping to avoid litigation should act pre-emptively to identify and correct ADA violations before the litigation bomb explodes.

The Vondersaar case also highlights a trend in ADA litigation. Vondersaar has not only alleged that the pickup counter heights violate the relevant design standards, he has also alleged that the design was part of a policy of discrimination in which Starbucks deliberately followed a common design that violates the ADA. This kind of policy discrimination claim can significantly expand the scope of a lawsuit. An individual plaintiff that visits an individual store has only suffered design based harm in that store, but he may have suffered a policy injury that would allow him to seek relief with respect to every similar store. It goes almost without saying that a written policy based on compliance with ADA standards and a plan for remediation is the best defense to a claim that the defendant has a policy of discrimination.

The message from the Starbucks pickup counter litigation is the same as the message from most significant ADA cases. The best defense is compliance, and the second best defense is a plan for compliance. This doesn’t mean giving up where there is a real issue on what can be achieved or what the ADA requires, but it does mean staying a step ahead of the plaintiffs and their lawyers when it comes to fixing compliance problems. A great defense team and a fortune in legal fees will never buy more than a temporary respite in the ADA litigation battle, while remediation buys a permanent peace.
 
Existing buildings (which they become after final inspections) are the reponsibility of someone other than the building department. (Blocked exits are the responsibility of fire inspectors during their annual inspections.. usually). Unfortunately, most of the responsibility to report accessibility issues have to come from the disabled - and that's civil rights.

As inspectors, we enforce Chapter 11 of the IBC and the provisions of ANSI A117.
 
..and it needs to be clear at the final inspection; on going maintenance of the space may be a property maintenance issue, not a construction issue
 
And like any other building code violation, should be addressed, when spotted by a city inspector, a notice should be given.

In CA, when someone complains to the BO or a violation, the BD must investigate. though most of the time, CA residents file with the court
 
the only way I would ever see property maintenance violations is if I would go in for a cup of over priced coffee. It might be the building department's job to enforce PM issues, not construction inspectors.
 
Part of the CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, roles and responsibilities of Building Departments and Staff
 
Mark said:
Part of the CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, roles and responsibilities of Building Departments and Staff
Click to expand...
I've never seen that, could you post the section so I can research it? For decades inspectors have ignored code violations because the illegal work was not covered by the permit.
 
conarb said:
I've never seen that, could you post the section so I can research it? For decades inspectors have ignored code violations because the illegal work was not covered by the permit.
Click to expand...
I also would like to see this code section.
 
Then, mark h, my guess is. .California Building Department Staffs have jobs for life.
 
It is in the CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

I will need to get the section from one of my BO contacts tomorrow.

Building Staff in CA do not need a complaint or a "permit" to issue a citation. It is used all the time for building maintenance / code enforcement issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top