If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox 40 Sacramento)   Ford's Real Hamburgers, 50 year-old landmark, shut down by ADA and activist attorney because he couldn't give a crap   (fox40.com) divider line 426
    More: Sad, ADA, attorney-in-fact, activists  
•       •       •

19952 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2012 at 1:46 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



426 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-09-30 12:17:34 PM  
Make sure to liquidate the business and distribute proceeds before the case goes through the court system, otherwise the lawyer gets it all.
 
2012-09-30 12:18:02 PM  
New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.
 
2012-09-30 12:19:30 PM  
Maybe someone can explain the whole ADA thing to me.  Isn't there some sort of grandfather clause?  Or some way to get some exceptions?  I live in a 200-ish old city, and many of the buildings are in the 150-year-old range (my house is, and all the bars in my area are).  None of them are very handicapped accessable... *especially* not bathrooms.  And there is no way they could be, based on how things were built a century and a half ago.
 
However, when people have gutted old structures recently to the studs to build new restaurants and bars, I've noticed many of them have put on ramps and built larger bathrooms.
 
2012-09-30 12:23:57 PM  
GODDAMNITSOMUCH!!!!

I HATE THAT CRIPPLED PIECE OF SH*T WITH THE FURY OF A THOUSAND EXPLODING SUNS!!

/yes, I AM that angry about this. Johnson is a worthless f*cking parasite that the world would be better off without
 
2012-09-30 12:44:24 PM  

downstairs: Maybe someone can explain the whole ADA thing to me.  Isn't there some sort of grandfather clause?  Or some way to get some exceptions?  I live in a 200-ish old city, and many of the buildings are in the 150-year-old range (my house is, and all the bars in my area are).  None of them are very handicapped accessable... *especially* not bathrooms.  And there is no way they could be, based on how things were built a century and a half ago.
 
However, when people have gutted old structures recently to the studs to build new restaurants and bars, I've noticed many of them have put on ramps and built larger bathrooms.


Kind of. I'm no expert by any means but there are some historical exemptions. And for some things as long as you do not touch them then you are ok. I was looking into opening a bar with a friend and that was a huge problem for us. In order to be in full compliance we would have to hire experts in the law and the costs were staggering. Or we could have just done what we had to to open and still be vulnerable to lawsuits. Kind of a strange catch-22. So we decided not to have to deal with the headache and are looking for places already in full ADA compliance. Which is no guarantee that you still will not get sued. Any mistakes in the construction can still lead to lawsuits. And in California there are some contradictions between state and federal law. so if you comply with one you and then violating another. I have spent months reading up on this and am probably more confused now than I was at the beginning.
 
2012-09-30 12:45:01 PM  

flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.


Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.
 
2012-09-30 12:49:02 PM  
1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.
 
2012-09-30 12:50:13 PM  

GAT_00: Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.


Doesn't make any sense at all to drive people out of business and destroy jobs because the owner can't pay for changes that benefit a tiny fraction of the population. Most people who own burger stands are not rich fat cats.
 
2012-09-30 12:58:32 PM  
The allegation is that Ford's is out of compliance with the ADA - the American's with Disabilities Act.

Wow. The law covers only one American, and that one happened to try to get into Ford's. How unlucky is that?
 
2012-09-30 01:01:13 PM  

I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

www.genericsubject.com
 
2012-09-30 01:02:23 PM  

GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.


Wow, now you're an expert in ADA compliance. Can you please enlighten us to the meaning of "readily achievable" when it comes to renovation of existing commercial buildings? What about the element by element safe harbor provisions?

Or are you just an opinionated youngster who jumps to incorrect conclusions?
 
2012-09-30 01:03:41 PM  

GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.


It does when those laws would require massive structural changes to the building in order to comply.
 
2012-09-30 01:05:24 PM  

basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.


No, because that is asking for a nice fat Discrimination law suit!
 
2012-09-30 01:17:50 PM  

Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.


You're a fool. ADA compliance, depending on the size and age of the place, can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes it's just plain impossible without complete destruction of the restaurant (i.e. the original Squeeze Inn in Sacramento, CA or Frank's Diner in Kenosha, WI, older small restaurants built long before this law existed).

In California, lawsuits of this nature are filed under the Unruh Act, which allows $4,000 in damages per violation along with attorney's fees (which is extra profit for lawyers like this who file lawsuits themselves). Note that this damage limit applies for every single time they visit a business and can apply if the mirrors are even half an inch too high. How would you like to have to spend $50,000 because in fines and attorney's fees because this guy said your mirror was too high? And as it turns out, the guy filing suit didn't even come there to buy anything. He just wanted to see if he could sue you.
 
2012-09-30 01:19:01 PM  

flucto: GAT_00: Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Doesn't make any sense at all to drive people out of business and destroy jobs because the owner can't pay for changes that benefit a tiny fraction of the population. Most people who own burger stands are not rich fat cats.


Discrimination is discrimination. It is all the same, and we treat unintentional discrimination the same as intentional.
 
2012-09-30 01:19:05 PM  

ShawnDoc: GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

It does when those laws would require massive structural changes to the building in order to comply.


You and I both know that the law requires no such thing. However the leftists think it does apparently.

The ADA regulations, which are being constantly changed, are overly burdensome to our most hated citizens, the small businessman. Certainly new construction should meet the published standards. However requiring substantial renovations on a 50 year old building was not the intent of the law.

The law is so onerous that businesses such as the one in this article, are often forced to close rather than spend the time, money and effort to engage lawyers, architects, and engineers to fight spurious lawsuits such or invest in renovations to comply with regulations that may not even apply to them but which they simply can't determine without spending as much money on experts as construction.

Certainly as many businesses as possible should be accessible to the disables, however the law does not require that the Washington Monument install a wheelchair ramp next to the stairs. Reasonableness is key, but reasonableness can only be determined by the Court and the noxious litigants know that.
 
2012-09-30 01:20:51 PM  

GAT_00: Discrimination is discrimination. It is all the same, and we treat unintentional discrimination the same as intentional


No we don't.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2012-09-30 01:25:04 PM  
ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.
 
2012-09-30 01:32:39 PM  

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.


Maybe but a lot of it comes from a few lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits. They are pretty common here in San Diego. A lawyer will go into a community just to look for lawsuits. A handicapped sign too old? lawsuit. A Bathroom rail too low? lawsuit. a lot of these lawsuits are not about accessibility but about very minor violations in the the law. It is easier to settle with the lawyer for a few grand than to fight in court.
 
2012-09-30 01:38:26 PM  

Tellingthem: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.

Maybe but a lot of it comes from a few lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits. They are pretty common here in San Diego. A lawyer will go into a community just to look for lawsuits. A handicapped sign too old? lawsuit. A Bathroom rail too low? lawsuit. a lot of these lawsuits are not about accessibility but about very minor violations in the the law. It is easier to settle with the lawyer for a few grand than to fight in court.


That's this guy's shtick, and why I despise him so much. In order to comply, they would have had to level the building and rebuild from the ground up. It's a 60 year old mom and pop burger stand, for cryin' out loud

/it's extortion hiding behind the law
//and Ford's was a DAMNED good burger
 
2012-09-30 01:39:31 PM  

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine.


That anyone can file a lawsuit which you must defend even if you're not out of compliance and which can cost you thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

/of course he can't see this as he has me on ignore because I often disagree with him, challenge his absurd assertions and point out how he is wrong.
 
2012-09-30 01:40:31 PM  

GAT_00: Discrimination is discrimination. It is all the same, and we treat unintentional discrimination the same as intentional.


Wait, now I get it. I've seen the light.

roller coasters
space capsules
hiking trails
canoes
water slides
climbing walls
orchards
trapezes
skydiving operations
oceans
and millions of other locations, structures, activities and venues should immediately be sued out of existence because OMG intentional/unintentional discrimination.
 
2012-09-30 01:40:44 PM  

Tellingthem: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.

Maybe but a lot of it comes from a few lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits. They are pretty common here in San Diego. A lawyer will go into a community just to look for lawsuits. A handicapped sign too old? lawsuit. A Bathroom rail too low? lawsuit. a lot of these lawsuits are not about accessibility but about very minor violations in the the law. It is easier to settle with the lawyer for a few grand than to fight in court.


So what? People abuse laws and lawsuits all the time. You know what that means? Fix the law, don't toss it. These people want to toss it, like if something doesn't work right the only solution is to completely get rid of it. Nothing works like that. Make it simply and easy to learn and comply with. Of course, the people who support actions like making laws simple and easy won't touch fixing the ADA, they want to just toss the whole thing now. You don't see people trying to fix the ADA, only junk it.

Again, and the sudden silence here also encourages my suspicions, the outrage about the ADA is politically correct outrage over discrimination being illegal.
 
2012-09-30 01:41:26 PM  

flucto: GAT_00: Discrimination is discrimination. It is all the same, and we treat unintentional discrimination the same as intentional.

Wait, now I get it. I've seen the light.

roller coasters
space capsules
hiking trails
canoes
water slides
climbing walls
orchards
trapezes
skydiving operations
oceans
and millions of other locations, structures, activities and venues should immediately be sued out of existence because OMG intentional/unintentional discrimination.


I give you an A for your skill in completely missing the point.
 
2012-09-30 01:45:06 PM  

feckingmorons: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine.

That anyone can file a lawsuit which you must defend even if you're not out of compliance and which can cost you thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

/of course he can't see this as he has me on ignore because I often disagree with him, challenge his absurd assertions and point out how he is wrong.


Is there anything I can do to help with that?
 
2012-09-30 01:49:51 PM  

GAT_00: sudden silence


Of course it is silent, you hide everyone who disagrees with you!

They have amended the ADA in 2008 with the ADA Amendments Act signed by President Bush. It more clearly defined what a person's 'substantial limitation' is. It also clarified that someone must be disabled, with that meaning they have a "disability is an impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity" and clarifies that the accommodations must be reasonable and that it can be made without undue hardship. These amendments apply more to the employment part of the ADA that the public accommodations part, but they are not dissimilar in their application - especially about reasonableness and undue hardship.
 
2012-09-30 01:50:26 PM  

flucto: feckingmorons: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine.

That anyone can file a lawsuit which you must defend even if you're not out of compliance and which can cost you thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

/of course he can't see this as he has me on ignore because I often disagree with him, challenge his absurd assertions and point out how he is wrong.

Is there anything I can do to help with that?


-snert-
 
2012-09-30 01:51:23 PM  
Lived in Sacramento for a year, never heard of the place. Meh.

The ADA has been around for a very long time, suck it up owner and comply.
 
2012-09-30 01:54:10 PM  

GAT_00: Tellingthem: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.

Maybe but a lot of it comes from a few lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits. They are pretty common here in San Diego. A lawyer will go into a community just to look for lawsuits. A handicapped sign too old? lawsuit. A Bathroom rail too low? lawsuit. a lot of these lawsuits are not about accessibility but about very minor violations in the the law. It is easier to settle with the lawyer for a few grand than to fight in court.

So what? People abuse laws and lawsuits all the time. You know what that means? Fix the law, don't toss it. These people want to toss it, like if something doesn't work right the only solution is to completely get rid of it. Nothing works like that. Make it simply and easy to learn and comply with. Of course, the people who support actions like making laws simple and easy won't touch fixing the ADA, they want to just toss the whole thing now. You don't see people trying to fix the ADA, only junk it.

Again, and the sudden silence here also encourages my suspicions, the outrage about the ADA is politically correct outrage over discrimination being illegal.


Ahh people can complain all they want about the law but it will never go away. Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.
 
2012-09-30 01:54:10 PM  
Should I take the "Rules is rules" stance or the "government is interfering with small business" stance? I need to know where to channel my outrage.
 
2012-09-30 01:55:15 PM  
I would like to plead guilty, your honor...

i291.photobucket.com

i291.photobucket.com

i291.photobucket.com

... to FAPPING!
 
2012-09-30 01:55:51 PM  

Tellingthem: Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.


Oh come on, you know these people. They don't have the mentality to fix something. Something goes wrong they always want to toss everything, start completely over, like that fixes everything. Read between the lines and remember who the angry people in here are.
 
2012-09-30 01:56:14 PM  
A quadriplegic lawyer? This guy chases his own ambulances
 
2012-09-30 01:56:23 PM  

flucto: GAT_00: Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Doesn't make any sense at all to drive people out of business and destroy jobs because the owner can't pay for changes that benefit a tiny fraction of the population. Most people who own burger stands are not rich fat cats.


somewhere along the way 'majority rules' ceased to exist. one person is butt hurt by a xmas tree at an airport, every decoration has to come down, even though multiple religions were represented. america has gone moran and we ain't never coming back.
 
2012-09-30 01:57:04 PM  

GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.


Really? Most new laws should allow grandfathering, because people and businesses set up based on the old rules and it isn't fair to change the rules or cost structure of their business.

Imagine you built a house that was compliant to a rule, and then they changed the rules such that you had to significantly change it? How in any sense would that either be fair, or a valid way to implement new rules?

Businesses turn over often enough, and people like to remodel occasionally. So fairly quickly, even with grandfathering, most buildings will be brought up to new codes.

But forcing existing owners to comply to new rules that didn't exist when they set up their business plan just doesn't make any sense.
 
2012-09-30 01:57:05 PM  

ArkAngel: Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.

You're a fool. ADA compliance, depending on the size and age of the place, can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes it's just plain impossible without complete destruction of the restaurant (i.e. the original Squeeze Inn in Sacramento, CA or Frank's Diner in Kenosha, WI, older small restaurants built long before this law existed).

In California, lawsuits of this nature are filed under the Unruh Act, which allows $4,000 in damages per violation along with attorney's fees (which is extra profit for lawyers like this who file lawsuits themselves). Note that this damage limit applies for every single time they visit a business and can apply if the mirrors are even half an inch too high. How would you like to have to spend $50,000 because in fines and attorney's fees because this guy said your mirror was too high? And as it turns out, the guy filing suit didn't even come there to buy anything. He just wanted to see if he could sue you.


So, pay $50,000 in fines and look like a whiny biatch, or spend $50,000 to become ADA compliant and continue growing your business.

You sir, sound like the tool.
 
2012-09-30 01:57:49 PM  
Mt. Everest isn't ADA compliant. We should shut it down.
 
2012-09-30 01:57:59 PM  
Is it wrong to punch a dude in a wheelchair?
 
2012-09-30 01:58:03 PM  
Oops, misread fool as tool. My bad.
 
2012-09-30 01:58:42 PM  

jabelar: GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Really? Most new laws should allow grandfathering, because people and businesses set up based on the old rules and it isn't fair to change the rules or cost structure of their business.

Imagine you built a house that was compliant to a rule, and then they changed the rules such that you had to significantly change it? How in any sense would that either be fair, or a valid way to implement new rules?

Businesses turn over often enough, and people like to remodel occasionally. So fairly quickly, even with grandfathering, most buildings will be brought up to new codes.

But forcing existing owners to comply to new rules that didn't exist when they set up their business plan just doesn't make any sense.


The ADA was passed 22 years ago. This isn't some new law.
 
2012-09-30 01:58:52 PM  
The American Dental Association says that their burgers are bad for your teeth ;)
 
2012-09-30 01:59:36 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: GODDAMNITSOMUCH!!!!

I HATE THAT CRIPPLED PIECE OF SH*T WITH THE FURY OF A THOUSAND EXPLODING SUNS!!

/yes, I AM that angry about this. Johnson is a worthless f*cking parasite that the world would be better off without


There used to be an individual, who shall remain nameless, on a forum I used to frequent who was "mislabeled" (disabled is pejorative, you see.) He ran a blog, and all he did was look for technical ADA violations everywhere he went. I remember he got burned out of his apartment and put up in a hotel by the red cross, which was promptly followed by a dissertation on how terribly the hotel was infringing on his rights......because the rail in the handicap accessible bathroom was something like two inches to short.
 
2012-09-30 02:00:39 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Is it wrong to punch a dude in a wheelchair?


Asking that question is discrimination. All dickwads deserved to be punched in the head without regard their physical abilities, race, or sexual orientation. You're an abilitist.
 
2012-09-30 02:01:03 PM  

GAT_00: Tellingthem: Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.

Oh come on, you know these people. They don't have the mentality to fix something. Something goes wrong they always want to toss everything, start completely over, like that fixes everything. Read between the lines and remember who the angry people in here are.


The guy that ignores dissent says 'they' don't have the mentality to fix something. Is that a stipulation that the lawsuit is improper, and that there should be no private right of action under the ADA? If it is broken as it must be in his acknowledgement that it needs fixing, then what does he think should be fixed. He complains about other people not having the mentality to fix it, yet offers no solution himself.

Typical.
 
2012-09-30 02:02:53 PM  

Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.


Did you even read the article? The compliance issue involved the width of the hallway to the bathroom. It's not a matter of being too stupid to know how to fix it, it's a matter of the cost being so expensive that the business owner can't afford to spend the money to fix it.
 
2012-09-30 02:03:42 PM  

basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]


That'll get you shut down plus a nice class-action discrimination lawsuit.
 
2012-09-30 02:03:52 PM  

OrygunFarker: So, pay $50,000 in fines and look like a whiny biatch, or spend $50,000 to become ADA compliant and continue growing your business.

You sir, sound like the tool.


Dude, you have total logic fail as there are other options which are more likely and practical.

There is also:
c) go out of business because you can't do either
d) change the law so you only have to come up to compliance when business changes ownership or you remodel significantly.
 
2012-09-30 02:04:00 PM  

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.


Maybe it's the idea that businesses who have existed in the same location in the same quarters for 50 years could have charges brought against them to modify their structures to meet the requirements of a law that didn't exist at the time the building was built and the business was launched?

Maybe it's the idea that no building owner of an existing struture is forced to comply with each and every new building ordnance as soon as it's passed, but they are required to do so for something like ADA?

Maybe it's the idea that there's only ONE ambulance-chasing litigator who is bringing these suits in the area, and always on his own behalf?

Just think -- many of the business owners who are forced out of business because of ADA lawsuits like this are now living off your tax dollars when they were just a few months before productive members of society and contributing tax revenues to their community, state, and Federal coffers. Now they're not -- they're leeching off of it, and they'd prefer not to be. All because they ran a business in a building that was older than they were and was not designed with ADA in mind.

I have nothing against the disabled, but I do have something against disabled lawyers who prefer to be predatory in their practices...

And -- if he's quadraplegic, how can he even hold a farking hamburger? Why would he even go there? Has anyone determined whether or not the man actually went to the site, or if he had someone else scout it out as a target for his predatory lawsuit practice?
 
2012-09-30 02:04:25 PM  

Azlefty: basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

No, because that is asking for a nice fat Discrimination law suit!


I'm pretty sure that you're allowed to discriminate against ambulance chasers.
 
2012-09-30 02:04:55 PM  
This.

feckingmorons: They have amended the ADA in 2008 with the ADA Amendments Act signed by President Bush. It more clearly defined what a person's 'substantial limitation' is. It also clarified that someone must be disabled, with that meaning they have a "disability is an impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity" and clarifies that the accommodations must be reasonable and that it can be made without undue hardship. These amendments apply more to the employment part of the ADA that the public accommodations part, but they are not dissimilar in their application - especially about reasonableness and undue hardship.


What I posted on slashdot about something similar.

Q. Are there any limitations on the ADA's barrier removal requirements for existing facilities?

A. Yes. Barrier removal need be accomplished only when it is "readily achievable" to do so.

Q. What does the term "readily achievable" mean?

A. It means "easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense."

Q. Will businesses need to install elevators?

A. Businesses are not required to retrofit their facilities to install elevators unless such installation is readily achievable, which is unlikely in most cases.

Q. Must alternative steps be taken without regard to cost?

A. No, only readily achievable alternative steps must be undertaken.

ADA FAQ 

This is just some guy with a failing business who is blaming the ADA instead of the myriad other reasons why his business is failing. So it matches up with the tea-potty agenda that "all regulation is bad especially if it helps cripples."
 
2012-09-30 02:05:00 PM  

AngryTeacher: Should I take the "Rules is rules" stance or the "government is interfering with small business" stance? I need to know where to channel my outrage.


Might I suggest channeling your outrage at people who take a rule meant to help people who can't stick up for themselves, and instead milk it for personal aggrandizement and profit.
 
2012-09-30 02:05:02 PM  

GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.


Not all buildings can be brought into compliance without completely redoing the structural elements. I'm an architect. In the past ADA compliance was a big part of my workload. I spent much of my time finding ways to make it work. But sometimes in an older building, there just is no way to make it work. Structural columns that cannot be moved are too close to masonry or concrete bearing walls that lack the necessary reinforcing to allow for a hole to be cut for new doors. The floors were never designed to have a moment frame installed to make up for the lack of reinforcing. Things like that.

The ADA has provisions for costs that will allow for grandfathered building to be remodeled without coming into complete compliance as long as some elements are addressed. It makes absolutely no sense to tell the owner of an 80 year old building that his bathrooms on the first floor must be brought into compliance just because he's removing the ancient revolving door to a modern automatic sliding door.

I'm going to assume that your lack of knowledge on the real world applilcations of the ADA are due to not having any practical working experience in it. I'd be willing to overlook that. Not everybody should be ADA experts. That would mean less work for me. I sure as hell can't do your job so don't presume that you can do mine.
 
2012-09-30 02:05:06 PM  
www.explosm.net
 
2012-09-30 02:05:25 PM  
the law is an ass.

so is this lawyer.
 
2012-09-30 02:05:53 PM  

SpinStopper: The American Dental Association says that their burgers are bad for your teeth ;)


That's what I thought when I clicked the link.

'Ford's Real Hamburgers' is Anti-Dentite!
 
2012-09-30 02:06:54 PM  

jabelar: OrygunFarker: So, pay $50,000 in fines and look like a whiny biatch, or spend $50,000 to become ADA compliant and continue growing your business.

You sir, sound like the tool.

Dude, you have total logic fail as there are other options which are more likely and practical.

There is also:
c) go out of business because you can't do either
d) change the law so you only have to come up to compliance when business changes ownership or you remodel significantly.



To me, C would be the optimal outcome. Since this fella can't figure out how to secure a low interest small business loan, maybe he should be selling off his business and allow a successful business person to purchase the location and turn it around.
 
2012-09-30 02:07:42 PM  

AngryTeacher: Should I take the "Rules is rules" stance or the "government is interfering with small business" stance? I need to know where to channel my outrage.


Which way benefits Republicans more?
 
2012-09-30 02:07:56 PM  

GAT_00: Tellingthem: Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.

Oh come on, you know these people. They don't have the mentality to fix something. Something goes wrong they always want to toss everything, start completely over, like that fixes everything. Read between the lines and remember who the angry people in here are.


Yeah I can just hop over to the politics tab for that. haha
 
2012-09-30 02:08:04 PM  

basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]


You have no such right. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act?
 
2012-09-30 02:08:44 PM  

KrispyKritter: flucto: GAT_00: Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Doesn't make any sense at all to drive people out of business and destroy jobs because the owner can't pay for changes that benefit a tiny fraction of the population. Most people who own burger stands are not rich fat cats.

somewhere along the way 'majority rules' ceased to exist.


...you're seriously advocating that 51% of the population gets their way?
 
2012-09-30 02:09:03 PM  

jabelar: Imagine you built a house that was compliant to a rule, and then they changed the rules such that you had to significantly change it?


They didn't that is the safe harbor provision. If it was addressed by previous regulation and you complied with that you don't have to make things comply with the new regulations.

There are 2 major exceptions, if you substantially change - completely remodel for instance - you have to bring the remodeled part into compliance with the newest regulations. As an example, the old regulations said you can have light switches at 51 inches above the floor, the new regulation say 48 inches. You don't have to move the switch if you change a bulb or swap out a light fixture, but if you remodel and move the wall it has to be 48.

The other exception is for things that were not addressed in old regulation, the big one in the news recently is public pool access. If you have a hotel that had a pool you now have to put in a wheelchair lift. This however has to be readily achievable, for the most part the pool thing is readily achievable by installing a commercially available pool wheelchair lift, however if the pool had no room as it was enclosed by walls with only a three food wide door then perhaps it would not be readily achievable - but really what pool like that exists at a public accommodation.

/it does not really apply to houses unless they are rentals, you can do anything you want to your own house subject to local building codes.
 
2012-09-30 02:09:42 PM  


feckingmorons

Smartest

Funniest

2012-09-30 01:39:31 PM

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine.

That anyone can file a lawsuit which you must defend even if you're not out of compliance and which can cost you thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

/of course he can't see this as he has me on ignore because I often disagree with him, challenge his absurd assertions and point out how he is wrong.


Come on now, take a step back and ask yourself, "When has GAT00 ever made sense?" I think he has once or twice, but for the most part he's a troll whom has an opinion on everything, especially all the things he knows nothing about (and that list is quite extensive).

As for this Mr. Johnson, Esq, sounds to me he's pissed at the world for his physical defects and is just taking it out on anyone he can. Of course he is not interested in making life better for anyone, just lashing out at anyone in the way of his anger.
 
2012-09-30 02:09:50 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: I sure as hell can't do your job so don't presume that you can do mine.


Where have I told you how to do your job?
 
2012-09-30 02:10:16 PM  
So close the bathroom to the public. Problem solved. Year out the crapper if necessary.

There's a greasy burger joint near me that has a bathroom but it's not public.
 
2012-09-30 02:10:44 PM  
I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.
 
2012-09-30 02:10:56 PM  

IlGreven: basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]

That'll get you shut down plus a nice class-action discrimination lawsuit.


Businesses do have the right to refuse service as long as that refusal is not based solely upon the person to whom they refused service belonging to a protected class of persons.

A business can't be closed for refusing service to patrons the do not wish to admit.

I don't think you understand what class action means.
 
2012-09-30 02:11:25 PM  

jpo2269: but for the most part he's a troll whom has an opinion on everything, especially all the things he knows nothing about (and that list is quite extensive).


Well, you've certainty proved your point here by step by step showing where and how I'm wrong.
 
2012-09-30 02:11:54 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.


Fatties, gays, and atheists facepalm.

/I'm 2 of the 3.
//I'll leave you to guess which two.
 
2012-09-30 02:12:00 PM  
Maybe you can't do anything about the fact that you're a quadriplegic,

BUT THE FACT THAT YOU'RE AN A-HOLE, THAT'S ALL YOU BUDDY.
 
2012-09-30 02:12:22 PM  
What can you do?
I'm going to fill in the swimming pool at work because it would cost $5,000 for a Wheelchair Lift. I can think of 5 guests in wheelchairs in the last 10 years. 3 were old and happy to play shuffleboard. 1 was an Uber-Athlete that could have followed me up the stairs and kicked my ass. 2 were profoundly handicapped kids that would have been called "Bob" if they got in the pool.

/Fill it in
//use the ocean
 
2012-09-30 02:12:51 PM  

FF Mac: So close the bathroom to the public. Problem solved.


Interesting solution. But I don't think the point of all of this was to solve the problem.
 
2012-09-30 02:12:58 PM  

FF Mac: So close the bathroom to the public. Problem solved. Year out the crapper if necessary.

There's a greasy burger joint near me that has a bathroom but it's not public.


Year. Tear. Whatever.
 
2012-09-30 02:14:00 PM  

GAT_00: jpo2269: but for the most part he's a troll whom has an opinion on everything, especially all the things he knows nothing about (and that list is quite extensive).

Well, you've certainty proved your point here by step by step showing where and how I'm wrong.


I showed you how you were wrong, and how you don't have a true grasp of the mechanics or complexity of the ADA and its amending laws.

But since you can't see this you don't know how silly you are.

Have a nice afternoon, I'm off to brunch at the Club.
 
2012-09-30 02:14:01 PM  
So the factory my dad works at had to get compliant with the ADA but this burger joint doesn't is essentially what you angry people are arguing.

I think it is a stupid lawsuit but you can't just pick and choose who gets to follow the law. Instead, why don't the people who supposedly love this place donate time and money to the owner to keep it open.
 
2012-09-30 02:14:14 PM  

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.


I would be interested in knowing if there was a significant financial investment in a "C'mon in Negroes" vs a "No Negroes" policy. Are there tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars of government required modifications to a structure to permit "Negroes" to enter? Has the cost of taking down a "No Negroes" sign ever driven a business into bankruptcy?

If there isn't a significant difference between those two, then, yes... there is a difference between that and spending many thousands so that one guy in a wheelchair can get a burger every few weeks.

If it's that important to the government, then the government... and therefore all of us, should pay for it.

The government paid for other forms of integration... they should foot the bill 100% for this as well. Again... if it's that important. If it isn't, then they shouldn't pass bills to bankrupt small businesses.
 
2012-09-30 02:14:25 PM  

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.


This is a business which had a wheelchair bound customer as a regular. As the lawsuit is over limiting access for wheelchair bound customers, a lawsuit which puts the restaurant out of business is actively denying access for this disabled customer.
 
2012-09-30 02:14:53 PM  

feckingmorons: Businesses do have the right to refuse service as long as that refusal is not based solely upon the person to whom they refused service belonging to a protected class of persons.


The disabled are a protected class.

Where is your god now?
 
2012-09-30 02:15:04 PM  
This little cocksucker doesn't even use the services of the businesses he extorts. He went into the Sears Hometown store my wife used to work at. He rode in, went right to the bathroom and opened the door. Soon as he saw it was in compliance, he left and did the same at every other business in that shopping center. I've seen him rolling down the side of the road and have been tempted to plow into him. What's the worse that can happen? He won't be able to walk?
 
2012-09-30 02:15:07 PM  

GAT_00: FF Mac: So close the bathroom to the public. Problem solved.

Interesting solution. But I don't think the point of all of this was to solve the problem.


This is Fark. It has a point?
 
2012-09-30 02:15:44 PM  

Hobo Jr.: So the factory my dad works at had to get compliant with the ADA but this burger joint doesn't is essentially what you angry people are arguing.

I think it is a stupid lawsuit but you can't just pick and choose who gets to follow the law. Instead, why don't the people who supposedly love this place donate time and money to the owner to keep it open.


Reasonableness. Employment is part of the ADA, but if I read it right, the plaintiff didn't want a job so that doesn't come into play.

They probably don't have to renovate their 50 year old building, but the cost of proving that and defending themselves is prohibitive so they decided to close.
 
2012-09-30 02:15:52 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: This is just some guy with a failing business who is blaming the ADA instead of the myriad other reasons why his business is failing. So it matches up with the tea-potty agenda that "all regulation is bad especially if it helps cripples."


Well, the article starts off with him cutting back costs and employees, so he may have just been staying afloat. Problem being, frivolous lawsuits cost money and time, something he can't afford. I would wager to say that not every small business right now can afford some asshat lawyer going around suing them, because even if the business owner wins the case, it is still a major cost to him. Not sure if his state allows you to counter-sue for costs of lawyers and profits lost due to the time initially spent in court, but even if he could, I'm not sure his utilities debtors will likely wait as he recoups his losses months after winning his counter-suit, then all of the other bureaucratic b.s. that fills up the court system.
 
2012-09-30 02:16:15 PM  
This is just some guy with a failing business who is blaming the ADA instead of the myriad other reasons why his business is failing.

I seriously doubt the Ford's is hurting for business, being widely known as one of the best burgers in town and being directly across the street from a goddamn community college and the zoo. Now, I'm all for the ADA but you know, after having watched this asshole pull this same goddamn stunt over and over and over again (not to mention the "out of court settlement" that he insinuates he would be happy to accept to keep this out of court before he even files suit), I'm going to go ahead and call this prick what he is: an extortionist.
 
2012-09-30 02:16:50 PM  

Hobo Jr.: So the factory my dad works at had to get compliant with the ADA but this burger joint doesn't is essentially what you angry people are arguing.

I think it is a stupid lawsuit but you can't just pick and choose who gets to follow the law. Instead, why don't the people who supposedly love this place donate time and money to the owner to keep it open.


Ha! No. That'd be communism. Here in 'Murca, no one helps anyone else out, ever.

/'Specially not the libby libs out in Californy.
 
2012-09-30 02:17:13 PM  

feckingmorons: IlGreven: basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]

That'll get you shut down plus a nice class-action discrimination lawsuit.

Businesses do have the right to refuse service as long as that refusal is not based solely upon the person to whom they refused service belonging to a protected class of persons.

A business can't be closed for refusing service to patrons the do not wish to admit.

I don't think you understand what class action means.


"class action" is what morons put before the word "lawsuit" to make it sound scary. See also "how to make lawyers rich while screwing both defendants and plaintiffs."
 
2012-09-30 02:18:27 PM  
Consider the source, folks. Faux News is expert at pitting folks against each other. It's the classic Faux News trope about the poor, beleaguered small business owner vs. big bad government and "special interests" such as the mobility impaired in this case. The villain in this sordid tale is being played by a lawyer who happens to be a quadriplegic. If this is all going down as Faux News has scripted it, this story is their wet dream.
 
2012-09-30 02:18:32 PM  

IlGreven: Darth_Lukecash: I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.

Fatties, gays, and atheists facepalm.

/I'm 2 of the 3.
//I'll leave you to guess which two.


You're half facepalm?
 
2012-09-30 02:18:47 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: feckingmorons: Businesses do have the right to refuse service as long as that refusal is not based solely upon the person to whom they refused service belonging to a protected class of persons.

The disabled are a protected class.

Where is your god now?


Yes, they are - we are indeed talking about the ADA here - however that sign does not say we can refuse service to anyone, including those protected by law as members of a protected class. Think drunks at a restaurant. If they are screaming and throwing cocktails about they can be ejected. They can try the 'you can't throw me out because I'm disabled' ploy if they want, but since they are not being ejected because they are disabled but rather because they are drunk and annoying others they get shown the door. We hope they're shown the door with the ramp.
 
2012-09-30 02:20:13 PM  
This is outrageous! It's not like the handicapped are real people. Why should they get special rights to use the bathroom?
 
2012-09-30 02:20:40 PM  

zamboni: If there isn't a significant difference between those two, then, yes... there is a difference between that and spending many thousands so that one guy in a wheelchair can get a burger every few weeks.


So someone can make a legitimate counter argument here. Good.

And you're obviously right there. But I wasn't talking about the costs of discrimination, simply the act of discrimination. What I imagine some people here want to do is basically put out a sign that says 'no handicapped people' instead of complying with ADA, which is where I drew the analogy from. Obviously if you choose to bar people, you don't have to comply then with helping them.

Do you understand why I made that argument?
 
2012-09-30 02:20:55 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: GODDAMNITSOMUCH!!!!

I HATE THAT CRIPPLED PIECE OF SH*T WITH THE FURY OF A THOUSAND EXPLODING SUNS!!

/yes, I AM that angry about this. Johnson is a worthless f*cking parasite that the world would be better off without


It's this kind of thing that makes getting disability access and ensuring rights for all the most frustrating thing in the world. So many advocates--and "advocates" like this asshat--are totally all right with "full inclusion" becoming "total exclusion": Hey, I can't access this restaurant's toilet! Guess I'll sue! Oh, the restaurant has to close and now nobody can use the toilet? Oh, well, mission accomplished, at least we're all equal now! You see the same thing going on in schools--disabled student can't get on a party bus or a trip; parents sue because it's all so unfair; district responds with no more party busses or class trips; because if nobody gets to go, nobody can be unfairly excluded, right?

And here's why this jerkoff gets to sue and win, and ensure our lives are just as miserable as his: The ADA makes allowances for "reasonable accommodation" based on feasibility, but makes ZERO allowances for cost of said accommodation. If it is physically possible for the accommodation to be made, then it must be made, no matter if the owner can afford such accommodation or not. The language of ADA specifically states:

To the maximum extent feasible. The phrase "to the maximum extent feasible," as used in this section, applies to the occasional case where the nature of an existing facility makes it virtually impossible to comply fully with applicable accessibility standards through a planned alteration. Link So if your building for some structural reason can't be made compliant, then you don't have to do it--but if it CAN, then it MUST be made so compliant. Can't afford to? Too bad, out of business you go.

I hope Counselor Cripple is happy that in the name of Harrison Bergerization he got a business closed down. I also hope he appreciates it makes MY job that much harder, because getting jobs for disabled people is tricky enough, never mind when businesses decide to avoid a lawsuit by just not hiring them at all.
 
2012-09-30 02:21:50 PM  

RoxtarRyan: bubo_sibiricus: This is just some guy with a failing business who is blaming the ADA instead of the myriad other reasons why his business is failing. So it matches up with the tea-potty agenda that "all regulation is bad especially if it helps cripples."

Well, the article starts off with him cutting back costs and employees, so he may have just been staying afloat. Problem being, frivolous lawsuits cost money and time, something he can't afford. I would wager to say that not every small business right now can afford some asshat lawyer going around suing them, because even if the business owner wins the case, it is still a major cost to him. Not sure if his state allows you to counter-sue for costs of lawyers and profits lost due to the time initially spent in court, but even if he could, I'm not sure his utilities debtors will likely wait as he recoups his losses months after winning his counter-suit, then all of the other bureaucratic b.s. that fills up the court system.


Exactly, this is not about access for the disabled, it is about the lawyer knowing what he can get away with. I doubt the business would be forced to comply with the new standards if the building is that old.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back. You know that horrible small businessman he is ruining this country and we have to do everything we can to stop him.
 
2012-09-30 02:23:17 PM  
I think gat dun gone over his limit, where's the fishin game warden
 
2012-09-30 02:23:25 PM  

stevetherobot: This is outrageous! It's not like the handicapped are real people. Why should they get special rights to use the bathroom?


It's not about that, it's about this farking dirtbag who makes a goddamn living extorting businesses in the Sacramento area. This will be far,far from the first business he's farked over in this town, and I hope someday somebody walks up behind this coont and ties a plastic bag over his head.
 
2012-09-30 02:23:55 PM  

drewogatory: I seriously doubt the Ford's is hurting for business, being widely known as one of the best burgers in town and being directly across the street from a goddamn community college and the zoo


Then he should be either be able to get a summary judgment that this is unreasonable under the law (see the Q&A) or he should buck up and fix it.

Because if he's as busy as you say he is, he can afford it.

This article is just propagandist bullshiat.
 
M-G
2012-09-30 02:24:55 PM  
I bet the city or county has had the audacity to make them meet changing health and fire code requirements over the years, too.
 
2012-09-30 02:28:43 PM  
There is a lady in our town who is very large, and so is her motorized wheelchair. It won't even fit thru the door at McDonalds. The employees wait on her at the outside tables! Even her service dog gets special attention.

Take that Mr. Attorney!
 
2012-09-30 02:29:09 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: drewogatory: I seriously doubt the Ford's is hurting for business, being widely known as one of the best burgers in town and being directly across the street from a goddamn community college and the zoo

Then he should be either be able to get a summary judgment that this is unreasonable under the law (see the Q&A) or he should buck up and fix it.

Because if he's as busy as you say he is, he can afford it.

This article is just propagandist bullshiat.


Are you from Sac? Because I've stood behind a goddamn bar and listened to this asshole tell my boss to his face that he would be more than happy to accept a bribe in return for not filing suit.
 
2012-09-30 02:29:26 PM  
Why didn't he switch to carry-out only, put up an order window and lock the damn door?
 
2012-09-30 02:31:47 PM  

Hobo Jr.: donate time and money to the owner to keep it open.


Why don't you come work at my Taqueria for three days for free because lots of people like my food so I should get free labor?

This lawsuit is not about accessibility, it is about the lawyer suing people because he can. He extorts them with the threat of a lawsuit and then if they don't roll over he sues. He doesn't want to get a burger he wants to get a check.
 
2012-09-30 02:31:48 PM  
The ambulance chaser has made a nice living off the ADA. How nice? Well he's a one person office. He limits himself to ADA complaints. He files boiler plate complaints, most of the complaints result in a quick settlement, usually in the neighborhood of $5K per suit, plus his costs in filing the suit. In eight years of doing this work, he has chalked up over 1,000 wins, lining his pockets to the tune of over $5M over that eight year stretch.

He claims he does it all to make things better for the disabled ... And I'm a member of the College of Cardinals.
 
2012-09-30 02:32:30 PM  

Gyrfalcon:

And here's why this jerkoff gets to sue and win, and ensure our lives are just as miserable as his: The ADA makes allowances for "reasonable accommodation" based on feasibility, but makes ZERO allowances for cost of said accommodation. If it is physically possible for the accommodation to be made, then it must be made, no matter if the owner can afford such accommodation or not. The language of ADA specifically states:

To the maximum extent feasible. The phrase "to the maximum extent feasible," as used in this section, applies to the occasional case where the nature of an existing facility makes it virtually impossible to comply fully with applicable accessibility standards through a planned alteration. Link So if your building for some structural reason can't be made compliant, then you don't have to do it--but if it CAN, then it MUST be made so compliant. Can't afford to? Too bad, out of business you go.


This, and it doesn't even allow for the "WTF" cases, either - one startup I worked with wanted to install a
12-inch raised floor for cooling/cabling, etc., and the architect reminded us that we'd lose the floorspace for
a ramp (12:1 run:rise) in case we hired a network admin in a wheelchair.

My query as to how said netadmin was going to reach the network switches at the top of the 96" rack was
met with a blank stare....
 
2012-09-30 02:32:45 PM  

IlGreven: Darth_Lukecash: I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.

Fatties, gays, and atheists facepalm.

/I'm 2 of the 3.
//I'll leave you to guess which two.


Fatties can control their weight.

Yes there are vocal against the gays, but far more people are accepting of them. Most people don't care about religion as long as you are not militant about it.

Handicapped people are automatically dismissed as lesser individuals.

/was overwieght am atheist and handicapped. First two are choices. Last one is not.
 
2012-09-30 02:32:50 PM  
Why not hire one of those wheelchair accessible port a potties, stick it in the parking lot of Ford's, and put a sign on it proclaiming it the "Scott Johnson Institute for Legal Studies"?
 
2012-09-30 02:33:07 PM  

GAT_00: zamboni: If there isn't a significant difference between those two, then, yes... there is a difference between that and spending many thousands so that one guy in a wheelchair can get a burger every few weeks.

So someone can make a legitimate counter argument here. Good.

And you're obviously right there. But I wasn't talking about the costs of discrimination, simply the act of discrimination. What I imagine some people here want to do is basically put out a sign that says 'no handicapped people' instead of complying with ADA, which is where I drew the analogy from. Obviously if you choose to bar people, you don't have to comply then with helping them.

Do you understand why I made that argument?


You shift more than the sands of the Sonoran desert. I doubt anyone has any idea why you make the arguments you make.
 
2012-09-30 02:33:48 PM  
I'm having a hard time giving a crap about a company that hasn't become compliant with a law that has been on the books since 1990. You had 22 years. Stop blaming the recession.
 
2012-09-30 02:33:54 PM  
People are just petty scumbags. I own a bar and don't put up with people who can't behave themselves and will ban people. Not positive it is related, but some idiot decided to complain multiple times to the city about various compliances we were supposedly not following. One was one of our doors opened to the inside instead of the outside. City finally sent someone to investigate. We ended up getting an exemption.
 
2012-09-30 02:34:23 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]

You have no such right. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act?


Which has what to do with this?

You can't legally refuse service to all black people.

But you CAN refuse service to Bob Smith the Attorney because of his reputation.
 
2012-09-30 02:34:29 PM  

M-G: I bet the city or county has had the audacity to make them meet changing health and fire code requirements over the years, too.


Yeah, that's completely the same thing because health and fire codes only affect a fraction of a percent of the customers. The rest are fireproof and impervious to food poisoning. The building, and all surrounding structures and their occupants are also fireproof.

Yeah... totally the same thing.
 
2012-09-30 02:35:24 PM  
Wow. This douchebag seems like a monster in a wheelchair.
 
2012-09-30 02:35:50 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: Then he should be either be able to get a summary judgment that this is unreasonable under the law


Yes, sure that will work and all the free lawyers in the world are lining up to do it.
 
2012-09-30 02:36:24 PM  
Why would a bunch of toothpaste-shilling dentists care about disabled access?
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-30 02:37:37 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: I'm having a hard time giving a crap about a company that hasn't become compliant with a law that has been on the books since 1990. You had 22 years. Stop blaming the recession.


But they probably never had to remodel. The law didn't require that businesses that weren't compliant remodel their entire restaurant to come into compliance with ex post facto standards.

If they had remodeled the entire place a few years ago, sure, but they apparently did not or they would have built to the new codes.
 
2012-09-30 02:37:39 PM  
Article 1
Section 8
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
 
2012-09-30 02:37:53 PM  

GAT_00: Tellingthem: Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.

Oh come on, you know these people. They don't have the mentality to fix something. Something goes wrong they always want to toss everything, start completely over, like that fixes everything. Read between the lines and remember who the angry people in here are.


That isn't what I'm seeing, people are complaining about what the law allows lawyers to do to small businesses. And if you took some people off ignore you might see that. They want the law scrapped the same as you want every historic building demolished and rebuilt into wheelchair accessible communes, as long as we're putting up strawmen.
 
2012-09-30 02:38:05 PM  

drewogatory: Are you from Sac? Because I've stood behind a goddamn bar and listened to this asshole tell my boss to his face that he would be more than happy to accept a bribe in return for not filing suit.


Get him on tape next time. Because that's extortion and a felony.

And if he's filing frivolous lawsuits, a summary judgment is cheap and effective. Multiple frivilous lawsuits gets one labeled as a "vexatious litigant" and the person needs permission from the court to file suit. If he's filing frivolous lawsuits, they can take his bar license away.

But that's not the /point/ of the article. The point of the article, especially since it comes from Fox is that "oh my god, the ADA is closing businesses!!!" which is utter bullshiat. It's a 22 year old law *signed by a Republican President* that has turned out to help a lot of people and it's not going away.

This purported "victim of the ADA" is lying.
 
2012-09-30 02:39:08 PM  
IIRC, when they were first working on the law, it would have shut down hiking trails that weren't wheelchair accessible (like 99% of them). That was a last minute exemption.

Unfortunately, there are some things that handicapped people can't do. That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't do it either.
 
2012-09-30 02:39:38 PM  

downstairs: Maybe someone can explain the whole ADA thing to me.  Isn't there some sort of grandfather clause?  Or some way to get some exceptions?  I live in a 200-ish old city, and many of the buildings are in the 150-year-old range (my house is, and all the bars in my area are).  None of them are very handicapped accessable... *especially* not bathrooms.  And there is no way they could be, based on how things were built a century and a half ago.
 
However, when people have gutted old structures recently to the studs to build new restaurants and bars, I've noticed many of them have put on ramps and built larger bathrooms.


In California there is no grandfather clause nor a time alotted to come into compliance and there is a nearly automatic civil judgement for the reporting party.
 
2012-09-30 02:39:54 PM  

GAT_00: Smeggy Smurf: I sure as hell can't do your job so don't presume that you can do mine.

Where have I told you how to do your job?


M-G: I bet the city or county has had the audacity to make them meet changing health and fire code requirements over the years, too.


You only have to comply if you remodel. Most agencies allow for you to not bring your building up to code if the cost of compliance is over a set amount of the budget. You don't have to put in a sprinkler system in an old building just because you replace the front door. You will however have to make sure the door meets the egress requirements and possibly have to put in an additional egress door.

The laws were meant to not be cost prohibitive to remodel. In a nutshell it is comply if your remodel is more than a building maintenance project. And then even in that there are provisions for cost. The cities want you to comply but if the cost is too high that nothing gets done, then what's the point? A toilet with grab bars that meets ADA is not worth a business shutting down.

One last point before I go, it would cost less to have the lawyer killed than it would to fight him and the eventual hammering from the Justice Department. One day I hope this farker get killed. I've been on the loving end of his bullshiat years ago when I first got into this field. It wasn't my project but the guy I was working for nearly went under because of it despite everybody involved saying "we'll fix it at no cost to you"
 
2012-09-30 02:40:34 PM  

violentsalvation: And if you took some people off ignore you might see that.


Then he would have to deal with dissent, and it would upset his worldview and who knows what the outcome of that might be? He might become someone who lives in the real world rather than the fantasy where government solves all of our problems and everyone is equal.

He might have to give back his trophies he got for participation and simply showing up.
 
2012-09-30 02:41:32 PM  

feckingmorons: Hobo Jr.: donate time and money to the owner to keep it open.

Why don't you come work at my Taqueria for three days for free because lots of people like my food so I should get free labor?

This lawsuit is not about accessibility, it is about the lawyer suing people because he can. He extorts them with the threat of a lawsuit and then if they don't roll over he sues. He doesn't want to get a burger he wants to get a check.


I don't care about your business. But if the chines restaurant I used to work at needed a hand making renovations, I would be down their with my tools and as many people as I could gather.
 
2012-09-30 02:41:41 PM  

nucular bum: Consider the source, folks. Faux News is expert at pitting folks against each other. It's the classic Faux News trope about the poor, beleaguered small business owner vs. big bad government and "special interests" such as the mobility impaired in this case. The villain in this sordid tale is being played by a lawyer who happens to be a quadriplegic. If this is all going down as Faux News has scripted it, this story is their wet dream.


Google Scott Johnson ADA, and you'll see what a fine upstanding citizen he is. Legislation has been proposed to curtail exactly what he does. He doesn't patronize the businesses he just sues them. He is not a crusader for disability rights, he is an opportunistic leach in my opinion.

Here is just one example, Democrats kill abusive lawsuit Bill.

I have followed Scott Johnson for several years, a quadriplegic Sacramento ADA lawyer notorious for his ruthless shakedowns of tiny businesses, including a local veterinarian, Sacramento area gas stations, an historic hamburger hangout and numerous other restaurants. Johnson has more than 1,000 lawsuits under his belt.

Johnson has defended his activity and claims to be "an agent of change for the rights of the disabled." He usually "settles" cases for $4,000 and $6,000.

The typical Johnson approach is to send a letter to a business which states that the business must become ADA compliant. Johnson gives the business formal notice to make changes to the property, or offers to settle with Johnson monetarily to prevent a lawsuit - the shakedown part.

For businesses unaware of the guidelines, or which were compliant at one time and are now unaware of changes to the ADA guidelines, Johnson's letters are a total shock and very costly.

In addition to paying Johnson off, many of Johnson's victim businesses end up paying thousands of dollars in expensive remodeling to bathrooms; for entrance and exit doors; and for re-paving and painting parking lots, changing signage, or even having to install expensive wheelchair ramps.


Yep, he is in it as a champion for the rights of the disabled.
 
2012-09-30 02:42:41 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: A toilet with grab bars that meets ADA is not worth a business shutting down.


If your business is shutting down because you can't afford grab bars in the washroom, then your business has much larger problems than the ADA.

Again, this article is propaganda.
 
2012-09-30 02:43:26 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: /was overwieght am atheist and handicapped. First two are choices. Last one is not.


Being an atheist isn't a choice.

Is accepting that 2+2=4 a choice?

Is accepting that gravity exists a choice?

Is accepting that the earth isn't flat a choice?

Is accepting that the sun revolves about the sun a choice?

So, no, accepting that there is no reason to believe in any god isn't a choice.

Unless, of course, you want me to be a liar.
 
2012-09-30 02:44:20 PM  

M-G: I bet the city or county has had the audacity to make them meet changing health and fire code requirements over the years, too.


Fire codes are usually applicable when there is a change to the building or change of business occupancy. If neither of these have changed in 50 years, then changes in fire codes would not apply. Changes in codes apply to the systems...i.e. replacing the fire alarm requires an alarm built to current codes; adding a sprinkler system requires current codes for the sprinkler.
 
2012-09-30 02:44:29 PM  

GAT_00: zamboni: If there isn't a significant difference between those two, then, yes... there is a difference between that and spending many thousands so that one guy in a wheelchair can get a burger every few weeks.

So someone can make a legitimate counter argument here. Good.

And you're obviously right there. But I wasn't talking about the costs of discrimination, simply the act of discrimination. What I imagine some people here want to do is basically put out a sign that says 'no handicapped people' instead of complying with ADA, which is where I drew the analogy from. Obviously if you choose to bar people, you don't have to comply then with helping them.

Do you understand why I made that argument?


Most businesses don't want to put out a sign saying "no handicapped people"--but they do want to keep their other customers happy, and have a right to do so. If in your mind, being unable to afford the cost of renovating a bathroom is "discrimination", then are you happy with what has happened here? You should be, because now nobody is being discriminated against. Everyone has an equal chance to not go to this restaurant and not use the bathroom. And that's fair, right?

While it is true that the disabled must have the ability to do everything the rest of us can do, with reasonable accommodation, it's ALSO true that they are never going to be able to do it. A blind person can never drive a car--must the rest of us, in the name of fairness, stop driving? A quadriplegic will never be able to swim laps at the pool--shall we ban lap swimming at public pools so that he won't feel discriminated against? I already mentioned what's happening in school districts: Because some kids cannot go on trips or do special events the exact same way, districts have responded by canceling trips and events across the board. That is the flip side of "full accommodation" and the dangerous unintended consequence of forcing access via lawsuits. Doing nothing.

Some people--such as yourself, apparently--are okay with this Bergerization. I suppose if you are only concerned about YOUR horse, it makes no difference if the other horses in the race get a fair shot or not. For parents who sue schools because little Johnny didn't get to go to Grad Nite, I'm sure it doesn't matter that now no other child, disabled or not, gets to go. For asshats like this one who sue small businesses because the toilet isn't quite right, I'm sure it doesn't matter that now there is no restaurant and people are unemployed. He got his share. But for those of us who want everyone to participate in society to the fullest extent possible, it's a Pyrrhic victory at best.
 
2012-09-30 02:44:30 PM  

violentsalvation: GAT_00: Tellingthem: Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.

Oh come on, you know these people. They don't have the mentality to fix something. Something goes wrong they always want to toss everything, start completely over, like that fixes everything. Read between the lines and remember who the angry people in here are.

That isn't what I'm seeing, people are complaining about what the law allows lawyers to do to small businesses. And if you took some people off ignore you might see that. They want the law scrapped the same as you want every historic building demolished and rebuilt into wheelchair accessible communes, as long as we're putting up strawmen.


If you're referring to one farking moron, he contributes nothing and I see no reason to bother with him.
 
2012-09-30 02:44:50 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: drewogatory: Are you from Sac? Because I've stood behind a goddamn bar and listened to this asshole tell my boss to his face that he would be more than happy to accept a bribe in return for not filing suit.

Get him on tape next time. Because that's extortion and a felony.

And if he's filing frivolous lawsuits, a summary judgment is cheap and effective. Multiple frivilous lawsuits gets one labeled as a "vexatious litigant" and the person needs permission from the court to file suit. If he's filing frivolous lawsuits, they can take his bar license away.

But that's not the /point/ of the article. The point of the article, especially since it comes from Fox is that "oh my god, the ADA is closing businesses!!!" which is utter bullshiat. It's a 22 year old law *signed by a Republican President* that has turned out to help a lot of people and it's not going away.

This purported "victim of the ADA" is lying.


What is he lying about? Is he lying that he can't afford to defend a lawsuit from a guy who sues places that may be out of compliance with the ADA but who first sends them a demand letter and offer to settle before suing. If he weren't a lawyer that would be extortion I think.

Is he lying about the bad economy?

Is he lying about the cost of brining his restaurant into compliance with standards that may not actually to him?

Is he lying about the cost of engineers, architects and experts fees that would be required to determine if he is in compliance or if he is exempt through a provision of the law or safe harbor?

What exactly is he lying about?
 
2012-09-30 02:45:14 PM  

feckingmorons: many of Johnson's victim businesses end up paying thousands of dollars in expensive remodeling to bathrooms; for entrance and exit doors; and for re-paving and painting parking lots, changing signage, or even having to install expensive wheelchair ramps.


Boo. Hoo.
 
2012-09-30 02:45:25 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Most businesses don't want to put out a sign saying "no handicapped people"--but they do want to keep their other customers happy, and have a right to do so. If in your mind, being unable to afford the cost of renovating a bathroom is "discrimination", then are you happy with what has happened here? You should be, because now nobody is being discriminated against. Everyone has an equal chance to not go to this restaurant and not use the bathroom. And that's fair, right?


While I don't approve of this guy's approach, that doesn't mean that the law should be tossed.
 
2012-09-30 02:46:19 PM  
Good. The sooner all businesses are shut down, the sooner the bureaucrats and lawyers achieve total control. Then we shall have our utopia.
 
2012-09-30 02:46:32 PM  
bubo_sibiricus
But that's not the /point/ of the article. The point of the article, especially since it comes from Fox is that "oh my god, the ADA is closing businesses!!!" which is utter bullshiat. It's a 22 year old law *signed by a Republican President* that has turned out to help a lot of people and it's not going away.

This purported "victim of the ADA" is lying.



Why does it matter if it's a Dem or Repub or Whig or Bull Moose? The real issue is common sense vs. butthurt.

From the Libertarian Party Platform: We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law
 
2012-09-30 02:48:02 PM  
Jesus Christ, this is why people hate lawyers. All of you "honest" (relative term) attorneys need to get together and royally fark this guy and others like him before he brings your profession into further disrepute (if that's even possible).
 
2012-09-30 02:48:10 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: Smeggy Smurf: A toilet with grab bars that meets ADA is not worth a business shutting down.

If your business is shutting down because you can't afford grab bars in the washroom, then your business has much larger problems than the ADA.

Again, this article is propaganda.


It is not about grab bars, you're oversimplifying. Even if the restaurant were remodeled the serial ADA lawsuit filer's lawsuit would still remain. The cost of remodeling the restaurant to make the passage to the bathrooms larger, and defending a lawsuit would be a substantial sum. A sum that he can't afford, and in my opinion a sum that he should not have to pay because he is in compliance based upon the age of his building.

The trial lawyers have paid the California Democrats millions and millions of dollars so that any attempt to stop this ADA lawsuit abuse would be quashed.
 
2012-09-30 02:48:17 PM  
>What is he lying about? Is he lying that he can't afford to defend a lawsuit

Yes. I'm saying he is lying that if the cost is burdensome to come into compliance, he is lying. The law exempts burdensome accomodations. Read the fecking law.

I am also calling him a liar, because one of the people defending the owner also says that this guy gets a *lot* of traffic from the community college and surroundings. So yes, he can afford it. Either that or he's a liar, or a bad businessman. Take your pick. I'm going to go with liar.
 
2012-09-30 02:48:38 PM  

zamboni: M-G: I bet the city or county has had the audacity to make them meet changing health and fire code requirements over the years, too.

Yeah, that's completely the same thing because health and fire codes only affect a fraction of a percent of the customers. The rest are fireproof and impervious to food poisoning. The building, and all surrounding structures and their occupants are also fireproof.

Yeah... totally the same thing.


So laws only apply to normal people.

IT'S A LAW.

When I buy pot, I understand the risk I am taking. This guy took the same risk but was narced on by this douchebag lawyer.

It's unfair and stupid. Congratulations, you have come to understand the process of creating and implementing laws in America.
 
2012-09-30 02:50:01 PM  
Lots of money grubbing gimps in this thread.
 
2012-09-30 02:50:08 PM  

IlGreven: Darth_Lukecash: I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.

Fatties, gays, and atheists facepalm.

/I'm 2 of the 3.
//I'll leave you to guess which two.


I sure hope you're fat and gay, because if you're comparing hate of atheism to what the disabled go through...
 
2012-09-30 02:50:11 PM  
Freaking California--it's called "being Grandfathered in" It means your establishment is of historical value and in compliance with the building laws of the time it was built.
Stupid everyone gets a trophy world.
/have MS.
//would have had someone carry me in to eat that hamburger if necessary and never complained about it.
///Sometimes ya gotta understand everything you want to go to is not going to be available to you or a good idea for you and get over it.
 
2012-09-30 02:50:18 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: feckingmorons: many of Johnson's victim businesses end up paying thousands of dollars in expensive remodeling to bathrooms; for entrance and exit doors; and for re-paving and painting parking lots, changing signage, or even having to install expensive wheelchair ramps.

Boo. Hoo.


Which they do to settle the lawsuits, not because they are required to by the law. It is less expensive to pay construction workers than lawyers.

Sure, making facilities more accessible is great, but forcing people out of business, and increasing the unemployment rolls because they are sued when they are already doing everything the law requires is not so great.
 
2012-09-30 02:50:39 PM  

Thanks for the Meme-ries: I would like to plead guilty, your honor...

[i291.photobucket.com image 800x600]

[i291.photobucket.com image 559x437]

[i291.photobucket.com image 375x459]

... to FAPPING!


There are no ramps on the boat in photo 2 and that raised tile flooring in photo 3 is an impediment to a wheelchair. Is she handicapped accessible in photo 1?
 
2012-09-30 02:50:57 PM  
Yikes. That story is farked up as a football bat.

/ thanks for your contribution to the unemployment figures you bitter lawyer/cock.
 
2012-09-30 02:51:38 PM  
I wonder, is the attorney's office ADA compliant? I hope someone has checked that out.
 
2012-09-30 02:51:43 PM  

feckingmorons: Even if the restaurant were remodeled the serial ADA lawsuit filer's lawsuit would still remain


No. No it wouldn't. It would become mooted.

And it would get dismissed if the accomodations were shown to be burdensome, which can be easily done with a consultation with an engineer. A summary judgment as a matter of law.
 
2012-09-30 02:54:15 PM  

Cup_O_Jo: California


Now that you mention it, how the hell did Cali legalize pot?
 
2012-09-30 02:54:30 PM  
Ford's owners say the lawsuit they are facing for their ADA problems was brought by Scott Johnson, a local attorney who makes a living by bringing these types of cases - often on his own behalf... "Being a quadriplegic," Johnson said of himself during that interview, "there's nothing I can do about that. But these businesses that have structural barriers to access, that's frustrating."

Jerry Silvia said he doesn't feel like Johnson is working on his behalf.

"No. He's strictly crusading on his own behalf," Silvia said.


What?! That's horrible, Mr. Silvia! To think that he's using your name on his lawsuit, pretending to be your lawyer, and is not actually working on your behalf! You should fire him!

Oh, wait, he doesn't work for you? And you're not even in the suit? Then quit whining. It's not all about you.
 
2012-09-30 02:54:47 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: >What is he lying about? Is he lying that he can't afford to defend a lawsuit

Yes. I'm saying he is lying that if the cost is burdensome to come into compliance, he is lying. The law exempts burdensome accomodations. Read the fecking law.

I am also calling him a liar, because one of the people defending the owner also says that this guy gets a *lot* of traffic from the community college and surroundings. So yes, he can afford it. Either that or he's a liar, or a bad businessman. Take your pick. I'm going to go with liar.


Yes, the law does exempt burdensome accomodations, I am indeed quite familiar with the law, however the owner cannot simply decide it is burdensome. There must be an evaluation with evidence from experts in architecture, construction, the ADA requirements, and of course lawyers.

It is not as if some guy said, hey I'm in a wheelchair and I can't get to the john, can you put some accessible door knobs on and the owner bought a couple of those L shaped door knobs at Home Depot.

The lawyer didn't request reasonable accommodation, he threatened to sue and offered to settle for thousands of dollars.

The lawyer exploits the law and the good will of small businesses for his own gain, California legislators have refused to help the small businessman because the trial lawyers have them in their pockets.
 
2012-09-30 02:55:53 PM  
Holy shiat, I just remembered where I've heard of this asshole before. He doesn't just do this in Sacramento, he travels on "vacation" to hotels throughout California looking for old structures that were built before things like wheelchair ramps were invented. I know of at least one super old historical hotel in San Diego that he has sued.
 
2012-09-30 02:57:31 PM  

GAT_00: flucto: GAT_00: Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Doesn't make any sense at all to drive people out of business and destroy jobs because the owner can't pay for changes that benefit a tiny fraction of the population. Most people who own burger stands are not rich fat cats.

Discrimination is discrimination. It is all the same, and we treat unintentional discrimination the same as intentional.


............Soooo, if I accidentally offend someone or do something that they perceive as discriminatory and I don't know about it, I automatically intended to do it with full knowledge of what I was trying to do?

....DAFUQ?!
 
2012-09-30 02:57:45 PM  

HotWingAgenda: Holy shiat, I just remembered where I've heard of this asshole before. He doesn't just do this in Sacramento, he travels on "vacation" to hotels throughout California looking for old structures that were built before things like wheelchair ramps were invented. I know of at least one super old historical hotel in San Diego that he has sued.


And if instead he represented locals who went to those hotels and had access issues, you'd be cheering him on? Come on, don't be a hypocrite.
 
2012-09-30 02:58:29 PM  

theBigBigEye: ............Soooo, if I accidentally offend someone or do something that they perceive as discriminatory and I don't know about it, I automatically intended to do it with full knowledge of what I was trying to do?


No, it's that discrimination doesn't require intent. You're liable for discriminating, even if you didn't intend it at all.
 
2012-09-30 02:58:45 PM  

feckingmorons: The lawyer didn't request reasonable accommodation, he threatened to sue and offered to settle for thousands of dollars.


Bullies only stop when they get stood up to.

The business owner should hire an engineer and say to this guy "ok, your turn. hire your engineer"

And being a popular burger shop in an area surrounded by professionals, I'm sure the business owner has a buddy friend engineer who likes his burgers and would be sufficiently motivated for some sort of trade of services.
 
2012-09-30 03:00:18 PM  

GAT_00: While I don't approve of this guy's approach, that doesn't mean that the law should be tossed.


Of course, the interesting aspect is that the lawyer who sued makes his money by extorting the owners and tossing the lawsuits.

How come the bar, other lawyers, the local DA aren't working to throw his ass into the street?

How is what he is doing ethical?

Oh wait, here's Theaetetus the patent lawyer to white knight the ADA lawyer.
 
2012-09-30 03:01:30 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: feckingmorons: Even if the restaurant were remodeled the serial ADA lawsuit filer's lawsuit would still remain

No. No it wouldn't. It would become mooted.

And it would get dismissed if the accomodations were shown to be burdensome, which can be easily done with a consultation with an engineer. A summary judgment as a matter of law.


Mooted? What are you talking about.

If I punch you in the head and you sue me the lawsuit does not go away if I agree to stop punching you in the head.

The guy suing the restaurant is offering to settle before filing a suit because he, not the general public, was unable to use the bathroom. He is bringing the lawsuit himself, it is not some qui tam action.
 
2012-09-30 03:01:35 PM  
LOLCRIPPLESAMIRITE
 
2012-09-30 03:02:10 PM  

zamboni: Darth_Lukecash: /was overwieght am atheist and handicapped. First two are choices. Last one is not.

Being an atheist isn't a choice.

Is accepting that 2+2=4 a choice?

Is accepting that gravity exists a choice?

Is accepting that the earth isn't flat a choice?

Is accepting that the sun revolves about the sun a choice?

So, no, accepting that there is no reason to believe in any god isn't a choice.

Unless, of course, you want me to be a liar.


No, you are following your own logic. I agree with you in fact.

But you chose follow that philosophy. Just as most religious people chose their own.
 
2012-09-30 03:03:49 PM  
www.bundyology.com
 
2012-09-30 03:04:03 PM  

RoyBatty: GAT_00: While I don't approve of this guy's approach, that doesn't mean that the law should be tossed.

Of course, the interesting aspect is that the lawyer who sued makes his money by extorting the owners and tossing the lawsuits.

How come the bar, other lawyers, the local DA aren't working to throw his ass into the street?

How is what he is doing ethical?

Oh wait, here's Theaetetus the patent lawyer to white knight the ADA lawyer.


Hey, it's Roy, my personal stalker! Hi, Roy! How's my trash smelling today? Found anything good in my bushes?
 
2012-09-30 03:04:19 PM  

Theaetetus: Ford's owners say the lawsuit they are facing for their ADA problems was brought by Scott Johnson, a local attorney who makes a living by bringing these types of cases - often on his own behalf... "Being a quadriplegic," Johnson said of himself during that interview, "there's nothing I can do about that. But these businesses that have structural barriers to access, that's frustrating."

Jerry Silvia said he doesn't feel like Johnson is working on his behalf.

"No. He's strictly crusading on his own behalf," Silvia said.

What?! That's horrible, Mr. Silvia! To think that he's using your name on his lawsuit, pretending to be your lawyer, and is not actually working on your behalf! You should fire him!

Oh, wait, he doesn't work for you? And you're not even in the suit? Then quit whining. It's not all about you.


But he is using the fact that all disabled people can't get into the bathroom, or at least many disabled people can't as a cudgel to force businesses to pay him. Who wants to be known as the business that won't help disabled people?

He uses the force of law to extort these business I believe. He doesn't want them to remodel their restaurant for him, he wants them to remodel their restaurant for all disabled people - except he really doesn't want them to do anything but send him a check.
 
2012-09-30 03:05:20 PM  

OrygunFarker: ArkAngel: Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.

You're a fool. ADA compliance, depending on the size and age of the place, can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes it's just plain impossible without complete destruction of the restaurant (i.e. the original Squeeze Inn in Sacramento, CA or Frank's Diner in Kenosha, WI, older small restaurants built long before this law existed).

In California, lawsuits of this nature are filed under the Unruh Act, which allows $4,000 in damages per violation along with attorney's fees (which is extra profit for lawyers like this who file lawsuits themselves). Note that this damage limit applies for every single time they visit a business and can apply if the mirrors are even half an inch too high. How would you like to have to spend $50,000 because in fines and attorney's fees because this guy said your mirror was too high? And as it turns out, the guy filing suit didn't even come there to buy anything. He just wanted to see if he could sue you.

So, pay $50,000 in fines and look like a whiny biatch, or spend $50,000 to become ADA co ...


Umm.....that's not what he was talking about.

He was talking about being sued for an assload of money just because of miniscule details that about nobody pays any attention to. You know, kind of like what this waste-of-space lawyer does.
 
2012-09-30 03:05:31 PM  

Tellingthem: Maybe but a lot of it comes from a few lawyers who specialize in these lawsuits. They are pretty common here in San Diego. A lawyer will go into a community just to look for lawsuits. A handicapped sign too old? lawsuit. A Bathroom rail too low? lawsuit. a lot of these lawsuits are not about accessibility but about very minor violations in the the law. It is easier to settle with the lawyer for a few grand than to fight in court.


No, it's this same guy. He just does it a lot - that's how he makes a living.
 
2012-09-30 03:05:39 PM  

Theaetetus: RoyBatty: GAT_00: While I don't approve of this guy's approach, that doesn't mean that the law should be tossed.

Of course, the interesting aspect is that the lawyer who sued makes his money by extorting the owners and tossing the lawsuits.

How come the bar, other lawyers, the local DA aren't working to throw his ass into the street?

How is what he is doing ethical?

Oh wait, here's Theaetetus the patent lawyer to white knight the ADA lawyer.

Hey, it's Roy, my personal stalker! Hi, Roy! How's my trash smelling today? Found anything good in my bushes?


Oh? How have I stalked you counselor? Or are you just lying through your teeth again because you have no argument to present?
 
2012-09-30 03:06:39 PM  

GAT_00: violentsalvation: GAT_00: Tellingthem: Also nothing in the article or comments has anyone said they want to toss the entire law. I think you are just reading way more into this than what it is.

Oh come on, you know these people. They don't have the mentality to fix something. Something goes wrong they always want to toss everything, start completely over, like that fixes everything. Read between the lines and remember who the angry people in here are.

That isn't what I'm seeing, people are complaining about what the law allows lawyers to do to small businesses. And if you took some people off ignore you might see that. They want the law scrapped the same as you want every historic building demolished and rebuilt into wheelchair accessible communes, as long as we're putting up strawmen.

If you're referring to one farking moron, he contributes nothing and I see no reason to bother with him.


It sounds like you put a lot of people on ignore, so who is the moron here? The one who assumes only one person is being ignored that disagrees with him? The one who puts people on ignore because he can't stand to hear a dissenting argument? How about the one who still won't accept that possibly, the demands of the 22-year old ADA law can't be dealt with by a pre-existing building?

I think we all know who the farking moron is, except for one.

/Going to end up on GAT_00's ignore list too.
//But then, he would only be further proving my point.
 
2012-09-30 03:07:24 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: feckingmorons: The lawyer didn't request reasonable accommodation, he threatened to sue and offered to settle for thousands of dollars.

Bullies only stop when they get stood up to.

The business owner should hire an engineer and say to this guy "ok, your turn. hire your engineer"

And being a popular burger shop in an area surrounded by professionals, I'm sure the business owner has a buddy friend engineer who likes his burgers and would be sufficiently motivated for some sort of trade of services.


You seem to want everyone to work for free. A buddy engineer, free lawyers to defend this frivolous lawsuit. Does anyone in your world work, or do they all live off the government?

You seem to want to share the fruits of everyone's labors but the guy who filed suit. If the engineer trades his services for burgers, do they farmers and ranchers have to provide free lettuce, tomato and beef for the burgers?

Who else is on your pro bono plan to defend lawsuits from this clown?
 
2012-09-30 03:07:27 PM  

Theaetetus: Oh wait, here's Theaetetus the patent lawyer to white knight the ADA lawyer.

Hey, it's Roy, my personal stalker! Hi, Roy! How's my trash smelling today? Found anything good in my bushes?


At least when people tell GAT_00 he's being stupid again, GAT_00 doesn't call them all stalkers and complain to the modmins.
 
2012-09-30 03:08:36 PM  

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: Ford's owners say the lawsuit they are facing for their ADA problems was brought by Scott Johnson, a local attorney who makes a living by bringing these types of cases - often on his own behalf... "Being a quadriplegic," Johnson said of himself during that interview, "there's nothing I can do about that. But these businesses that have structural barriers to access, that's frustrating."

Jerry Silvia said he doesn't feel like Johnson is working on his behalf.

"No. He's strictly crusading on his own behalf," Silvia said.

What?! That's horrible, Mr. Silvia! To think that he's using your name on his lawsuit, pretending to be your lawyer, and is not actually working on your behalf! You should fire him!

Oh, wait, he doesn't work for you? And you're not even in the suit? Then quit whining. It's not all about you.

But he is using the fact that all disabled people can't get into the bathroom, or at least many disabled people can't as a cudgel to force businesses to pay him.


He's not suing under a class action statute. There was a disabled person who couldn't get into the bathroom, and that's all the suit requires.

He uses the force of law to extort these business I believe. He doesn't want them to remodel their restaurant for him, he wants them to remodel their restaurant for all disabled people - except he really doesn't want them to do anything but send him a check.

Except that they can also remodel their restaurant and tell him that they've made the necessary accommodations and his suit is moot. He can only claim damages if they had notice and disregarded it.

For example, this guy acknowledges they he took a year after getting a letter to repaint hash marks. I don't see anyone complaining that the first they heard of Johnson was a lawsuit landing on their door.
 
2012-09-30 03:08:48 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: >What is he lying about? Is he lying that he can't afford to defend a lawsuit

Yes. I'm saying he is lying that if the cost is burdensome to come into compliance, he is lying. The law exempts burdensome accomodations. Read the fecking law.

I am also calling him a liar, because one of the people defending the owner also says that this guy gets a *lot* of traffic from the community college and surroundings. So yes, he can afford it. Either that or he's a liar, or a bad businessman. Take your pick. I'm going to go with liar.


I'd love to know where you're getting this idea that if the cost is excessive the owner need not comply. Can you direct me to the section of ADA that allows non-compliance for cost reasons only. Most parts of the law I've seen only exempt accommodations that cannot STRUCTURALLY be made--I have been unable to find the section you're citing so vigorously that says exemptions exist for monetary issues. I know that in IDEA/504 compliance, cost CANNOT be the only reason for allowable exemptions, so I'm surprised the ADA, which is merely an extension of 504, allows such a waiver.

Please let me know where you found this striking exception.
 
2012-09-30 03:09:30 PM  
Keep in mind that this is a double damage the owner is facing here. He's not shutting down JUST because he can't afford the cost of construction.......
He also has the other expense of defending himself against this suit, whether or not he could afford the construction.
 
2012-09-30 03:10:10 PM  
I am a highway design engineer, and last summer took a course in ADA compliance as it relates to highways. Specifically, sidewalks, street access and curb ramps.

One of the instructors was in a wheelchair, paralyzed from the waist down. He told us that ADA wasn't an optional law that even states or cities could ignore, much less private businesses. As an example, he gave us Sacramento, CA. It seems that a disabled pedestrian asked the town to make certain crosswalks safer for her to use, by installing up to date curb ramps, raised markings, and larger signs. She was rudely told the money wasn't there, too bad for her, now go away.

She sued the City for ADA negligence. The courts agreed, and ordered Sacramento to spend ONE THIRD of their annual highway budget on making their streets ADA compliant, for as long as it took. Had the town told her "yes, we're aware of the need at that intersection, and it's on our list for improvements", she could have sued until the cows came home and nothing would have happened. But, just saying "no, go away" is NOT an option with dealing with ADA.

Curb ramps, for example, have gone from a simple inset within a sidewalk to a complicated design that is often unique to the specific intersection, and on large projects could have several pages of curb ramp details for all the various situations. The instructor told us if a town has a plan for upgrading the intersections to the new curb ramp details, that's just fine. But, if the town hasn't been spending any money on ramp upgrades for years, and have lots of the old noncompliant ramps out on the streets? That's a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen.

For a business, they have to demonstrate to the court that complying with ADA is so expensive and disruptive to totally ruin them. Even then, often the courts can require partial compliance to ADA, or require the business to budget funds for eventual compliance within a fixed period of time.

The point is, if you have a business or a building or a property where the public is welcome, you'd better make DAMN sure that you have adequate access for disabled people as well as everyone else, or you'd better have a very good reason why you don't (as in, if I met all the ADA requirements I'd go bankrupt, and show your math).
 
2012-09-30 03:10:13 PM  

RoyBatty: Theaetetus: RoyBatty: GAT_00: While I don't approve of this guy's approach, that doesn't mean that the law should be tossed.

Of course, the interesting aspect is that the lawyer who sued makes his money by extorting the owners and tossing the lawsuits.

How come the bar, other lawyers, the local DA aren't working to throw his ass into the street?

How is what he is doing ethical?

Oh wait, here's Theaetetus the patent lawyer to white knight the ADA lawyer.

Hey, it's Roy, my personal stalker! Hi, Roy! How's my trash smelling today? Found anything good in my bushes?

Oh? How have I stalked you counselor? Or are you just lying through your teeth again because you have no argument to present?


Roy, you know as well as I that we're not supposed to have any contact. I'm going to stop talking to you so that you don't get in any more trouble.
 
2012-09-30 03:10:19 PM  

RoyBatty: How come the bar, other lawyers, the local DA aren't working to throw his ass into the street?


Because what he is doing is perfectly legal.

Laws were proposed in California to stop this egregious exploitation of the law, however the Democrat controlled state legislature killed them. The trial lawyers donate a great deal to them and they want to keep those contributions coming.
 
2012-09-30 03:11:25 PM  

Theaetetus: HotWingAgenda: Holy shiat, I just remembered where I've heard of this asshole before. He doesn't just do this in Sacramento, he travels on "vacation" to hotels throughout California looking for old structures that were built before things like wheelchair ramps were invented. I know of at least one super old historical hotel in San Diego that he has sued.

And if instead he represented locals who went to those hotels and had access issues, you'd be cheering him on? Come on, don't be a hypocrite.


Actually, I would. If there was any reason to believe this guy was trying to improve the lives of anyone other than himself, I'd support him. It can't have been easy to attend law school and pass the pair with his disability. But he really does just go around using his bar certificate to shake down small businesses, on his own behalf. And in the process, he's actually generating negative public opinion about an important sector of consumer protection litigation.

He needs to be stopped before he files some horrible case that results in ADA getting overturned or severely gutted.
 
2012-09-30 03:12:40 PM  

OrygunFarker: jabelar: OrygunFarker: So, pay $50,000 in fines and look like a whiny biatch, or spend $50,000 to become ADA compliant and continue growing your business.

You sir, sound like the tool.

Dude, you have total logic fail as there are other options which are more likely and practical.

There is also:
c) go out of business because you can't do either
d) change the law so you only have to come up to compliance when business changes ownership or you remodel significantly.


To me, C would be the optimal outcome. Since this fella can't figure out how to secure a low interest small business loan, maybe he should be selling off his business and allow a successful business person to purchase the location and turn it around.


Do you own a business that has tried to get a loan lately? Good luck with that, banks just don't want to loan with the current interest rates unless you prove to them you don't need the money anyway.
 
2012-09-30 03:13:16 PM  
I was injured in Iraq and need a cane to walk, and stairs hurt. That said, I think the lack of a grandfather clause for the ADA was stupid and just fed the lawyers. It quickly became about 'punishing businesses' rather than 'fixing the problem.' If an old building only has stairs, I think it's damn arrogant of me to say they should have to put in an elevator that will cost more than the business makes in a year just so that I can go to the upstairs patio.
 
2012-09-30 03:13:59 PM  
WE ARE HOLIER THAN THOU AND WE ALONE LOOK OUT FOR THE CRIPPLED AND THE ORPHANS AND THE DOWNTRODDEN SO YOU JUST STOP MAKING A LIVING WITH YOUR FASCIST HAMBURGERS AND YOU SIGN THIS CHECK!

America has become a nation of whiners, thieves, entitled douchebags and slimy bastards in suits who have make believe jobs, skimming as living off of catering to them.

Food truck? Old burger joint? Public urban park? NO BATHROOM! SHUT IT DOWN! For Justice!

We've run out of ideas and one of the few ways we have left to move money around is to write laws that allow people to take yours away. That's not even reprehensible. That's Soviet.
 
2012-09-30 03:14:46 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: >What is he lying about? Is he lying that he can't afford to defend a lawsuit

Yes. I'm saying he is lying that if the cost is burdensome to come into compliance, he is lying. The law exempts burdensome accomodations. Read the fecking law.

I am also calling him a liar, because one of the people defending the owner also says that this guy gets a *lot* of traffic from the community college and surroundings. So yes, he can afford it. Either that or he's a liar, or a bad businessman. Take your pick. I'm going to go with liar.


I seriously hope you find yourself on the wrong end of a zealous government regulator or trolling ADA or patent attorney in the very near future.
 
2012-09-30 03:14:47 PM  
The ADA has a good purpose but has become a tool for serial plaintiffs and unethical attorneys to drive out of existence many businesses that the plaintiffs would not otherwise have ever visited - all for a relatively small damage award. Perhaps it could be re-written to provide no penalties but to provide an annual tax break for businesses who certify the compliance of their facilities through an independent audit process with audit fees capped.
 
2012-09-30 03:16:03 PM  

feckingmorons: The law is so onerous that businesses such as the one in this article, are often forced to close rather than spend the time, money and effort to engage lawyers, architects, and engineers to fight spurious lawsuits such or invest in renovations to comply with regulations that may not even apply to them but which they simply can't determine without spending as much money on experts as construction.


As someone who was once on the engineering end of things (working on a multi-million dollar federally-funded project that put ADA-compliant sidewalk and sidewalk ramps on roads in a city whose streets were, in fact, too steep for anyone to push a wheelchair up; and in fact, many varieties of powerchairs would not have the battery power or would be slightly unbalanced due to the slope of streets in this town), I'd like to point out to people that some architects and engineers are making a KILLING off of these laws and lawyers. Sometimes, they'll even visit establishments, look for egregious problems, then begin the process on their own (either talking to a lawyer or a business owner). Yes, because of the kind of money being flashed around, I'd almost bet that these "professional" (you know, like the mafia) services cost 25-50% more than they did 10-20 years ago.
 
2012-09-30 03:16:32 PM  

Theaetetus: Except that they can also remodel their restaurant and tell him that they've made the necessary accommodations and his suit is moot. He can only claim damages if they had notice and disregarded it.For example, this guy acknowledges they he took a year after getting a letter to repaint hash marks. I don't see anyone complaining that the first they heard of Johnson was a lawsuit landing on their door.


Your own example proves that the 'suit is moot'
Johnson agreed to meet with Rubino to inspect the repainted parking space, but said he would still likely seek monetary damages.


The guy made the required changes (he repainted his handicapped parking spot) and yet the scumbag still wants money. How in the hell was he damaged by faint paint in a handicapped parking spot.

The lawyer claims to be enforcing the ADA, he is doing no such thing, he can't enforce the ADA any more than you or I can enforce handicapped parking laws. However the ADA allows him to sue for damages he incurred. If in settling the lawsuit the businesses agree to repaint something that is simply good business.

If the faint paint on the handicapped parking spot caused someone without a handicapped placard to park there the proper course of action is to ask the police to send someone around to give them a ticket or have the car towed. It is not to sue the place because the paint wasn't in just painted condition.

The guy is scumbag. You're mislead if you think he is doing any good for the disabled community.
 
2012-09-30 03:17:25 PM  

HotWingAgenda: It can't have been easy to attend law school and pass the bar with his disability.


FTFM
 
2012-09-30 03:17:45 PM  

Bhags: Keep in mind that this is a double damage the owner is facing here. He's not shutting down JUST because he can't afford the cost of construction.......
He also has the other expense of defending himself against this suit, whether or not he could afford the construction.


But that doesn't fit their view of things so they'll ignore that. Besides the guy can trade free hamburgers to his lawyer, engineer, architect, ADA consultant buddies to make it all moot.
 
2012-09-30 03:17:52 PM  
Of course, most of the firms making the money are clearly the ones who are wetting their beaks with ADA-compliant public works projects. They know where the money is, and who will spend it.
 
2012-09-30 03:18:00 PM  
1. Even as someone occasionally on crutches, I understand that old buildings aren't necessarily going to be fully compliant.

2. Reasonable accommodation should just mean that owners take all reasonable measures to help the disabled... in the case of this burger joint, it would mean that if they were going to remodel the bathroom, then they should make it compliant... I've worked in older buildings before where we've had to help people in wheelchairs get over a hump in the doorway, or come around from behind the counter because it was too high. In bigger retail establishments, sometimes we end up having to move fixtures on wheels so people in wheelchairs have comfortable space to navigate away from aisles.

3. This whole issue speaks more to the litigious nature of some jackasses than to the validity of the ADA.

4. In the interest of full disclosure, I've filed an ADA compliance complaint against a former employer... I worked at a sporting goods store, everyone in every department had stools to sit on, tucked away in various places. They took my stool away and nobody elses (I have MS), then explained to me that it was different for me because (exact quote) "you might actually need it, and we can't have that kind of image for our customers" by more than one manager.

In short, the litigants are dicks in this case, but the ADA is a valuable law in fighting the kind of discrimination that most reasonable people would have thought ended decades ago. Some changes might be needed to enhance the grandfathering clauses so small businesses don't go out of business, but even those changes will not make a difference unless we can get meaningful tort reform wherein litigants who file claims capriciously (as determined by the court) can be held responsible for defendant's costs.
 
2012-09-30 03:18:32 PM  

The Face Of Oblivion: The ADA has a good purpose but has become a tool for serial plaintiffs and unethical attorneys to drive out of existence many businesses that the plaintiffs would not otherwise have ever visited - all for a relatively small damage award. Perhaps it could be re-written to provide no penalties but to provide an annual tax break for businesses who certify the compliance of their facilities through an independent audit process with audit fees capped.


It's not a 'small damage award.' Sure, the 'actual damages' limit is $4000 BUT it also includes "Lawyers fees." And gee look at this, the person bringing the lawsuit is a lawyer. That means $4000 in damages, plus $100/hour for the 8 hours a day he worked on the case for the past month, now it's $24,000 in fees plus the $4,000 damages.
 
2012-09-30 03:18:42 PM  

bunner: America has become a nation of whiners, thieves, entitled douchebags and slimy bastards in suits who have make believe jobs, skimming as living off of catering to them.


Technically only 47%, that leaves us in the 53% who have to pay the bills.
 
2012-09-30 03:19:16 PM  

Bendal: Curb ramps, for example, have gone from a simple inset within a sidewalk to a complicated design that is often unique to the specific intersection, and on large projects could have several pages of curb ramp details for all the various situations. The instructor told us if a town has a plan for upgrading the intersections to the new curb ramp details, that's just fine. But, if the town hasn't been spending any money on ramp upgrades for years, and have lots of the old noncompliant ramps out on the streets? That's a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen.


Heh. Every intersection has been torn up to have their curb ramps replaced with the new ones that have the yellow bumpy pad on them. I understand the need, but it's not like we were hearing stories of blind pedestrians stepping out in to traffic because they didn't feel the bumps. Hell, those bumps probably hinder moving a wheelchair through it, I know it does shopping carts(they have them at every grocery store here in front of the store when there is no curb between the parking lot and the store entrance)
 
2012-09-30 03:20:53 PM  

firefly212: 1. Even as someone occasionally on crutches, I understand that old buildings aren't necessarily going to be fully compliant.

2. Reasonable accommodation should just mean that owners take all reasonable measures to help the disabled... in the case of this burger joint, it would mean that if they were going to remodel the bathroom, then they should make it compliant... I've worked in older buildings before where we've had to help people in wheelchairs get over a hump in the doorway, or come around from behind the counter because it was too high. In bigger retail establishments, sometimes we end up having to move fixtures on wheels so people in wheelchairs have comfortable space to navigate away from aisles.

3. This whole issue speaks more to the litigious nature of some jackasses than to the validity of the ADA.

4. In the interest of full disclosure, I've filed an ADA compliance complaint against a former employer... I worked at a sporting goods store, everyone in every department had stools to sit on, tucked away in various places. They took my stool away and nobody elses (I have MS), then explained to me that it was different for me because (exact quote) "you might actually need it, and we can't have that kind of image for our customers" by more than one manager.

In short, the litigants are dicks in this case, but the ADA is a valuable law in fighting the kind of discrimination that most reasonable people would have thought ended decades ago. Some changes might be needed to enhance the grandfathering clauses so small businesses don't go out of business, but even those changes will not make a difference unless we can get meaningful tort reform wherein litigants who file claims capriciously (as determined by the court) can be held responsible for defendant's costs.


This about sums it up.
 
2012-09-30 03:22:29 PM  

bhcompy: Bendal: Curb ramps, for example, have gone from a simple inset within a sidewalk to a complicated design that is often unique to the specific intersection, and on large projects could have several pages of curb ramp details for all the various situations. The instructor told us if a town has a plan for upgrading the intersections to the new curb ramp details, that's just fine. But, if the town hasn't been spending any money on ramp upgrades for years, and have lots of the old noncompliant ramps out on the streets? That's a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Heh. Every intersection has been torn up to have their curb ramps replaced with the new ones that have the yellow bumpy pad on them. I understand the need, but it's not like we were hearing stories of blind pedestrians stepping out in to traffic because they didn't feel the bumps. Hell, those bumps probably hinder moving a wheelchair through it, I know it does shopping carts(they have them at every grocery store here in front of the store when there is no curb between the parking lot and the store entrance)


That's interesting -- I thought the bumps were to stop wheelchairs and shopping carts, not to alert the blind.

Thank you!
 
2012-09-30 03:22:44 PM  

Securitywyrm: That means $4000 in damages, plus $100/hour for the 8 hours a day he worked on the case for the past month, now it's $24,000 in fees plus the $4,000 damages.


In California, legal fees are generally closer to $500/hour. Unless it's a really good trial lawyer, in which case they bill $600 - $750.
 
2012-09-30 03:22:51 PM  

GAT_00: jabelar: GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Really? Most new laws should allow grandfathering, because people and businesses set up based on the old rules and it isn't fair to change the rules or cost structure of their business.

Imagine you built a house that was compliant to a rule, and then they changed the rules such that you had to significantly change it? How in any sense would that either be fair, or a valid way to implement new rules?

Businesses turn over often enough, and people like to remodel occasionally. So fairly quickly, even with grandfathering, most buildings will be brought up to new codes.

But forcing existing owners to comply to new rules that didn't exist when they set up their business plan just doesn't make any sense.

The ADA was passed 22 years ago. This isn't some new law.


Do you have Asperger's or something? I'm just curious.
 
2012-09-30 03:23:12 PM  

Infobahn: Lived in Sacramento for a year, never heard of the place. Meh.

The ADA has been around for a very long time, suck it up owner and comply.



Yes, do exactly what you are told. There will be no dissent.


Yet people wonder why California is such an economic shiathole.
 
2012-09-30 03:24:00 PM  

puffy999: GAT_00: jabelar: GAT_00: flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.

Doesn't make much sense to pass a law promoting access when you also disqualify all existing buildings from having it applied to them.

Really? Most new laws should allow grandfathering, because people and businesses set up based on the old rules and it isn't fair to change the rules or cost structure of their business.

Imagine you built a house that was compliant to a rule, and then they changed the rules such that you had to significantly change it? How in any sense would that either be fair, or a valid way to implement new rules?

Businesses turn over often enough, and people like to remodel occasionally. So fairly quickly, even with grandfathering, most buildings will be brought up to new codes.

But forcing existing owners to comply to new rules that didn't exist when they set up their business plan just doesn't make any sense.

The ADA was passed 22 years ago. This isn't some new law.

Do you have Asperger's or something? I'm just curious.


Oh man, he is going to put you on ignore now.
 
2012-09-30 03:25:39 PM  

srtpointman: This little cocksucker doesn't even use the services of the businesses he extorts. He went into the Sears Hometown store my wife used to work at. He rode in, went right to the bathroom and opened the door. Soon as he saw it was in compliance, he left and did the same at every other business in that shopping center. I've seen him rolling down the side of the road and have been tempted to plow into him. What's the worse that can happen? He won't be able to walk?


You'll get a lot of unwanted publicity....keys to the city, free meals at all the restaurants you go to, people wanting your autograph, women throwing themselves at you....
 
2012-09-30 03:25:48 PM  

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: Except that they can also remodel their restaurant and tell him that they've made the necessary accommodations and his suit is moot. He can only claim damages if they had notice and disregarded it.For example, this guy acknowledges they he took a year after getting a letter to repaint hash marks. I don't see anyone complaining that the first they heard of Johnson was a lawsuit landing on their door.

Your own example proves that the 'suit is moot'
Johnson agreed to meet with Rubino to inspect the repainted parking space, but said he would still likely seek monetary damages.


That's the difference.
Make accommodations when you get the letter and the suit hasn't been filed yet? No suit, because it's moot.
Ignore letter and wait for lawsuit, then try to make the changes after the fact? Suit and damages.

The guy made the required changes (he repainted his handicapped parking spot) and yet the scumbag still wants money.

He didn't make the required changes for a year, and he waited until the suit was filed. At a minimum, the damages are filing costs of the suit - which, if he had just ponied up and painted the lines earlier, would never have been filed, hence it's reasonable to stick the guy with them.

If the faint paint on the handicapped parking spot caused someone without a handicapped placard to park there the proper course of action is to ask the police to send someone around to give them a ticket or have the car towed. It is not to sue the place because the paint wasn't in just painted condition.

I disagree - if I park in a parking spot and don't see any paint on it, then why should my car be towed or I get a ticket? How was I to know it was a handicapped spot? Magic? Worse yet, what am I supposed to do? Show up and paint lines? It's not even my parking lot. So, now I'm responsible for a parking ticket and I couldn't even do anything to avoid it? That's not fair.
 
2012-09-30 03:26:26 PM  

Securitywyrm: I was injured in Iraq and need a cane to walk, and stairs hurt. That said, I think the lack of a grandfather clause for the ADA was stupid and just fed the lawyers. It quickly became about 'punishing businesses' rather than 'fixing the problem.' If an old building only has stairs, I think it's damn arrogant of me to say they should have to put in an elevator that will cost more than the business makes in a year just so that I can go to the upstairs patio.


Thanks for your service. I hope things get better for you in the future.
 
2012-09-30 03:29:34 PM  
Seriously, I'd print up flyers with this guy's picture that says "do not allow this man in your establishment" and give them to small businesses. Paste it on the front window.
 
2012-09-30 03:29:42 PM  

Bendal: ...
But, if the town hasn't been spending any money...


Oh, now I see what this is about. ;)

/actually appreciated Bendal's post
//doesn't stop me from being snarky
 
2012-09-30 03:31:01 PM  

GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.


You fail to grasp the fact that life is unfair and no amount of laws will make it fair. The ADA has become a farce for example, the building I work in is putting in a separate "breast pumping room." Of 100 occupants in the building, 4 are female, two of which are lesbian, all are 35 years old or older, but by God the ADA says the building needs one so one will be built.
Couldn't the Ford thing have been solved with a rented Handicapped porta potty anyway?
 
2012-09-30 03:31:44 PM  

Securitywyrm: I was injured in Iraq and need a cane to walk, and stairs hurt. That said, I think the lack of a grandfather clause for the ADA was stupid and just fed the lawyers. It quickly became about 'punishing businesses' rather than 'fixing the problem.' If an old building only has stairs, I think it's damn arrogant of me to say they should have to put in an elevator that will cost more than the business makes in a year just so that I can go to the upstairs patio.


ADA doesn't say they have to do that, though, unless that location is the ONLY place customers to that business can go to. On one of my highway projects, we wanted to build a scenic overlook on top of a hill near an interstate pull-off area. The grade to the overlook, though, was going to be very steep, up to 20% in some stretches, and to be ADA compliant the grade could not exceed 4%. Since we wanted very badly to build this overlook, we compromised and built two overlooks from this pull-off, one at the same elevation of the parking lot and the one on top of the hill. ADA compliance was met since disabled visitors had a scenic overlook, and everyone else could use either overlook as they chose.

For a business, "separate but equal" facilities for ADA purposes is perfectly acceptable. Having one ADA compliant meeting room, or one ADA compliant entrance, or one ADA compliant access to the 2nd floor, is very much ok. Unless the patio in your comment provides some kind of unique service to the public, then providing access to other parts of the building should be fine when it comes to meeting ADA requirements.
 
2012-09-30 03:31:55 PM  

Securitywyrm: The Face Of Oblivion: The ADA has a good purpose but has become a tool for serial plaintiffs and unethical attorneys to drive out of existence many businesses that the plaintiffs would not otherwise have ever visited - all for a relatively small damage award. Perhaps it could be re-written to provide no penalties but to provide an annual tax break for businesses who certify the compliance of their facilities through an independent audit process with audit fees capped.

It's not a 'small damage award.' Sure, the 'actual damages' limit is $4000 BUT it also includes "Lawyers fees." And gee look at this, the person bringing the lawsuit is a lawyer. That means $4000 in damages, plus $100/hour for the 8 hours a day he worked on the case for the past month, now it's $24,000 in fees plus the $4,000 damages.


Right. I said "small damage award" to emphasize how little is in it for the plaintiffs and to underscore how unethical many plaintiff's ADA attorneys are.

/the legal profession as a whole is pretty bad, ethically, but that's an argument for another time
 
2012-09-30 03:31:59 PM  

firefly212: 1. Even as someone occasionally on crutches, I understand that old buildings aren't necessarily going to be fully compliant.

2. Reasonable accommodation should just mean that owners take all reasonable measures to help the disabled... in the case of this burger joint, it would mean that if they were going to remodel the bathroom, then they should make it compliant... I've worked in older buildings before where we've had to help people in wheelchairs get over a hump in the doorway, or come around from behind the counter because it was too high. In bigger retail establishments, sometimes we end up having to move fixtures on wheels so people in wheelchairs have comfortable space to navigate away from aisles.

3. This whole issue speaks more to the litigious nature of some jackasses than to the validity of the ADA.

4. In the interest of full disclosure, I've filed an ADA compliance complaint against a former employer... I worked at a sporting goods store, everyone in every department had stools to sit on, tucked away in various places. They took my stool away and nobody elses (I have MS), then explained to me that it was different for me because (exact quote) "you might actually need it, and we can't have that kind of image for our customers" by more than one manager.

In short, the litigants are dicks in this case, but the ADA is a valuable law in fighting the kind of discrimination that most reasonable people would have thought ended decades ago. Some changes might be needed to enhance the grandfathering clauses so small businesses don't go out of business, but even those changes will not make a difference unless we can get meaningful tort reform wherein litigants who file claims capriciously (as determined by the court) can be held responsible for defendant's costs.



This, in spades.

If people truly are being disadvantaged, then that's what the ADA is for. It is NOT for strike suits, extortion and frivolous lawsuits because Counselor Asshat wants to make another $5000 this week. It's for people who say "No, you can't sit down on the job because what would the customers think?" or businesses who say "Yeah, we COULD remodel our bathrooms, we just don't feel like it." It does NOT exist so that even when a business is compliant a douchebag can say "Meh, I'm going to sue you anyway cuz I need the money, but if you pay me now, I won't sue."
 
2012-09-30 03:32:30 PM  

Theaetetus: I disagree - if I park in a parking spot and don't see any paint on it, then why should my car be towed or I get a ticket? How was I to know it was a handicapped spot? Magic? Worse yet, what am I supposed to do? Show up and paint lines? It's not even my parking lot. So, now I'm responsible for a parking ticket and I couldn't even do anything to avoid it? That's not fair.


You are certainly entitled to a hearing. Your not required to pay the ticket until a Court says you do - sure you can pay it but you are not required to do so. Bring pictures of the spot and show them that it was not properly marked. They will have to dismiss the ticket. That is fair, in fact it is the foundation of our justice system.

I would think that the police would when called out the place with the faint lines go inside and tell the owner, "Hey your handicapped parking spots are being used by non-handicapped patrons because they aren't easily identifiable." The owner would then repaint them post haste so as to be a good guy and not upset any of his handicapped patrons or non-handicapped patrons who might have to fight a ticket.

Or you could drive by and then send a letter threatening a lawsuit to a place you never intend to patronize anyway.
 
2012-09-30 03:33:19 PM  

puffy999: Seriously, I'd print up flyers with this guy's picture that says "do not allow this man in your establishment" and give them to small businesses. Paste it on the front window.


Just don't allow members of the California Bar at all.

It would class up a lot of places I'm sure.

/not a member of the California Bar
 
2012-09-30 03:33:58 PM  
staging.sacandco.net

'It's a living.'
 
2012-09-30 03:34:48 PM  

kyrg: The ADA has become a farce for example, the building I work in is putting in a separate "breast pumping room."


That's not in the ADA... In fact, the Martinez court said that the ADA doesn't apply to breast pumping.
 
2012-09-30 03:34:50 PM  

Bendal: She sued the City for ADA negligence. The courts agreed, and ordered Sacramento to spend ONE THIRD of their annual highway budget on making their streets ADA compliant, for as long as it took. Had the town told her "yes, we're aware of the need at that intersection, and it's on our list for improvements", she could have sued until the cows came home and nothing would have happened. But, just saying "no, go away" is NOT an option with dealing with ADA.


Next, you'll have cities required to place some sort of noise maker in the roadway to identify, by weight, potentially hazardous objects. You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.

... I hope nobody runs with that idea.

/your firm should hire me for contract work, because I could make you a lot of money in the entire southwest region of Oregon
//a local striping plan, a multi-million dollar project, looks like it was designed with a crayon and had to be partially re-done at least once
 
2012-09-30 03:34:53 PM  

bunner: WE ARE HOLIER THAN THOU AND WE ALONE LOOK OUT FOR THE CRIPPLED AND THE ORPHANS AND THE DOWNTRODDEN SO YOU JUST STOP MAKING A LIVING WITH YOUR FASCIST HAMBURGERS AND YOU SIGN THIS CHECK!

America has become a nation of whiners, thieves, entitled douchebags and slimy bastards in suits who have make believe jobs, skimming as living off of catering to them.

Food truck? Old burger joint? Public urban park? NO BATHROOM! SHUT IT DOWN! For Justice!

We've run out of ideas and one of the few ways we have left to move money around is to write laws that allow people to take yours away. That's not even reprehensible. That's Soviet.


America has always been a land off whiners ("Nooo! You cannot tax us without representation!"). The main difference now is that we use lawyers and not guns when we whine.
 
2012-09-30 03:35:23 PM  

kyrg: GAT_00: ADA compliance tends to be one of those things that get people hot and bothered for no reason I can imagine. The people who get pissed are almost never affected by it. I think they get mad because it's a clearly visible enforcement of the idea of equality for all.

Hell, some of these people would be happy making sure some people can't visit a business. How is that really all that different from putting a sign up that says 'no Negroes?' Fundamentally it is the same thing, and I've noticed often the same people who think we shouldn't make discrimination illegal are the biggest ADA bashers.

You fail to grasp the fact that life is unfair and no amount of laws will make it fair. The ADA has become a farce for example, the building I work in is putting in a separate "breast pumping room." Of 100 occupants in the building, 4 are female, two of which are lesbian, all are 35 years old or older, but by God the ADA says the building needs one so one will be built.
Couldn't the Ford thing have been solved with a rented Handicapped porta potty anyway?


See the thing is, that's not what the ADA says at all. The ADA says that your building must make available, if requested, a private room that is not a bathroom, in which women can breast feed. At my old work, it was my boss's office (no interior windows, blinds on the outside, so it was private), and she'd go work at another workstation whenever needed.

And yes, a port a potty can meet ADA regulations, at my current work in some of the places that were not able to be renovated, they have wheelchair accessible port-a-potties.
 
2012-09-30 03:36:19 PM  

kyrg: the building I work in is putting in a separate "breast pumping room."


That has nothing to do with ADA regs...
 
2012-09-30 03:37:42 PM  

puffy999: You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.


The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

See also: Scientific American
 
2012-09-30 03:38:25 PM  

firefly212: 4. In the interest of full disclosure, I've filed an ADA compliance complaint against a former employer... I worked at a sporting goods store, everyone in every department had stools to sit on, tucked away in various places. They took my stool away and nobody elses (I have MS), then explained to me that it was different for me because (exact quote) "you might actually need it, and we can't have that kind of image for our customers" by more than one manager.


Wow. THAT guy.... man, that guy.

To be fair, he was speaking from experience. He was probably disallowed from rolling a wheelbarrow around the store, what for the giant f*cking balls that he must be carrying.
 
2012-09-30 03:38:45 PM  

Oh_Enough_Already: Seriously, how difficult would it be to rub out a freaking cripple?

If they want to have all the same access and rights as everybody else, it seems to me that getting whacked for being an asshole is part of the deal, no?


Apparently, in Houston all you need is the police. Cripples aren't given any leeway when it comes to getting shot.
 
2012-09-30 03:38:56 PM  

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: I disagree - if I park in a parking spot and don't see any paint on it, then why should my car be towed or I get a ticket? How was I to know it was a handicapped spot? Magic? Worse yet, what am I supposed to do? Show up and paint lines? It's not even my parking lot. So, now I'm responsible for a parking ticket and I couldn't even do anything to avoid it? That's not fair.

You are certainly entitled to a hearing. Your not required to pay the ticket until a Court says you do - sure you can pay it but you are not required to do so. Bring pictures of the spot and show them that it was not properly marked. They will have to dismiss the ticket. That is fair, in fact it is the foundation of our justice system.


Really? Because you said my car should be towed. So now I have to pay to get my car out, attend a hearing, and attempt to get the city to pay be back for the towing charge?

I would think that the police would when called out the place with the faint lines go inside and tell the owner, "Hey your handicapped parking spots are being used by non-handicapped patrons because they aren't easily identifiable." The owner would then repaint them post haste so as to be a good guy and not upset any of his handicapped patrons or non-handicapped patrons who might have to fight a ticket.

The owner got a letter saying "Hey your handicapped parking spots are being used by non-handicapped patrons because they aren't easily identifiable" and did nothing about it for a year. So, while he might do it in your scenario, it's not to be a good guy, but because he's afraid of the cops.

Or you could drive by and then send a letter threatening a lawsuit to a place you never intend to patronize anyway.

And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"
 
2012-09-30 03:39:12 PM  

feckingmorons: Yes, do exactly what you are told. There will be no dissent.


The guy had over 20 years to find a way to comply, and actually California has had accessibility regs even longer. At some point it does fall on business owners. Especially when many had no problem with compliance, like 20 years ago.
 
2012-09-30 03:40:33 PM  

feckingmorons: puffy999: You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.

The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

See also: Scientific American


yes, because speakers that make a sound loud enough for the blind to hear them coming are an unbelievable cost, I saw them at target selling for upwards of two whole dollars!

You're buying a car that gets thousands of dollars in special tax rebates, and biatching that the government setting certain requirements for it is far too onerous on you.
 
2012-09-30 03:41:17 PM  

RoyBatty: bhcompy: Bendal: Curb ramps, for example, have gone from a simple inset within a sidewalk to a complicated design that is often unique to the specific intersection, and on large projects could have several pages of curb ramp details for all the various situations. The instructor told us if a town has a plan for upgrading the intersections to the new curb ramp details, that's just fine. But, if the town hasn't been spending any money on ramp upgrades for years, and have lots of the old noncompliant ramps out on the streets? That's a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Heh. Every intersection has been torn up to have their curb ramps replaced with the new ones that have the yellow bumpy pad on them. I understand the need, but it's not like we were hearing stories of blind pedestrians stepping out in to traffic because they didn't feel the bumps. Hell, those bumps probably hinder moving a wheelchair through it, I know it does shopping carts(they have them at every grocery store here in front of the store when there is no curb between the parking lot and the store entrance)

That's interesting -- I thought the bumps were to stop wheelchairs and shopping carts, not to alert the blind.

Thank you!


Ha Ha.
This is Minnesota.
The climate and snowplows fix the bumps!
Speed bumps are rare indeed.
We put tank traps in front of our stores.
 
2012-09-30 03:43:10 PM  

Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.


ADA is a nazi bit of legislation that even judges can't agree on.
 
2012-09-30 03:43:58 PM  

firefly212: feckingmorons: puffy999: You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.

The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

See also: Scientific American

yes, because speakers that make a sound loud enough for the blind to hear them coming are an unbelievable cost, I saw them at target selling for upwards of two whole dollars!

You're buying a car that gets thousands of dollars in special tax rebates, and biatching that the government setting certain requirements for it is far too onerous on you.


Wouldn't it be better if all cars hummed a happy tune all the time so you wouldn't walk into the parked ones either?
 
2012-09-30 03:44:00 PM  

Securitywyrm: I was injured in Iraq and need a cane to walk, and stairs hurt. That said, I think the lack of a grandfather clause for the ADA was stupid and just fed the lawyers. It quickly became about 'punishing businesses' rather than 'fixing the problem.' If an old building only has stairs, I think it's damn arrogant of me to say they should have to put in an elevator that will cost more than the business makes in a year just so that I can go to the upstairs patio.


The place I work now (Winter Park) is home to the National Sports Center for the Disabled ... hit me up if you wanna go play in the snow or out in the mountains in the spring/summer (details in profile). We also do a bunch of work through the Wounded Warriors project if you're already hooked up with them.
 
2012-09-30 03:45:08 PM  

snocone: firefly212: feckingmorons: puffy999: You know, so deaf people can hear the electric car coming at 5 MPH.

The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

See also: Scientific American

yes, because speakers that make a sound loud enough for the blind to hear them coming are an unbelievable cost, I saw them at target selling for upwards of two whole dollars!

You're buying a car that gets thousands of dollars in special tax rebates, and biatching that the government setting certain requirements for it is far too onerous on you.

Wouldn't it be better if all cars hummed a happy tune all the time so you wouldn't walk into the parked ones either?


blind people don't get hit by a lot of parked cars, though I'm tempted to look on youtube for contrary examples.
 
2012-09-30 03:45:42 PM  

firefly212: And yes, a port a potty can meet ADA regulations, at my current work in some of the places that were not able to be renovated, they have wheelchair accessible port-a-potties.


That actually explains a question I had a few years ago. LOL
 
2012-09-30 03:45:50 PM  

firefly212: See the thing is, that's not what the ADA says at all. The ADA says that your building must make available, if requested, a private room that is not a bathroom, in which women can breast feed. At my old work, it was my boss's office (no interior windows, blinds on the outside, so it was private), and she'd go work at another workstation whenever needed.


I don't think lactation is a disability, see Martinez v. NBC 49 F.Supp.2d 305.


/I don't actually keep up on breastfeeding laws.
 
2012-09-30 03:46:30 PM  

bubo_sibiricus: feckingmorons: many of Johnson's victim businesses end up paying thousands of dollars in expensive remodeling to bathrooms; for entrance and exit doors; and for re-paving and painting parking lots, changing signage, or even having to install expensive wheelchair ramps.

Boo. Hoo.


well done you. nice lazy Sunday afternoon work, 7.89/10. great followup, solid bites.
 
2012-09-30 03:47:45 PM  
Story on this guy from a couple years ago.
Disabled attorney defends his 1,000+ ADA lawsuits
 
2012-09-30 03:48:20 PM  

feckingmorons: The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.


I know.

BUT, what about horse-drawn carriages (assuming the horses wore sneakers)? Bicycles (I've seen people get hit by a cyclist running a stop sign, and injuries ensued)? What if we start riding around on the streets like we're on those birds in Joust? THINK OF THE BLIND PEOPLE.
 
2012-09-30 03:48:46 PM  
Hmm, I was inconvenienced in an old building... I think I'll destroy their business and put a bunch of people out of work!
 
2012-09-30 03:48:53 PM  

Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"


No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.
 
2012-09-30 03:49:13 PM  

WhyteRaven74: kyrg: the building I work in is putting in a separate "breast pumping room."

That has nothing to do with ADA regs...


Actually there have been several attempts to shoehorn pregnancy into the federal ADA laws expressly for this. It would allow protection of pregnancy and force businesses to build "pregnancy friendly" facilities..
 
2012-09-30 03:50:24 PM  
If he is quadriplegic, am I wrong in thinking that he goes in diapers anyway?
 
2012-09-30 03:50:27 PM  

bhcompy: Bendal: Curb ramps, for example, have gone from a simple inset within a sidewalk to a complicated design that is often unique to the specific intersection, and on large projects could have several pages of curb ramp details for all the various situations. The instructor told us if a town has a plan for upgrading the intersections to the new curb ramp details, that's just fine. But, if the town hasn't been spending any money on ramp upgrades for years, and have lots of the old noncompliant ramps out on the streets? That's a potential lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Heh. Every intersection has been torn up to have their curb ramps replaced with the new ones that have the yellow bumpy pad on them. I understand the need, but it's not like we were hearing stories of blind pedestrians stepping out in to traffic because they didn't feel the bumps. Hell, those bumps probably hinder moving a wheelchair through it, I know it does shopping carts(they have them at every grocery store here in front of the store when there is no curb between the parking lot and the store entrance)


1) First off, the "yellow bumpy pad" isn't the latest ADA requirement. Curb ramps are now required to have a level 4' square pad at the top of the ramp for wheelchairs to safely turn before using the ramp.

2) Would you prefer to wait before the intersections are upgraded until after a disabled pedestrian was hit by a car?

3) The bumps don't inhibit a wheelchair. I've sat in one and negotiated across the bumps myself. If I can do it, and never sat in a wheelchair before, then someone who uses one every day should be able to do it as well.

As I've said earlier, all a town/business has to demonstrate is they are aware of the ADA deficient areas and are working to fix them. It's the "well we knew we weren't in compliance but ignored them anyway" attitude that gets a business/town in hot water.
 
2012-09-30 03:50:39 PM  

puffy999: feckingmorons: The regulations to make electric cars make more noise are in the works. It will be on the car owner not the pavement owner.

I know.

BUT, what about horse-drawn carriages (assuming the horses wore sneakers)? Bicycles (I've seen people get hit by a cyclist running a stop sign, and injuries ensued)? What if we start riding around on the streets like we're on those birds in Joust? THINK OF THE BLIND PEOPLE.


I was once accidentally struck by a mime.
 
2012-09-30 03:51:24 PM  

firefly212: You're buying a car that gets thousands of dollars in special tax rebates, and biatching that the government setting certain requirements for it is far too onerous on you.


I don't think anybody was saying that.

/well, maybe GAT...
 
2012-09-30 03:51:42 PM  

WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: Yes, do exactly what you are told. There will be no dissent.

The guy had over 20 years to find a way to comply, and actually California has had accessibility regs even longer. At some point it does fall on business owners. Especially when many had no problem with compliance, like 20 years ago.


Twenty years ago, not all businesses were under threat like they are now. Some businesses by their nature are not heavily patronized by disabled individuals, hence, being "out of compliance" is not a real issue to the owners: Why remodel a building for wheelchairs when wheelchair users don't use the business?

Example from my own experience: We had a gym in Nevada right around the time ADA went into effect. We had exclusively Nautilus equipment, which are not usable by paraplegics. Nevertheless, we had to redo the front of the building so that any wheelchair-bound individuals could come in--and do what? They couldn't use the equipment. So my boss spent extra money to create accessibility for people who would never spend their money at our gym. And there was no method for waiver: It was structurally and economically feasible, so it was done. And when a wheelchair user did drop by, he realized in about two seconds he could not use the equipment, and so we had to let him out the fully accessible exit.

Now, most businesses are not in that extreme position, but until very recently, (like within the last 20 years) there were not large numbers of individuals clamoring for accessbility in all places. And most disabilities can be accommodated without costly fixes--a blind person, for instance, does not need a special entrance or a larger bathroom to use a facility. Basically, the ADA has become used solely to require wheelchair access without consideration for how many users will be using the building, or even if they will be. A good reason why the type of strike-suit solution under discussion here is usually only for the profit of the attorney: If a disabled person is going to regularly patronize the business, wouldn't they prefer that the owner voluntarily come into compliance instead of heading straight to court?
 
2012-09-30 03:54:14 PM  

feckingmorons: I was once accidentally struck by a mime.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-30 03:54:34 PM  

puffy999: Do you have Asperger's or something? I'm just curious.


I have never been diagnosed with any kind of dysfunction, but no I don't think I meet any standards for Aspergers. I looked up the date before I typed that. I have what must be a mild form of ADHD but that's it.

06Wahoo: /Going to end up on GAT_00's ignore list too.
//But then, he would only be further proving my point.


He ended up on my ignore list because I've fought with him for years and I got tired of fighting with someone who had no intention of listening to any facts but the ones they wanted to listen to. Yes I know you're going to immediately claim that's what I do.
 
2012-09-30 03:55:09 PM  

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.


Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.
 
2012-09-30 03:56:54 PM  

Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.


Yeah, it is very simple. But it can also be extremely expensive, even prohibitively expensive.
 
2012-09-30 03:58:07 PM  
Just sayin' that if the ADA had just built on the improvements for ole' Ford, it WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT CHEAPER!

but, NOOO
 
2012-09-30 03:59:13 PM  

GAT_00: puffy999: Do you have Asperger's or something? I'm just curious.

I have never been diagnosed with any kind of dysfunction, but no I don't think I meet any standards for Aspergers. I looked up the date before I typed that. I have what must be a mild form of ADHD but that's it.

06Wahoo: /Going to end up on GAT_00's ignore list too.
//But then, he would only be further proving my point.

He ended up on my ignore list because I've fought with him for years and I got tired of fighting with someone who had no intention of listening to any facts but the ones they wanted to listen to. Yes I know you're going to immediately claim that's what I do.


The GAT_00 ignore list happy hour had to be moved this week. The bar was too small, We have rented Dodger Stadium to accommodate those on the list.

Remember, bring all the facts you want to happy hour, they are all welcome. We don't close our minds to dissenting opinion and call our own opinions fact.

/of course it is ADA compliant
 
2012-09-30 04:00:42 PM  

feckingmorons: We have rented Dodger Stadium to accommodate those on the list.


Gross. I'd rather just go sit in that port-a-pot that was discussed earlier.
 
2012-09-30 04:01:17 PM  

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.


Of course he can sue. He claims that by being out of compliance you've damaged him. Those damages don't go away simply because you've come into compliance.

If the same restaurant served bad fish and someone got sick and sued, they wouldn't toss the suit because the restaurant tossed the fish.

The compliance is not what he is suing about, the damage to himself is why he is suing.
 
2012-09-30 04:03:40 PM  

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

Of course he can sue. He claims that by being out of compliance you've damaged him. Those damages don't go away simply because you've come into compliance.


It's no longer an ADA claim. If the business didn't have notice, and once they had notice, they immediately fixed the issue, then the ADA wouldn't apply. Instead, he'd have to be claiming that their violation was so egregious that they couldn't possibly have thought they were legal - like, the hall to the bathroom was lined with spinning blades.
 
2012-09-30 04:03:46 PM  
Remember that Bobcat Goldthwait's Film Satire 'God Bless America'? Where the guy was killing people doing stupid things?

Just saying.
 
2012-09-30 04:05:40 PM  

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.


What state do you live in? Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim. The issue is not whether the problem has been corrected, it is whether the problem existed at the time of the suit.

So if your hypothetical extortionist/lawyer took a picture of the faded lines, then it doesn't matter if the owner painted them the next week. At the time of filing, the problem existed, therefore, there IS a triable issue of fact. The issue is whether or not the extortionist/lawyer was harmed by the lack of compliance on the day in question, not whether things got fixed since then.

By your logic, it would be possible for anyone to avoid a suit by fixing the problem that started it: Oh, yes, our airplanes were deficient at the time of the crash, but we've repaired all the remaining planes in the interim, so your suit has no merit.
 
2012-09-30 04:06:22 PM  

feckingmorons: The compliance is not what he is suing about, the damage to himself is why he is suing.


The sad thing is that, in America, inconvenience = damage.

And damage = $$.

And $$ = free speech.

So, by inconveniencing this man, clearly this business was just using their right to free speech. Ergo, their rights are being violated!

/okay, I'm PERFECTLY FINE with a lawyer taking this idea and running with it
 
2012-09-30 04:09:34 PM  

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

Of course he can sue. He claims that by being out of compliance you've damaged him. Those damages don't go away simply because you've come into compliance.

It's no longer an ADA claim. If the business didn't have notice, and once they had notice, they immediately fixed the issue, then the ADA wouldn't apply. Instead, he'd have to be claiming that their violation was so egregious that they couldn't possibly have thought they were legal - like, the hall to the bathroom was lined with spinning blades.


There is also the question of it actually being an issue. The shyster can claim that anything is wrong and that that the business is out of compliance when in fact they are. We all know the safe harbor provision. Lets use the light switch example I used earlier.

If he goes in and measures the light switches and they are 49 inches off the ground and he send the letter he may be completely off base because they remodeled in 2001 and the ADA then specified 51 inches so they are exempt because of the safe harbor provisions. He is still demanding money, and since they tell him to pound sand he will sue and they have to defend that.

I own two small businesses and I'd defend myself vigorously against this clown, but I'm also an attorney and I could do it myself. (Actually I'd probably hire someone but I have the luxury of not being in such bad economic straits as the gentlemen from the restaurant instant).

/all my facilities are in compliance with applicable law and regulation.
//except for fire extinguishers I have about 3x as many as needed. I am obsessive about fire extinguishers.
 
2012-09-30 04:10:04 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: AssAsInAssassin: basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]

You have no such right. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act?

Which has what to do with this?

You can't legally refuse service to all black people.

But you CAN refuse service to Bob Smith the Attorney because of his reputation.


Sure, you CAN, but you'd be breaking the law.

Link
 
2012-09-30 04:10:58 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

What state do you live in? Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim. The issue is not whether the problem has been corrected, it is whether the problem existed at the time of the suit.

So if your hypothetical extortionist/lawyer took a picture of the faded lines, then it doesn't matter if the owner painted them the next week. At the time of filing, the problem existed, therefore, there IS a triable issue of fact.


Exactly. Glad we're on the same page.
 
2012-09-30 04:12:33 PM  

Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

What state do you live in? Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim. The issue is not whether the problem has been corrected, it is whether the problem existed at the time of the suit.

So if your hypothetical extortionist/lawyer took a picture of the faded lines, then it doesn't matter if the owner painted them the next week. At the time of filing, the problem existed, therefore, there IS a triable issue of fact.

Exactly. Glad we're on the same page.


Oh...gotcha.

In your hypo, the guy had not yet filed the suit when he demanded money. In mine, he had.

You're right, I'm wrong.
 
2012-09-30 04:12:41 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim.


Most small claims cases involve some sort of "loss," usually financial in nature. A financial error at one time could theoretically create losses over time. Just like becoming ill due to food poisoning can cause a person to miss work.

In a case where not having proper parking caused a problem (say, at a hospital, and a person's medical event was exacerbated), that's worth damages. In a case where a fat-ass can't get his fix at a restaurant? Eh, when the problem is fixed, the small claims case SHOULD be dropped. When it's not, it's not because someone deserves to receive a financial award, it's either because of greed or because one party has deeper pockets than another party.
 
2012-09-30 04:12:46 PM  

AssAsInAssassin: Satanic_Hamster: AssAsInAssassin: basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]

You have no such right. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act?

Which has what to do with this?

You can't legally refuse service to all black people.

But you CAN refuse service to Bob Smith the Attorney because of his reputation.

Sure, you CAN, but you'd be breaking the law.

Link


"LegalZoom is not a law firm and is not a substitute for an attorney or law firm," from their own site.

You can refuse service to someone based upon their behavior or reputation and you would not be breaking the law.

Don't rely on the Internet for legal advice, it is most frequently wrong.
 
2012-09-30 04:13:50 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Why remodel a building for wheelchairs when wheelchair users don't use the business?


Well if it's not complaint, not going to get a lot of people in wheelchairs in the first place.

here were not large numbers of individuals clamoring for accessbility in all places.

*facepalm*
 
2012-09-30 04:14:04 PM  

feckingmorons: If he goes in and measures the light switches and they are 49 inches off the ground and he send the letter he may be completely off base because they remodeled in 2001 and the ADA then specified 51 inches so they are exempt because of the safe harbor provisions. He is still demanding money, and since they tell him to pound sand he will sue and they have to defend that.


And they'd countersue under an anti-SLAPP statute, they'd demand declaratory judgement that they're in compliance, and they'd ask for all attorneys fees and costs as a result. Come on, you're a lawyer, and you're saying you can't see any way that a business can defend a frivolous suit?
 
2012-09-30 04:15:28 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

What state do you live in? Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim. The issue is not whether the problem has been corrected, it is whether the problem existed at the time of the suit.

So if your hypothetical extortionist/lawyer took a picture of the faded lines, then it doesn't matter if the owner painted them the next week. At the time of filing, the problem existed, therefore, there IS a triable issue of fact.

Exactly. Glad we're on the same page.

Oh...gotcha.

In your hypo, the guy had not yet filed the suit when he demanded money. In mine, he had.

Changing the facts changes the outcome since the legal rule depends on the state of things at the time of filing. So, because we use different facts, we're both right.


Exactly. Glad you didn't say something stupid like a sarcastic "you're right, I'm wrong."
 
2012-09-30 04:16:04 PM  

feckingmorons: You can refuse service to someone based upon their behavior or reputation and you would not be breaking the law.


I can imagine you would be perfectly calm if someone read your posts here and refused you entrance into their business.
 
2012-09-30 04:17:26 PM  

puffy999: Gyrfalcon: Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim.

Most small claims cases involve some sort of "loss," usually financial in nature. A financial error at one time could theoretically create losses over time. Just like becoming ill due to food poisoning can cause a person to miss work.

In a case where not having proper parking caused a problem (say, at a hospital, and a person's medical event was exacerbated), that's worth damages. In a case where a fat-ass can't get his fix at a restaurant? Eh, when the problem is fixed, the small claims case SHOULD be dropped. When it's not, it's not because someone deserves to receive a financial award, it's either because of greed or because one party has deeper pockets than another party.


These are not small claims Court cases. They can be Federal cases, or filed under California's companion ADA law -which does allow attorney's fees, the Federal ADA cases do not.
 
2012-09-30 04:18:44 PM  

feckingmorons: These are not small claims Court cases. They can be Federal cases, or filed under California's companion ADA law -which does allow attorney's fees, the Federal ADA cases do not.


D'oh, you're right.
 
2012-09-30 04:19:03 PM  
Could he just close the bathroom to customers and leave it be? That way no one uses it and he does not have a bathroom to modify. Does the law mandate that he must provide a bathroom for customers? I know of 7-11's and other stores that do not provide bathrooms for patrons so I would think not.
 
2012-09-30 04:19:09 PM  
BTW anything built in the last 30 years that isn't compliant as is, amounts to a huge sack of fail on the part of the developer and architect.
 
2012-09-30 04:19:34 PM  

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: If he goes in and measures the light switches and they are 49 inches off the ground and he send the letter he may be completely off base because they remodeled in 2001 and the ADA then specified 51 inches so they are exempt because of the safe harbor provisions. He is still demanding money, and since they tell him to pound sand he will sue and they have to defend that.

And they'd countersue under an anti-SLAPP statute, they'd demand declaratory judgement that they're in compliance, and they'd ask for all attorneys fees and costs as a result. Come on, you're a lawyer, and you're saying you can't see any way that a business can defend a frivolous suit?


Do you think a guy making burgers knows that. Do you think any business owner wants to risk such an expenditure to countersue?

As an attorney, do you respect what this guy is doing or do you think that he is vermin. I think he is vermin.
 
2012-09-30 04:20:18 PM  

phojo1946: Could he just close the bathroom to customers and leave it be? That way no one uses it and he does not have a bathroom to modify. Does the law mandate that he must provide a bathroom for customers? I know of 7-11's and other stores that do not provide bathrooms for patrons so I would think not.


I must assume a restaurant has to have a bathroom, some people do still wash their hands before eating.
 
2012-09-30 04:20:34 PM  
I'm not advocating violence here but it shows great restraint on the side of business owners, especially those in older buildings, for not having put a hit on this guy years ago. If it's who I think it is of course. The story is, he parks his van and measures every dimension within a business looking to bust the owner.
 
2012-09-30 04:21:02 PM  

feckingmorons: . I think he is vermin.


Doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.
 
2012-09-30 04:22:03 PM  

WhyteRaven74: BTW anything built in the last 30 years that isn't compliant as is, amounts to a huge sack of fail on the part of the developer and architect.


How can something built 30 years ago be compliant with a law that was enacted 22 years ago? 

The fact that most local building codes did take into account handicapped access 30 or 40 years ago was great, the ADA is a civil rights law that made the disabled a protected class, it was not an architectural code.
 
2012-09-30 04:22:26 PM  

betelgeux: especially those in older buildings, for not having put a hit on this guy years ago


A lot of those business owners don't have any compliance issues. Cause they made sure to comply with the regulations.
 
2012-09-30 04:22:39 PM  

WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: . I think he is vermin.

Doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.


What is his point in your opinion?
 
2012-09-30 04:23:42 PM  

Surool: Hmm, I was inconvenienced in an old building... I think I'll destroy their business and put a bunch of people out of work!


On both sides of this one.

1. The plaintiff is a dick who has sued more than a thousand places for ADA violations.

but

2. The owners of the building could have avoided the whole thing by renting or purchasing an ADA compliant port-a-potty like my work did.

It's kind of a battle of the jackass all-stars between lawyer dickbag and a business that wouldn't scrounge 2,000 dollars over the course of twenty years to be ADA compliant.
 
2012-09-30 04:23:57 PM  

GAT_00

Smartest
Funniest
2012-09-30 02:11:25 PM
jpo2269: but for the most part he's a troll whom has an opinion on everything, especially all the things he knows nothing about (and that list is quite extensive).

Well, you've certainty proved your point here by step by step showing where and how I'm wrong.



Shoot, you have probably already given two dozen or so examples on this thread alone, but shoot, I'll bite. One of my favorite "GATisms" happened just this week. The thread in question was the one where some authoritative body had named Cheers the greatest comedy of all time. You come in and demand that West Wing was the greatest show of all time..When reminded that Cheers was named the best COMEDY of all time, you double down naming other comedies (all of which share DNA with Cheers) while admitting TO NEVER HAVING SEEN CHEERS yourself.

How can one discuss whe
 
2012-09-30 04:24:35 PM  

CptnSpldng: Thanks for the Meme-ries: I would like to plead guilty, your honor...

[i291.photobucket.com image 800x600]

[i291.photobucket.com image 559x437]

[i291.photobucket.com image 375x459]

... to FAPPING!

There are no ramps on the boat in photo 2 and that raised tile flooring in photo 3 is an impediment to a wheelchair. Is she handicapped accessible in photo 1?


I dunno.... Growing up in the late 90's and 2000's, when I see ADA in a legal headline, I picture these three from Law & Order (in various degrees of undress). I didn't read the article (a shocker for a FARK liter, I know) to know that ADA in this case meant something else.

I would be happy to EXAMINE them to see what their ABILITIES are.....

/if you know what i mean
//and i think you do
///italics
 
2012-09-30 04:25:29 PM  

feckingmorons: How can something built 30 years ago be compliant with a law that was enacted 22 years ago?


You realize things like accessible bathrooms are nothing new right? They've been around for ages, and ADA regs basically call for what has been a standard for ages. There are buildings here in Chicago built in the 80s that had no issues with ADA compliance because the people who built them didn't have their heads up their asses. When the ADA came along, they had no worries because they already had everything in place. They were built by people who actually thought of what public access entails and went with it.
 
2012-09-30 04:25:47 PM  
This guy does a disservice to disabled people who want to work with businesses proactively to address issues before they become problems. Once you say you're a disability advocate the businesses have lawsuit in their minds.

If they add new door knobs so it is easier for the disabled to open the door to the coat closet which they never use, will that trigger other changes because they have remodeled? What is a substantive change that would trigger other expenses?

The disabled have advocates that are not scumbags, let them be the guiding force for access, not some scumbag who uses the ADA lawsuit as a career.
 
2012-09-30 04:26:15 PM  

firefly212: It's kind of a battle of the jackass all-stars between lawyer dickbag and a business that wouldn't scrounge 2,000 dollars over the course of twenty years to be ADA compliant.


Because when I go to a small restaurant, I want to see a Honey Bucket outside.

To be fair, I don't know the layout of this place and probably won't look at an aerial cam, but I can assume it's not like a rural tavern where you could put something behind the building so that nobody sees it.

/also, to be fair, I wouldn't necessarily want a port-a-potty as a restaurant's bathroom anyway... same goes for a hospital
 
2012-09-30 04:27:24 PM  

WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: How can something built 30 years ago be compliant with a law that was enacted 22 years ago?

You realize things like accessible bathrooms are nothing new right? They've been around for ages, and ADA regs basically call for what has been a standard for ages. There are buildings here in Chicago built in the 80s that had no issues with ADA compliance because the people who built them didn't have their heads up their asses. When the ADA came along, they had no worries because they already had everything in place. They were built by people who actually thought of what public access entails and went with it.


So you didn't read my whole post, is that what you're saying?
 
2012-09-30 04:27:26 PM  

feckingmorons: let them be the guiding force for access,


And you'll scream about them too.
 
2012-09-30 04:28:04 PM  

WhyteRaven74: There are buildings here in Chicago built in the 80s that had no issues with ADA compliance because the people who built them didn't have their heads up their asses.


In the 1950s, I doubt people expected many Americans to be so freaking fat.
 
2012-09-30 04:28:21 PM  

feckingmorons: So you didn't read my whole post, is that what you're saying?


I read it and it's immaterial to the point at hand. That disability is a protected class has nothing to do with providing access.
 
2012-09-30 04:29:45 PM  
60s, 70s, whenever. The point is, people are expanding, and bathroom toilet stalls have become massive. Lieutenant Dan would've had no problem with even standard stalls of today.
 
2012-09-30 04:29:51 PM  

WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: let them be the guiding force for access,

And you'll scream about them too.


Or I could be one of the members of a disability access organization, but you'll jump to your own conclusions and decide that I'm screaming at someone or some group.

Read everything I've posted in this thread and you'll see that I support and encourage making public accommodation accessible, but don't let facts your opinions. Don't you and GAT_00 have a date this evening, you better get ready.
 
2012-09-30 04:29:58 PM  

feckingmorons: WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: . I think he is vermin.

Doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

What is his point in your opinion?


That a quick google search for ADA compliant portable toilets puts the price range between 1750 and 2500 bucks, which seems reasonable considering the ADA had a 10 year phase in.
 
2012-09-30 04:30:21 PM  

puffy999: In the 1950s, I doubt people expected many Americans to be so freaking fat.


You're off by three decades, I said 80s not 50s.
 
2012-09-30 04:32:15 PM  
Since this thread seems to be about handing out grandfather clauses to companies who had over two decades to make what ultimately are some pretty trivial changes in the grander scheme of business, I wonder if they'd also have grandfathered in the separate colored and white facilities at say southern bus stations and only apply the changes to new construction. I get it - i get it - this is a harsh verdict for a small business, but, well, he had two decades.
 
2012-09-30 04:33:24 PM  

firefly212: , which seems reasonable considering the ADA had a 10 year phase in


That or call up a contractor and see how much it would be to expand the existing bathroom.
 
2012-09-30 04:34:30 PM  
GAT,

What I was going to ask before my last post got cut off is how can anyone offer an opinion on a show that you haven't even seen?
 
2012-09-30 04:34:58 PM  

feckingmorons: Read everything I've posted in this thread and you'll see that I support and encourage making public accommodation accessible,


If you did actually support that you'd be a bit pissed off that someone who has had what 23 years now, that's almost a quarter century, to fix their establishment hasn't done so.
 
2012-09-30 04:35:14 PM  

WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: So you didn't read my whole post, is that what you're saying?

I read it and it's immaterial to the point at hand. That disability is a protected class has nothing to do with providing access.


You don't make a lot of sense. I noted that architectural designs had advanced to include accommodation for the disabled before the ADA was passed, but you just prattle on.
 
2012-09-30 04:35:47 PM  
I'd like to send a couple of goons over to break Scott Johnson's legs, but I guess that wouldn't really change much.
 
2012-09-30 04:36:21 PM  

firefly212: feckingmorons: WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: . I think he is vermin.

Doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

What is his point in your opinion?

That a quick google search for ADA compliant portable toilets puts the price range between 1750 and 2500 bucks, which seems reasonable considering the ADA had a 10 year phase in.


How do you get to the porta potty ? Is there a wheelchair compliant path, what about rain?

The solution is not simply put up a big portapot on the front lawn.
 
2012-09-30 04:36:46 PM  

puffy999: firefly212: It's kind of a battle of the jackass all-stars between lawyer dickbag and a business that wouldn't scrounge 2,000 dollars over the course of twenty years to be ADA compliant.

Because when I go to a small restaurant, I want to see a Honey Bucket outside.

To be fair, I don't know the layout of this place and probably won't look at an aerial cam, but I can assume it's not like a rural tavern where you could put something behind the building so that nobody sees it.

/also, to be fair, I wouldn't necessarily want a port-a-potty as a restaurant's bathroom anyway... same goes for a hospital


From the pics, the place might have had great burgers, but it wasn't all that pretty to start with. Aside from that, the bathroom you want is kinda irrelevant when you actually *have* to go. I mean, I'm lucky b/c even with my crutches, I can use any bathroom just fine, but I remember when I was in the wheelchair it was a total biatch even in an ADA compliant bathroom... the narrower ones were just not doable without a bit of crawling on the floor. I agree with you that a port-a-potty is far from ideal, but my point was that this restaurant could have been ADA compliant with only a fairly reasonable cost. It isn't like the law itself is this bastion of hyper-regulation that some people try to turn it into. That said, lawyer guy with more than a thousand claims from places he doesn't actually shop is a total douchebag and the only disservice the drunk driver did was not finishing the damned job.
 
2012-09-30 04:37:00 PM  

WhyteRaven74: firefly212: , which seems reasonable considering the ADA had a 10 year phase in

That or call up a contractor and see how much it would be to expand the existing bathroom.


Apparently more than they can afford since they are closing as they can't pay the bills.
 
2012-09-30 04:37:34 PM  

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: If he goes in and measures the light switches and they are 49 inches off the ground and he send the letter he may be completely off base because they remodeled in 2001 and the ADA then specified 51 inches so they are exempt because of the safe harbor provisions. He is still demanding money, and since they tell him to pound sand he will sue and they have to defend that.

And they'd countersue under an anti-SLAPP statute, they'd demand declaratory judgement that they're in compliance, and they'd ask for all attorneys fees and costs as a result. Come on, you're a lawyer, and you're saying you can't see any way that a business can defend a frivolous suit?

Do you think a guy making burgers knows that. Do you think any business owner wants to risk such an expenditure to countersue?

As an attorney, do you respect what this guy is doing or do you think that he is vermin. I think he is vermin.


I think he's an opportunistic douche, but I also know he wouldn't be making any money if the business owners were good hearted "I want to help my customers, but I gosh darn hadn't realized my bathroom hallway was too narrow, I'll fix it right away" types. Everyone involved is a douchebag, so I don't see why one side should be singled out for ridicule.
 
2012-09-30 04:38:15 PM  

WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: Read everything I've posted in this thread and you'll see that I support and encourage making public accommodation accessible,

If you did actually support that you'd be a bit pissed off that someone who has had what 23 years now, that's almost a quarter century, to fix their establishment hasn't done so.


They don't have to fix it as it is a 50 year old building. They are in compliance as is.
 
2012-09-30 04:39:04 PM  

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: If he goes in and measures the light switches and they are 49 inches off the ground and he send the letter he may be completely off base because they remodeled in 2001 and the ADA then specified 51 inches so they are exempt because of the safe harbor provisions. He is still demanding money, and since they tell him to pound sand he will sue and they have to defend that.

And they'd countersue under an anti-SLAPP statute, they'd demand declaratory judgement that they're in compliance, and they'd ask for all attorneys fees and costs as a result. Come on, you're a lawyer, and you're saying you can't see any way that a business can defend a frivolous suit?

Do you think a guy making burgers knows that. Do you think any business owner wants to risk such an expenditure to countersue?

As an attorney, do you respect what this guy is doing or do you think that he is vermin. I think he is vermin.

I think he's an opportunistic douche, but I also know he wouldn't be making any money if the business owners were good hearted "I want to help my customers, but I gosh darn hadn't realized my bathroom hallway was too narrow, I'll fix it right away" types. Everyone involved is a douchebag, so I don't see why one side should be singled out for ridicule.


How is the small business owner who is just trying to make a living a douchebag by not making renovations he can't afford?
 
2012-09-30 04:39:26 PM  

feckingmorons: firefly212: feckingmorons: WhyteRaven74: feckingmorons: . I think he is vermin.

Doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

What is his point in your opinion?

That a quick google search for ADA compliant portable toilets puts the price range between 1750 and 2500 bucks, which seems reasonable considering the ADA had a 10 year phase in.

How do you get to the porta potty ? Is there a wheelchair compliant path, what about rain?

The solution is not simply put up a big portapot on the front lawn.


There are port-a-potties with ramps so that you can enter from even dirt (the one at my work is near the top of a mountain. This guy (from the pictures) has a relatively level parking lot with a dumpster out back... are we worried the port a potty will ruin the dumpster's view, or what?

I agree that the lawyer is a jackass, but I don't understand why people are bending over backwards to pretend that this restaurant had no reasonable course of action.
 
2012-09-30 04:40:50 PM  

OrygunFarker: ArkAngel: Azlefty: 1. The Attorney is a scumbag

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

3. the ADA law has been around for OVER TWENTY YEARS!

4. I really do not have much sympathy for a supposed businessman who is too fricking stupid to figure out how to comply with a law that not only in the news constantly because of these assh*le vultures but is old enough to drink!

A few months back the SF Chronicle did an article about these poor business people that rent a place and open their shop without checking for ADA compliance and how unfair it was for them to get nailed for not doing their due diligence

In the 90s I was a corporate monkey, part of my job duties was to go around the region and insure our locations were in compliance, many of the requirements actually had a time frame to comply, most though were simple like door knobs and faucet handles. 

ADA is so simple even an MBA can do it.

You're a fool. ADA compliance, depending on the size and age of the place, can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Sometimes it's just plain impossible without complete destruction of the restaurant (i.e. the original Squeeze Inn in Sacramento, CA or Frank's Diner in Kenosha, WI, older small restaurants built long before this law existed).

In California, lawsuits of this nature are filed under the Unruh Act, which allows $4,000 in damages per violation along with attorney's fees (which is extra profit for lawyers like this who file lawsuits themselves). Note that this damage limit applies for every single time they visit a business and can apply if the mirrors are even half an inch too high. How would you like to have to spend $50,000 because in fines and attorney's fees because this guy said your mirror was too high? And as it turns out, the guy filing suit didn't even come there to buy anything. He just wanted to see if he could sue you.

So, pay $50,000 in fines and look like a whiny biatch, or spend $50,000 to become ADA co ...


Yes, because all small businesses have $50,000 just laying around.
 
2012-09-30 04:40:59 PM  

feckingmorons: WhyteRaven74: firefly212: , which seems reasonable considering the ADA had a 10 year phase in

That or call up a contractor and see how much it would be to expand the existing bathroom.

Apparently more than they can afford since they are closing as they can't pay the bills.


If your business cant budget 2000 dollars for ADA compliance over 20 years, your business deserves to be out of business.... In a thread about how sometimes life can be unfair, we should at least be able to agree on that much.
 
2012-09-30 04:41:22 PM  

WhyteRaven74: You're off by three decades, I said 80s not 50s.


Yes, and this business is not one of many buildings in Chicago, which I can assume were designed for much higher user capacities and likely an expected wider variety of tenants. It's a little restaurant with probably no greater than a capacity of 50 people, designed to be a restaurant, and likely a "quick" place to eat. Ergo, it's rather unreasonable to assume that every business that constructed a building well before modern ADA regulations should have known that the legal system would exist in a capacity where one person with a personal financial stake could basically be the death blow to an already-struggling establishment.

The best part in all of this is that there is a disabled patron of this burger joint, and he's not complaining about it. You'd think that this man, if anyone, would have said something to the owners about the bathroom, if he felt any issues were to be had. Of course, silly me, I'm assuming the ADA is being used for the initial intent, instead of knowing that it's currently being used by various professions and professionals as a cash cow where the numbers on a piece of paper mean more than the people who use the facilities.
 
2012-09-30 04:42:36 PM  
As a disabled person, I gotta say that I have absolutely no farking sympathy for the restaurant. the ADA has been law for almost 23 years now, and that is plenty of time for this douche owner to either get his business up to spec or try his luck at having it labeled as a historical site, thus immune to the accessibility requirements of the ADA. Hell the government (state and federal) offers thousands of dollars in tax breaks to businesses specifically to help offset the costs of remodeling to ADA specs. This jackass is whining about the recession, but I would ask why in the fark he didn't do something about it back when times were good and he was making plenty of money? I already know the answer though... "because who gives a fark about cripples, that's why!" Well, I bet he wishes he had given a shiat back when he had the money to actually do the renovations.
 
2012-09-30 04:45:06 PM  
Wait, so this lawyer brought this up to the business 23 years

firefly212: There are port-a-potties with ramps so that you can enter from even dirt (the one at my work is near the top of a mountain. This guy (from the pictures) has a relatively level parking lot with a dumpster out back... are we worried the port a potty will ruin the dumpster's view, or what?


A restaurant in a city of a couple hundred thousand people should just never have a port-a-potty on the property.

Heck, considering how much it costs to have a maintenance contract with these companies in some places, it may have been financially better off for the business to fix the bathroom. ;)
 
2012-09-30 04:45:17 PM  

firefly212: I agree that the lawyer is a jackass, but I don't understand why people are bending over backwards to pretend that this restaurant had no reasonable course of action.


I think reasonable is the key here.

Sure he could help the guy to the john, he could rent a portapot, he could push the guy next door to a place that has nice big restrooms, there are a lot of thing the guy could do - I don't think the restaurant owner is not willing to help a reasonable disabled person get to a private bathroom. I think he simply can't afford to remodel (or fight the lawsuit) as the unreasonable lawyer demands.

If the lawyer were reasonable the wouldn't have filed 1000+ lawsuits of place he never intends to patronize.
 
2012-09-30 04:46:07 PM  

feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: If he goes in and measures the light switches and they are 49 inches off the ground and he send the letter he may be completely off base because they remodeled in 2001 and the ADA then specified 51 inches so they are exempt because of the safe harbor provisions. He is still demanding money, and since they tell him to pound sand he will sue and they have to defend that.

And they'd countersue under an anti-SLAPP statute, they'd demand declaratory judgement that they're in compliance, and they'd ask for all attorneys fees and costs as a result. Come on, you're a lawyer, and you're saying you can't see any way that a business can defend a frivolous suit?

Do you think a guy making burgers knows that. Do you think any business owner wants to risk such an expenditure to countersue?

As an attorney, do you respect what this guy is doing or do you think that he is vermin. I think he is vermin.

I think he's an opportunistic douche, but I also know he wouldn't be making any money if the business owners were good hearted "I want to help my customers, but I gosh darn hadn't realized my bathroom hallway was too narrow, I'll fix it right away" types. Everyone involved is a douchebag, so I don't see why one side should be singled out for ridicule.

How is the small business owner who is just trying to make a living a douchebag by not making renovations he can't afford?


1. We don't know that he can't afford them. The one concrete (heh) example we have here is the parking space guy - and repainting the lines cost only $700. If $700 breaks his business so much that it took him a year to scrounge the cash, then his failure is not the fault of the ADA regulations.

Someone upthread noted that the place is always packed with customers, so it's not like he's short on revenue. How much will it cost to fix the hallway in this story? If we're talking millions or something, because the hallway is load bearing, and he can't move the bathroom or whatnot, then as you know, he can seek an exemption from the court for undue hardship.

2. Of course, he can afford the renovations. The guy's a multi-billionaire who owns a construction firm, and last week, he won the lottery.
If you can make up unsupported facts, so can I.
 
2012-09-30 04:46:27 PM  

2words1finger: As a disabled person, I gotta say that I have absolutely no farking sympathy for the restaurant. the ADA has been law for almost 23 years now, and that is plenty of time for this douche owner to either get his business up to spec or try his luck at having it labeled as a historical site, thus immune to the accessibility requirements of the ADA. Hell the government (state and federal) offers thousands of dollars in tax breaks to businesses specifically to help offset the costs of remodeling to ADA specs. This jackass is whining about the recession, but I would ask why in the fark he didn't do something about it back when times were good and he was making plenty of money? I already know the answer though... "because who gives a fark about cripples, that's why!" Well, I bet he wishes he had given a shiat back when he had the money to actually do the renovations.


Do you get a lot of traction with that attitude?
 
2012-09-30 04:46:48 PM  
Let's not gloss over the probability, as has been stated, that this guy was probably going to be out of business very, very soon regardless of this lawyer. So, yeah, we shouldn't try to blame anyone except a poor business owner for the business closing down.
 
2012-09-30 04:47:00 PM  

puffy999: WhyteRaven74: You're off by three decades, I said 80s not 50s.

Yes, and this business is not one of many buildings in Chicago, which I can assume were designed for much higher user capacities and likely an expected wider variety of tenants. It's a little restaurant with probably no greater than a capacity of 50 people, designed to be a restaurant, and likely a "quick" place to eat. Ergo, it's rather unreasonable to assume that every business that constructed a building well before modern ADA regulations should have known that the legal system would exist in a capacity where one person with a personal financial stake could basically be the death blow to an already-struggling establishment.

The best part in all of this is that there is a disabled patron of this burger joint, and he's not complaining about it. You'd think that this man, if anyone, would have said something to the owners about the bathroom, if he felt any issues were to be had. Of course, silly me, I'm assuming the ADA is being used for the initial intent, instead of knowing that it's currently being used by various professions and professionals as a cash cow where the numbers on a piece of paper mean more than the people who use the facilities.


Is it unreasonable to assume that they would be able to budget 100 dollars a year over the two decades so they could buy an ADA compliant portable toilet? At some point, they need to take some personal responsibility for either their lack of budgeting skills, or their disregard of the law. If they couldn't budget 2k over 20 years, their business sucks and deserves to fail. If they *wouldn't* budget 2k over 20 years, they're dickbags who deserve whatever penalties they didn't care about in the first place.
 
2012-09-30 04:47:47 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: GODDAMNITSOMUCH!!!!

I HATE THAT CRIPPLED PIECE OF SH*T WITH THE FURY OF A THOUSAND EXPLODING SUNS!!

/yes, I AM that angry about this. Johnson is a worthless f*cking parasite that the world would be better off without


A million times yes!!!!!!
This piece of sh*t has shut down many a business.
 
2012-09-30 04:48:00 PM  

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: If he goes in and measures the light switches and they are 49 inches off the ground and he send the letter he may be completely off base because they remodeled in 2001 and the ADA then specified 51 inches so they are exempt because of the safe harbor provisions. He is still demanding money, and since they tell him to pound sand he will sue and they have to defend that.

And they'd countersue under an anti-SLAPP statute, they'd demand declaratory judgement that they're in compliance, and they'd ask for all attorneys fees and costs as a result. Come on, you're a lawyer, and you're saying you can't see any way that a business can defend a frivolous suit?

Do you think a guy making burgers knows that. Do you think any business owner wants to risk such an expenditure to countersue?

As an attorney, do you respect what this guy is doing or do you think that he is vermin. I think he is vermin.

I think he's an opportunistic douche, but I also know he wouldn't be making any money if the business owners were good hearted "I want to help my customers, but I gosh darn hadn't realized my bathroom hallway was too narrow, I'll fix it right away" types. Everyone involved is a douchebag, so I don't see why one side should be singled out for ridicule.

How is the small business owner who is just trying to make a living a douchebag by not making renovations he can't afford?

1. We don't know that he can't afford them. The one concrete (heh) example we have here is the parking space guy - and repainting the lines cost only $700. If $700 breaks his business so much that it took him a year to scrounge the cash, then his failure is not the fault of the ADA regulations.

Someone upthread noted that the place is always packed with customers, so it's not like he's short on revenue. How much will it cost to fix the hallway in this story? If we're talking millions or something, because the hallway is load bearing, and he c ...


This is pointless, how anyone can support what the lawyer, whom I consider a vexatious litigant - but unfortunately the government does not, si beyond me.

I am going out for a hamburger.
 
2012-09-30 04:49:58 PM  

firefly212: Is it unreasonable to assume that they would be able to budget 100 dollars a year over the two decades so they could buy an ADA compliant portable toilet? At some point, they need to take some personal responsibility for either their lack of budgeting skills, or their disregard of the law. If they couldn't budget 2k over 20 years, their business sucks and deserves to fail. If they *wouldn't* budget 2k over 20 years, they're dickbags who deserve whatever penalties they didn't care about in the first place.


Or they can just close and go into a different line of work and the economy loses those jobs that he created.

Lets kill the small businessman he is the enemy of the disabled who don't really want to go into his restaurant (ignore what the disabled guy who does go into his restaurant that would spoil the narrative).
 
2012-09-30 04:51:57 PM  

feckingmorons: This is pointless, how anyone can support what the lawyer, whom I consider a vexatious litigant - but unfortunately the government does not, si beyond me.


I don't know how anyone can support the business owner who takes over a year to paint his parking lot lines after having been informed that he's breaking the law.

I am going out for a hamburger.

Best thing you've said all day.
 
2012-09-30 04:52:34 PM  

firefly212: If they couldn't budget 2k over 20 years, their business sucks and deserves to fail. If they *wouldn't* budget 2k over 20 years, they're dickbags who deserve whatever penalties they didn't care about in the first place.


I'm glad I don't own a business. There are many places that have done little, to no, bathroom renovations (aside from replace a cracked toilet) in this area over the past 30 years. I know that a dickbag lawyer could go to town for violations at many, MANY local businesses if they were to pick and prod.

The thing is, many local business owners aren't making millions of dollars. A local burger joint that's been around for 3 or 4 decades has many disabled patrons, and until these giant-ass motorized cars started driving the 300 pound elderly women everywhere, I couldn't see where ANYONE would have trouble getting in and out of these bathrooms. Now? ... and I know, dimensionally, they are probably not up to current code. The owner would be making more money had he been a longshoreman and retired.
 
2012-09-30 04:53:08 PM  

Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: Ford's owners say the lawsuit they are facing for their ADA problems was brought by Scott Johnson, a local attorney who makes a living by bringing these types of cases - often on his own behalf... "Being a quadriplegic," Johnson said of himself during that interview, "there's nothing I can do about that. But these businesses that have structural barriers to access, that's frustrating."

Jerry Silvia said he doesn't feel like Johnson is working on his behalf.

"No. He's strictly crusading on his own behalf," Silvia said.

What?! That's horrible, Mr. Silvia! To think that he's using your name on his lawsuit, pretending to be your lawyer, and is not actually working on your behalf! You should fire him!

Oh, wait, he doesn't work for you? And you're not even in the suit? Then quit whining. It's not all about you.

But he is using the fact that all disabled people can't get into the bathroom, or at least many disabled people can't as a cudgel to force businesses to pay him.

He's not suing under a class action statute. There was a disabled person who couldn't get into the bathroom, and that's all the suit requires.

He uses the force of law to extort these business I believe. He doesn't want them to remodel their restaurant for him, he wants them to remodel their restaurant for all disabled people - except he really doesn't want them to do anything but send him a check.

Except that they can also remodel their restaurant and tell him that they've made the necessary accommodations and his suit is moot. He can only claim damages if they had notice and disregarded it.

For example, this guy acknowledges they he took a year after getting a letter to repaint hash marks. I don't see anyone complaining that the first they heard of Johnson was a lawsuit landing on their door.


Um, no. The law treats the tort as already having occurred. Doesn't matter if it gets fixed the next day. There have been some attempts at both the national and state level to give businesses 30-90 days. These have almost always been killed by Democrats.
 
2012-09-30 04:53:29 PM  
Now, I'm not in California, but I'm close to the border. I'd REALLY hate to be a Crescent City business owner, because they're too far from civilization to make big bucks, but they're still in California.
 
2012-09-30 04:54:14 PM  
Worthless cripples always ruining a good thing. Natural selection says these people shouldn't exist in the first place, and here they are farking things up for the rest of us.
 
2012-09-30 04:56:53 PM  

firefly212: Is it unreasonable to assume that they would be able to budget 100 dollars a year over the two decades so they could buy an ADA compliant portable toilet?


I don't know why this doesn't seem to get through, but I keep pointing out that I think it's bad practice to have a portable toilet outside of a restaurant.

As it is, in a major city in California, would that even be legal?
 
2012-09-30 04:57:23 PM  
Subby, Ford's Real Hamburgers has NOT been around for 50 years.

'Asstorney' Scott Johnson is an A-1 douchebag who needs a huge dose of Karma to wash over him.

/ ADA needs to be seriously de-fanged.
 
2012-09-30 05:04:13 PM  

Bendal: Securitywyrm: I was injured in Iraq and need a cane to walk, and stairs hurt. That said, I think the lack of a grandfather clause for the ADA was stupid and just fed the lawyers. It quickly became about 'punishing businesses' rather than 'fixing the problem.' If an old building only has stairs, I think it's damn arrogant of me to say they should have to put in an elevator that will cost more than the business makes in a year just so that I can go to the upstairs patio.

ADA doesn't say they have to do that, though, unless that location is the ONLY place customers to that business can go to. On one of my highway projects, we wanted to build a scenic overlook on top of a hill near an interstate pull-off area. The grade to the overlook, though, was going to be very steep, up to 20% in some stretches, and to be ADA compliant the grade could not exceed 4%. Since we wanted very badly to build this overlook, we compromised and built two overlooks from this pull-off, one at the same elevation of the parking lot and the one on top of the hill. ADA compliance was met since disabled visitors had a scenic overlook, and everyone else could use either overlook as they chose.

For a business, "separate but equal" facilities for ADA purposes is perfectly acceptable. Having one ADA compliant meeting room, or one ADA compliant entrance, or one ADA compliant access to the 2nd floor, is very much ok. Unless the patio in your comment provides some kind of unique service to the public, then providing access to other parts of the building should be fine when it comes to meeting ADA requirements.


Hmm, in that case how about the Burger place owner just buys one of those handicap accessible portable toilets and sticks it out back? Problem solved.
 
2012-09-30 05:04:54 PM  
In one building in my campus, there were no elevators in the building (only a small ramp to the first floor, and easy access to the basement floor), so when a neighboring building was constructed in the 80s, they put the elevators literally at the end of that building, and built a corridor going between the two.

In order to be ADA compliant, I think they had to convert a closet or janitorial room on each floor into a single-user, any sex bathroom with easy access.
 
2012-09-30 05:07:49 PM  

ArkAngel: Um, no. The law treats the tort as already having occurred. Doesn't matter if it gets fixed the next day.


Yes, once the suit has been filed. We're talking about when he first sends his threatening letter. And no, the law doesn't treat the tort as already having occurred when someone sends a pre-suit demand.
 
2012-09-30 05:09:31 PM  

2words1finger: As a disabled person, I gotta say that I have absolutely no farking sympathy for the restaurant. the ADA has been law for almost 23 years now, and that is plenty of time for this douche owner to either get his business up to spec or try his luck at having it labeled as a historical site, thus immune to the accessibility requirements of the ADA. Hell the government (state and federal) offers thousands of dollars in tax breaks to businesses specifically to help offset the costs of remodeling to ADA specs. This jackass is whining about the recession, but I would ask why in the fark he didn't do something about it back when times were good and he was making plenty of money? I already know the answer though... "because who gives a fark about cripples, that's why!" Well, I bet he wishes he had given a shiat back when he had the money to actually do the renovations.


Would you like some cheese with your whine?
 
2012-09-30 05:10:32 PM  
Damnit, now I want to get a hamburger then take a massive shiat. Where's my Hoverround?
 
2012-09-30 05:12:35 PM  

feckingmorons: firefly212: I agree that the lawyer is a jackass, but I don't understand why people are bending over backwards to pretend that this restaurant had no reasonable course of action.

I think reasonable is the key here.

Sure he could help the guy to the john, he could rent a portapot, he could push the guy next door to a place that has nice big restrooms, there are a lot of thing the guy could do - I don't think the restaurant owner is not willing to help a reasonable disabled person get to a private bathroom. I think he simply can't afford to remodel (or fight the lawsuit) as the unreasonable lawyer demands.

If the lawyer were reasonable the wouldn't have filed 1000+ lawsuits of place he never intends to patronize.


I agree that reasonable is the key. I don't doubt that remodeling the joint was unreasonable. That said, I think reasonable would have been to budget money for a portable toilet over the twenty some years since the ADA was enacted (even in the ten year grace period) and getting rid of the parking space by the dumpster.

The lawyer is a litigious jackass, on that much we agree. The thing is, I think for this business to be ADA compliant by now would be a perfectly reasonable expectation.
 
2012-09-30 05:14:55 PM  
I'm mostly against the ADA, on the grounds that it allows people to be less human. If we follow the laws, we don't have to care about anyone. Utopian society where laws and building codes give everyone the opportunity to never have to interact with their neighbors on a human level. I've done more to help disabled people than this asshat lawyer or almost any lawyer will do in their lifetimes. I don't really wear it as a badge of honor or anything, but it doesn't take much just to extend a hand to your neighbor and help out a little. I'm sure the owner of Ford's would do all he could to help out if a disabled person needed a little help. It's very doubtful that he would just flip you the bird and walk away.
 
2012-09-30 05:17:41 PM  

puffy999: firefly212: Is it unreasonable to assume that they would be able to budget 100 dollars a year over the two decades so they could buy an ADA compliant portable toilet?

I don't know why this doesn't seem to get through, but I keep pointing out that I think it's bad practice to have a portable toilet outside of a restaurant.

As it is, in a major city in California, would that even be legal?


I had to actually look that one up... San Diego requires a concrete foundation if a portable toilet is going to be used in a location for 12 months or more, they require it to be serviced weekly, and they have special regulations for how they must be cleaned (http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/watersheds/watershedpdf/bmp_2009_porta ble_sanitary_toilet.pdf), but yes, they are permitted even within city limits.
 
2012-09-30 05:17:59 PM  

BoxOfBees: I'm mostly against the ADA, on the grounds that it allows people to be less human.


Dude, just because he's in a wheelchair doesn't mean you can call him a cyborg.
 
2012-09-30 05:19:31 PM  
Haven't read the whole thread, but how do places like food carts that don't even HAVE bathrooms get around this?
 
2012-09-30 05:20:08 PM  
Just make the bathroom not available for public use. Problem solved.
 
2012-09-30 05:20:58 PM  

firefly212: I had to actually look that one up... San Diego requires a concrete foundation if a portable toilet is going to be used in a location for 12 months or more, they require it to be serviced weekly, and they have special regulations for how they must be cleaned (http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/dpw/watersheds/watershedpdf/bmp_2009_porta ble_sanitary_toilet.pdf), but yes, they are permitted even within city limits.


San... Di... E...Go...

POOPER CHAAAAAANGERS
 
2012-09-30 05:21:49 PM  

fusillade762: Haven't read the whole thread, but how do places like food carts that don't even HAVE bathrooms get around this?


... because they don't even HAVE bathrooms, so they're not being discriminatory in access to them.
 
2012-09-30 05:21:51 PM  

Theaetetus: BoxOfBees: I'm mostly against the ADA, on the grounds that it allows people to be less human.

Dude, just because he's in a wheelchair doesn't mean you can call him a cyborg.


Exactly, his biological and technological distinctiveness should be added to our own.
 
2012-09-30 05:23:19 PM  

fusillade762: Haven't read the whole thread, but how do places like food carts that don't even HAVE bathrooms get around this?


IIRC, the statutes for restrooms usually apply to permanent structures, but IANAL.
 
2012-09-30 05:26:26 PM  
These characters have been great for ambulance chasers while bleeding small businesses, causing them to get rid of mirrors in bathrooms, & after-hours stamp machines in post office lobbies(the Feds cooked up a 'just ran out of parts' crap excuse)...

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8 3 29671
 
2012-09-30 05:27:50 PM  

firefly212: I agree that reasonable is the key. I don't doubt that remodeling the joint was unreasonable. That said, I think reasonable would have been to budget money for a portable toilet over the twenty some years since the ADA was enacted (even in the ten year grace period) and getting rid of the parking space by the dumpster.


But if his restaurant is in compliance, and I believe it is since it was in compliance before the law, and has not been remodeled substantially nor does it lack any other required non-ADA disability access enhancements required by law should the owner have foreseen that it could be a potential problem in 20 years? I think that is unreasonable.

Sure it would have been nice if he budget a little extra for remodeling based upon new laws, even new consumer trends, but should he budget for electric car charging stations which may be mandatory in new buildings in 2030, or rooftop parking for personal jet packs in 2040? Where do we draw the line.

I believe the guy when he says he can't afford to remodel but the would if he could (not that he is required to do so).
 
2012-09-30 05:28:55 PM  
ITT: A shiat ton of people who don't understand ADA arguing about a law they've never read.
 
2012-09-30 05:32:18 PM  
Johnson went after The Squeeze Inn, another established hamburger joint of fame and awesomeness. That place was so loved Guy Fierri ( or whatever his name is ) bought it to save it from this asshat. I wouldn't say it's saved, more copied and replaced with a close imitation. And when Ford's owner says Scott Johnson makes a habit of this, he does. He travels around the Sacramento area looking for restaurants to sue.

/ yeah, he's pretty pissed off he's paralyzed, and everyone's going to suffer with him
 
2012-09-30 05:33:10 PM  

GranoblasticMan: ITT: A shiat ton of people who don't understand ADA arguing about a law they've never read.


More like those of us from Sac trying to explain to everyone else what a world class douchebag this lawyer is, and folks confusing that with us being against the ADA. Unfortunately, said douche lawyer is a smart bastard and is a master of treading a very fine line.
 
2012-09-30 05:33:56 PM  
A salient point I believe. Lawyers in California who go to law school don't have to go to an American Bar Association accredited law school like those in 49 other states. They can be admitted by attending an non-ABA law school, heck it could be in a backyard shed as long as California was cool with it.

Do you know why NJ has more toxic waste dumps than any other state and California has more lawyers? NJ got to choose first.
 
2012-09-30 05:46:44 PM  

feckingmorons: Infobahn: Lived in Sacramento for a year, never heard of the place. Meh.

The ADA has been around for a very long time, suck it up owner and comply.


Yes, do exactly what you are told. There will be no dissent.


Yet people wonder why California is such an economic shiathole.


It's the Law. If you don't like it then get it changed. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, ignoring the law just means you think you are special douche.
 
2012-09-30 06:02:15 PM  

Securitywyrm: Bendal: Securitywyrm: I was injured in Iraq and need a cane to walk, and stairs hurt. That said, I think the lack of a grandfather clause for the ADA was stupid and just fed the lawyers. It quickly became about 'punishing businesses' rather than 'fixing the problem.' If an old building only has stairs, I think it's damn arrogant of me to say they should have to put in an elevator that will cost more than the business makes in a year just so that I can go to the upstairs patio.

ADA doesn't say they have to do that, though, unless that location is the ONLY place customers to that business can go to. On one of my highway projects, we wanted to build a scenic overlook on top of a hill near an interstate pull-off area. The grade to the overlook, though, was going to be very steep, up to 20% in some stretches, and to be ADA compliant the grade could not exceed 4%. Since we wanted very badly to build this overlook, we compromised and built two overlooks from this pull-off, one at the same elevation of the parking lot and the one on top of the hill. ADA compliance was met since disabled visitors had a scenic overlook, and everyone else could use either overlook as they chose.

For a business, "separate but equal" facilities for ADA purposes is perfectly acceptable. Having one ADA compliant meeting room, or one ADA compliant entrance, or one ADA compliant access to the 2nd floor, is very much ok. Unless the patio in your comment provides some kind of unique service to the public, then providing access to other parts of the building should be fine when it comes to meeting ADA requirements.

Hmm, in that case how about the Burger place owner just buys one of those handicap accessible portable toilets and sticks it out back? Problem solved.


That would actually be considered a reasonable measure, as long as he didn't require users to go out in the rain, make sure it was heated, etc. IOW, the disabled-accessible facilities have to be equal to the ones used by the non-disabled.
 
2012-09-30 06:09:20 PM  

Theaetetus: fusillade762: Haven't read the whole thread, but how do places like food carts that don't even HAVE bathrooms get around this?

... because they don't even HAVE bathrooms, so they're not being discriminatory in access to them.


So they could just get rid of the bathroom. Problem solved?
 
2012-09-30 06:13:07 PM  

feckingmorons: firefly212: I agree that reasonable is the key. I don't doubt that remodeling the joint was unreasonable. That said, I think reasonable would have been to budget money for a portable toilet over the twenty some years since the ADA was enacted (even in the ten year grace period) and getting rid of the parking space by the dumpster.

But if his restaurant is in compliance, and I believe it is since it was in compliance before the law, and has not been remodeled substantially nor does it lack any other required non-ADA disability access enhancements required by law should the owner have foreseen that it could be a potential problem in 20 years? I think that is unreasonable.

Sure it would have been nice if he budget a little extra for remodeling based upon new laws, even new consumer trends, but should he budget for electric car charging stations which may be mandatory in new buildings in 2030, or rooftop parking for personal jet packs in 2040? Where do we draw the line.

I believe the guy when he says he can't afford to remodel but the would if he could (not that he is required to do so).


The ADA doesn't have a grandfathering in clause in the sense you're thinking of. It has a ten year phase in grace period, and businesses could apply for extensions if they aren't able to comply for whatever reason (they need to demonstrate undue hardship). The law has flexibility precisely for your "where do we draw the line?" question, such that courts can grant extensions, localities may determine a building is historic in nature and should not be changed, Compliance, at the 2k dollar level, wasn't sprung on them, they had ten years to budget it out, and the government offers numerous tax credits and straight subsidies to help with ADA remodeling of small businesses. It's not optional in most cases, but the law allowed him ten years to comply or ask for help, and here we are twelve years after that ten year period expired, and the guy hasn't applied for an extension because of what he says is undue hardship, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't asked for his building to be deemed a historic San Diego landmark, hasn't applied for government assistance with paying for compliance, hasn't applied for the loans the SBA gives out that cover the cost of ADA remodeling in full with less than a 2% interest rate, and is crying about how he's gonna go out of business. At some point, he needed to put forth at least a modicomb of effort into either getting into compliance (with government help) or into applying for exemption/exception... instead, he did jack shiat until it was already too late.

Neither the ADA nor the government in general is this unsympathetic monster that people make them out to be... aside from all the variances, grace periods, exceptions, exemptions, extensions, subsidies, and low-interest loans out there, there are consequences if you don't do anything. This guy failed in his stewardship of his business, you need to actively do things to keep tax licenses, occupancy permits, and a variety of other things... this idea that somehow once your business opens, you're free from the world is just as silly as you trying to equate equal access laws with jetpack parking.
 
2012-09-30 06:13:08 PM  
Scott Johnson sued a guy that ran a great little bar in the area. He ran it *from his wheelchair*.

Link

so I think we're done here on the question of good faith.
 
2012-09-30 06:17:39 PM  

Bendal: Securitywyrm: Bendal: Securitywyrm: I was injured in Iraq and need a cane to walk, and stairs hurt. That said, I think the lack of a grandfather clause for the ADA was stupid and just fed the lawyers. It quickly became about 'punishing businesses' rather than 'fixing the problem.' If an old building only has stairs, I think it's damn arrogant of me to say they should have to put in an elevator that will cost more than the business makes in a year just so that I can go to the upstairs patio.

ADA doesn't say they have to do that, though, unless that location is the ONLY place customers to that business can go to. On one of my highway projects, we wanted to build a scenic overlook on top of a hill near an interstate pull-off area. The grade to the overlook, though, was going to be very steep, up to 20% in some stretches, and to be ADA compliant the grade could not exceed 4%. Since we wanted very badly to build this overlook, we compromised and built two overlooks from this pull-off, one at the same elevation of the parking lot and the one on top of the hill. ADA compliance was met since disabled visitors had a scenic overlook, and everyone else could use either overlook as they chose.

For a business, "separate but equal" facilities for ADA purposes is perfectly acceptable. Having one ADA compliant meeting room, or one ADA compliant entrance, or one ADA compliant access to the 2nd floor, is very much ok. Unless the patio in your comment provides some kind of unique service to the public, then providing access to other parts of the building should be fine when it comes to meeting ADA requirements.

Hmm, in that case how about the Burger place owner just buys one of those handicap accessible portable toilets and sticks it out back? Problem solved.

That would actually be considered a reasonable measure, as long as he didn't require users to go out in the rain, make sure it was heated, etc. IOW, the disabled-accessible facilities have to be equal to the ones used by the ...


They don't have to be heated, and yes, you can have people go out in the rain for them. Courts ruled that "substantively equal" bathrooms meant that they were physically accessible, sanitary, and safe. Though the interior of the restroom needs to be sheltered from the elements, there is no requirement regarding the exterior. The ones here are dug out of the snow a few times a day even... some of the ones on the mountain do have a small electric heater though, but like I said before, these are at about 10,500 feet, so it's more of an anti-freezing (sanitation) measure than any kind of comfort thing... they only get to maybe about 40 degrees.
 
2012-09-30 06:33:06 PM  

Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: Gyrfalcon: Theaetetus: feckingmorons: Theaetetus: And when you get a letter, you see if he's right - just like if the cops told you to paint the lines, and you'd see if they were right - and if he is, you repaint your lines. Bam, no lawsuit. The suit was the result of his "pff, I'm not going to repaint. I mean, what are you going to do? Take me to court?"

No, he doesn't just not file suit. His letters demand damages. He is not doing this out of the kindness of his heart.

Yeah, but the thing is, if I write you a letter saying "your place is out of compliance because your parking spaces aren't painted, and I want $5000 or I'll sue you," and you write back a letter saying, "Thanks for your kind letter. We repainted the spaces this morning. Incidentally, go fark yourself," then I can't sue you. I can demand all the money I want in my letter, but if the problem is fixed by the time I file the suit, then there's no triable issue for the court.

What state do you live in? Most small-claims cases I've seen absolutely go forward even if the error is corrected in the interim. The issue is not whether the problem has been corrected, it is whether the problem existed at the time of the suit.

So if your hypothetical extortionist/lawyer took a picture of the faded lines, then it doesn't matter if the owner painted them the next week. At the time of filing, the problem existed, therefore, there IS a triable issue of fact.

Exactly. Glad we're on the same page.

Oh...gotcha.

In your hypo, the guy had not yet filed the suit when he demanded money. In mine, he had.

Changing the facts changes the outcome since the legal rule depends on the state of things at the time of filing. So, because we use different facts, we're both right.

Exactly. Glad you didn't say something stupid like a sarcastic "you're right, I'm wrong."


No, I meant it literally. Unlike some people, when I make an error, I admit it. That wasn't sarcasm.
Lighten up, Francis.

^ but that was.
 
2012-09-30 06:36:58 PM  

willfullyobscure: Scott Johnson sued a guy that ran a great little bar in the area. He ran it *from his wheelchair*.

Link

so I think we're done here on the question of good faith.


Thread over.
 
2012-09-30 06:53:37 PM  

feckingmorons: AssAsInAssassin: Satanic_Hamster: AssAsInAssassin: basemetal: I wonder if that attorney gets shown this sign a lot, because if he came in my business, I'd point it out to him and tell him to leave.

[www.genericsubject.com image 400x290]

You have no such right. Ever hear of the Civil Rights Act?

Which has what to do with this?

You can't legally refuse service to all black people.

But you CAN refuse service to Bob Smith the Attorney because of his reputation.

Sure, you CAN, but you'd be breaking the law.

Link

"LegalZoom is not a law firm and is not a substitute for an attorney or law firm," from their own site.

You can refuse service to someone based upon their behavior or reputation and you would not be breaking the law.

Don't rely on the Internet for legal advice, it is most frequently wrong.


Right. I'll take the word of some anonymous Farker over actual information with links to the sources and enough credibility to admit that they aren't a source of legal advice.

/Fine line between irony and hypocrisy.
//And you just crossed it.
 
2012-09-30 06:59:57 PM  

Infobahn: feckingmorons: Infobahn: Lived in Sacramento for a year, never heard of the place. Meh.

The ADA has been around for a very long time, suck it up owner and comply.


Yes, do exactly what you are told. There will be no dissent.


Yet people wonder why California is such an economic shiathole.

It's the Law. If you don't like it then get it changed. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, ignoring the law just means you think you are special douche.


There is an issue that the restaurant may be in compliance, the scumbag lawyer is asserting that they are not, but if the building is 50 years old they may not have to make an alterations to it. They don't have to 'do what they are told' simply because some jackass lawyer sent them a letter.

If it were that easy I'd go through a case of paper for my printer every week.
 
2012-09-30 07:12:04 PM  

firefly212: The ADA doesn't have a grandfathering in clause in the sense you're thinking of. It has a ten year phase in grace period, and businesses could apply for extensions if they aren't able to comply for whatever reason (they need to demonstrate undue hardship). The law has flexibility precisely for your "where do we draw the line?" question, such that courts can grant extensions, localities may determine a building is historic in nature and should not be changed, Compliance, at the 2k dollar level, wasn't sprung on them, they had ten years to budget it out, and the government offers numerous tax credits and straight subsidies to help with ADA remodeling of small businesses. It's not optional in most cases, but the law allowed him ten years to comply or ask for help, and here we are twelve years after that ten year period expired, and the guy hasn't applied for an extension because of what he says is undue hardship, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't asked for his building to be deemed a historic San Diego landmark, hasn't applied for government assistance with paying for compliance, hasn't applied for the loans the SBA gives out that cover the cost of ADA remodeling in full with less than a 2% interest rate, and is crying about how he's gonna go out of business. At some point, he needed to put forth at least a modicomb of effort into either getting into compliance (with government help) or into applying for exemption/exception... instead, he did jack shiat until it was already too late.


If the business can make readily achievable and that is defined in the law it must do so, adding a ramp or evening out a threshold to the bathroom if it has a raised doorway is readily achievable, altering the hallway in a 50 year old building doesn't seem to meet that definition. If there was a table in the way, removing the table would of course be reasonable.

If he updated to meet the previous less stringent rules about accessible pathways he is not required to do so again.

Yes, simply having an old building does not exempt anyone from compliance, however the reasonableness and cost of making architectural alterations must be taken into consideration.
 
2012-09-30 07:16:39 PM  
This could be used to discriminate against the jews.
 
2012-09-30 07:21:39 PM  

feckingmorons: firefly212: The ADA doesn't have a grandfathering in clause in the sense you're thinking of. It has a ten year phase in grace period, and businesses could apply for extensions if they aren't able to comply for whatever reason (they need to demonstrate undue hardship). The law has flexibility precisely for your "where do we draw the line?" question, such that courts can grant extensions, localities may determine a building is historic in nature and should not be changed, Compliance, at the 2k dollar level, wasn't sprung on them, they had ten years to budget it out, and the government offers numerous tax credits and straight subsidies to help with ADA remodeling of small businesses. It's not optional in most cases, but the law allowed him ten years to comply or ask for help, and here we are twelve years after that ten year period expired, and the guy hasn't applied for an extension because of what he says is undue hardship, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't asked for his building to be deemed a historic San Diego landmark, hasn't applied for government assistance with paying for compliance, hasn't applied for the loans the SBA gives out that cover the cost of ADA remodeling in full with less than a 2% interest rate, and is crying about how he's gonna go out of business. At some point, he needed to put forth at least a modicomb of effort into either getting into compliance (with government help) or into applying for exemption/exception... instead, he did jack shiat until it was already too late.

If the business can make readily achievable and that is defined in the law it must do so, adding a ramp or evening out a threshold to the bathroom if it has a raised doorway is readily achievable, altering the hallway in a 50 year old building doesn't seem to meet that definition. If there was a table in the way, removing the table would of course be reasonable.

If he updated to meet the previous less stringent rules about accessible pathways he is not required to do ...


As pointed out about a million times now, you're taking the most expensive option, then arguing how unreasonable it is. He could have gotten an ADA accessible port-a-potty on the cheap and been fully in compliance. I'm not sure how many subsidies he would have qualified for had he actually tried, so I can't speak to what the cost would have been to him to remodel... I can intelligently speak to the minimum cost of coming into compliance, which would have been to either purchase a portable toilet, or rent one (the one we rent from Waste Management for our building is 100 bucks a month including pumping/service).
 
2012-09-30 07:23:00 PM  

drewogatory: willfullyobscure: Scott Johnson sued a guy that ran a great little bar in the area. He ran it *from his wheelchair*.

Link

so I think we're done here on the question of good faith.

Thread over.


I would have loved to see that bar owner fight it, wheel up to the judge's bench and say, "Hey, I do just fine in my place, I think if I can hack it, it's good enough." But of course, the quick buck was made. Was easier to shut this dickstain up than to fight him in court.
 
2012-09-30 07:36:31 PM  
I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever other completely ignorant idea you have about it personally experience a handicap that requires a wheelchair... either you or someone you love. I guaran-farking-tee you that you will flip your opinion right away after you've personally experienced the extreme inconvenience and outright insult of not having the same access to venues and services that able-bodied people take for granted.

Oh and BTW, for everyone biatching specifically about how this lawyer has made a living off of ADA suite, you idiots don't farking get it. It's okay, it's not your fault that you are ignorant, but let me go ahead and try to educate you. There is no enforcement authority for the ADA. There aren't ADA inspectors going around to businesses to ensure that they are up to spec. The ADA specifically places that burden on the class of citizens that it seeks to protect. In other words, it is up to disabled people to make sure businesses are in compliance with the ADA, and our only means of redress for that is through the court system. It does not matter one bit that this guy may never even patronize some of the businesses he sues. The point is he is taking a stand and making them comply with FEDERAL LAW in the exact manner that was designed into that law in the first place. He's actually doing things right, and you able-bodied jackasses are just jealous that you can't take advantage of what you perceive as a way to make a living without really working... even though it actually is a full-time job to do what this guy does.

Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violation. Then you have to give them 90 days to either fix the problem or at least take steps toward a resolution BEFORE you can take them to court. Getting a court date usually takes at least another 90 days, in which time the business can correct the violation and have the case dismissed. That SIX FARKING MONTHS people! The law has been on the books for nearly 23 years. So tell me, able-bodied idiots, what's the real reason you think this guy should be stopped or is just being a jerk because he can make money at it? Go on, those of us who are actually affected by the ADA would like to know....
 
2012-09-30 07:39:03 PM  

Saberus Terras: drewogatory: willfullyobscure: Scott Johnson sued a guy that ran a great little bar in the area. He ran it *from his wheelchair*.

Link

so I think we're done here on the question of good faith.

Thread over.

I would have loved to see that bar owner fight it, wheel up to the judge's bench and say, "Hey, I do just fine in my place, I think if I can hack it, it's good enough." But of course, the quick buck was made. Was easier to shut this dickstain up than to fight him in court.


***

See and this is where you show how much of a dumbass you are. THE LAW does not care about how well the owner can negotiate his establishment, and neither would a judge. Jesus, do they let you drive or own firearms where you live? If so, that's freaking scary.
 
2012-09-30 07:42:14 PM  
Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it seems to me that quaddy Johnson is bitter about his disability.

/get over it and stop taking it out on the rest of us
 
2012-09-30 07:45:58 PM  

feckingmorons: Infobahn: feckingmorons: Infobahn: Lived in Sacramento for a year, never heard of the place. Meh.

The ADA has been around for a very long time, suck it up owner and comply.


Yes, do exactly what you are told. There will be no dissent.


Yet people wonder why California is such an economic shiathole.

It's the Law. If you don't like it then get it changed. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, ignoring the law just means you think you are special douche.

There is an issue that the restaurant may be in compliance, the scumbag lawyer is asserting that they are not, but if the building is 50 years old they may not have to make an alterations to it. They don't have to 'do what they are told' simply because some jackass lawyer sent them a letter.


No they don't. If they believe they have a defense, they can seek redress through the court system. Granted, with ADA cases they will almost always lose because ADA requirements are pretty cut-and-dried, but this owner COULD HAVE gone to court. He chose not to, and that is his folly, just like it was his folly to not correct the ADA violations in his establishment 10 years ago when the economy was much better.

Look, I've read your posts in this thread and I get that you're playing devil's advocate & all, but you are on the wrong side of this and you know it. Tell me, what exactly makes the lawyer who is taking it upon himself to ensure that businesses are complying with the ADA a "scumbag?" What is it exactly? Is it because he's actually calling businesses out on their violations of a 23 year-old law? You do realize that there aren't "ADA Cops" running around, and that it is actually up to disabled people to take exactly the kind of action this lawyer is to ensure that businesses comply with the law, right? So tell me EXACTLY what is it that makes this guy a "scumbag" in your mind?
 
2012-09-30 07:48:25 PM  

Betep: What can you do?
I'm going to fill in the swimming pool at work because it would cost $5,000 for a Wheelchair Lift. I can think of 5 guests in wheelchairs in the last 10 years. 3 were old and happy to play shuffleboard. 1 was an Uber-Athlete that could have followed me up the stairs and kicked my ass. 2 were profoundly handicapped kids that would have been called "Bob" if they got in the pool.

/Fill it in
//use the ocean



www.transitionsmobility.com

I had never heard of such a thing.... I'm stunned. I mean only a small portion of disabled persons would be able to make good, safe use of the pool without assistance. If they had assistance, they could use it to get into the pool.

It looks alarmingly awkward and its own liability lawsuit waiting to happen. If anything went wrong the handicapped person could easily drown, the whole goal here seems to being unassisted.
 
2012-09-30 07:50:14 PM  

germ78: Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but it seems to me that quaddy Johnson is bitter about his disability.

/get over it and stop taking it out on the rest of us


Yeah, you're an idiot, and he isn't "taking it out" on anybody. He's doing what the ADA calls for disabled people to do when they learn of a business that is not in compliance with the ADA. Most disabled folks who live in a state of learned dependence do not have the will to actually call businesses out when they come across ADA violations.... kinda like how most Afghans don't have the will to expose the criminal terrorists that they are aware of in their villages. It is the same damn thing, dumbass. This lawyer is making people comply with the law, but because able-bodied trash like you likes to view disabled people as less worthy of the same rights and dignity as you, it seems perfectly reasonable to deride him and impeach his character... and that is what makes you a douchebag.
 
2012-09-30 07:55:50 PM  
So tell me EXACTLY what is it that makes this guy a "scumbag" in your mind?

Because he's nothing more than an extortionist gaming the system? You just need to shut the fark up if you haven't had to deal with this reprehensible piece of human scum face to face. If he's doing such a farking service how come no other handicapped individual seems to have enough of an issue with these businesses to file suit on their own? Because he isn't going after gross violators, he's cherry picking minor infractions counting on the fact it's just easier to pay him a few thousand than fight over the fact that the goddamn handrail is an inch too high or low. He's doing nothing for the vast majority of handicapped by doing this, since 99% probably don't give a rats ass if the lightswitch is farking 36 or 46 goddamn inches as long as they can reach it.
 
2012-09-30 08:05:41 PM  

2words1finger: I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever other completely ignorant idea you have about it personally experience a handicap that requires a wheelchair... either you or someone you love. I guaran-farking-tee you that you will flip your opinion right away after you've personally experienced the extreme inconvenience and outright insult of not having the same access to venues and services that able-bodied people take for granted.

Oh and BTW, for everyone biatching specifically about how this lawyer has made a living off of ADA suite, you idiots don't farking get it. It's okay, it's not your fault that you are ignorant, but let me go ahead and try to educate you. There is no enforcement authority for the ADA. There aren't ADA inspectors going around to businesses to ensure that they are up to spec. The ADA specifically places that burden on the class of citizens that it seeks to protect. In other words, it is up to disabled people to make sure businesses are in compliance with the ADA, and our only means of redress for that is through the court system. It does not matter one bit that this guy may never even patronize some of the businesses he sues. The point is he is taking a stand and making them comply with FEDERAL LAW in the exact manner that was designed into that law in the first place. He's actually doing things right, and you able-bodied jackasses are just jealous that you can't take advantage of what you perceive as a way to make a living without really working... even though it actually is a full-time job to do what this guy does.

Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violation. Then you have to giv ...


So, you would rather see a business that cannot afford to be ADA compliant shut down?
 
2012-09-30 08:10:00 PM  

Oznog: Betep: What can you do?
I'm going to fill in the swimming pool at work because it would cost $5,000 for a Wheelchair Lift. I can think of 5 guests in wheelchairs in the last 10 years. 3 were old and happy to play shuffleboard. 1 was an Uber-Athlete that could have followed me up the stairs and kicked my ass. 2 were profoundly handicapped kids that would have been called "Bob" if they got in the pool.

/Fill it in
//use the ocean


[www.transitionsmobility.com image 487x325]

I had never heard of such a thing.... I'm stunned. I mean only a small portion of disabled persons would be able to make good, safe use of the pool without assistance. If they had assistance, they could use it to get into the pool.

It looks alarmingly awkward and its own liability lawsuit waiting to happen. If anything went wrong the handicapped person could easily drown, the whole goal here seems to being unassisted.


The only place I've seen those lifts is in pools that offer rehab... pools are pretty awesome for rehab btw... if you ever have to re-learn to walk, it's a pretty spiff way to do it b/c your weight is more manageable. That said, 2010 was the first year the government put out guidelines for accessibility of pools (http://www.ada.gov/pools_2010.htm) , that said, they were clear about grandfathering in changes "When structural changes are made to existing pools, including installation of a fixed pool lift, the changes must comply with the 2010 Standards. If a public entity chooses to acquire equipment (e.g., a portable lift) to provide program accessibility, the entity should select equipment that includes features required by the 2010 Standards, including independent operation by individuals with disabilities. ". In short, if you fill in your pool because you believe what the internet says about the ADA, instead of actually doing your homework, you're a moron.
 
2012-09-30 08:14:48 PM  

firefly212: As pointed out about a million times now, you're taking the most expensive option, then arguing how unreasonable it is. He could have gotten an ADA accessible port-a-potty on the cheap and been fully in compliance. I'm not sure how many subsidies he would have qualified for had he actually tried, so I can't speak to what the cost would have been to him to remodel... I can intelligently speak to the minimum cost of coming into compliance, which would have been to either purchase a portable toilet, or rent one (the one we rent from Waste Management for our building is 100 bucks a month including pumping/service).


Apparently his business was circling the bowl as it is, renting a portapot was out of reach. Even if it wasn't the scumbag lawyer helps nobody other than himself.

Should restaurants be accessible for their customers simply because it is good business, you bet. I think that is the impetus behind most architectural barrier removals, not to comply with the ADA but because it is good business. Can they all afford to, unfortunately no. I bought a taqueria this year and one week we had a profit of $47. Yep after all expenses were paid I had forty seven bucks. Sure it is better now, but restaurants run on a thin margin.
 
2012-09-30 08:15:33 PM  
Solution: all those "hamburger fans" pony up the dough through donations to help the owner fix the building.
Problem solved.

My question is... why didn't the owner try to make the building compliant before this quadraplegic lawyer guy showed up on his own? How long has he owned the building? Didn't the owner think about this crap when they bought the place? And if the same people have owned it for 50 years, didn't they think this might be an issue, say, 22 years ago when the ADA was enacted? 22 years isn't enough time to get things fixed?

I would feel bad for him if this law went into effect yesterday or even five years ago, but c'mon people! If you open a business to the public handicap accessibility is most definitely on your "to do" list and marked in red, no matter what building you're in.
 
2012-09-30 08:16:11 PM  

Mock26: 2words1finger: I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever other completely ignorant idea you have about it personally experience a handicap that requires a wheelchair... either you or someone you love. I guaran-farking-tee you that you will flip your opinion right away after you've personally experienced the extreme inconvenience and outright insult of not having the same access to venues and services that able-bodied people take for granted.

Oh and BTW, for everyone biatching specifically about how this lawyer has made a living off of ADA suite, you idiots don't farking get it. It's okay, it's not your fault that you are ignorant, but let me go ahead and try to educate you. There is no enforcement authority for the ADA. There aren't ADA inspectors going around to businesses to ensure that they are up to spec. The ADA specifically places that burden on the class of citizens that it seeks to protect. In other words, it is up to disabled people to make sure businesses are in compliance with the ADA, and our only means of redress for that is through the court system. It does not matter one bit that this guy may never even patronize some of the businesses he sues. The point is he is taking a stand and making them comply with FEDERAL LAW in the exact manner that was designed into that law in the first place. He's actually doing things right, and you able-bodied jackasses are just jealous that you can't take advantage of what you perceive as a way to make a living without really working... even though it actually is a full-time job to do what this guy does.

Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violation. Then ...


You know what, 23 years out, if the business can demonstrate that even with the tax credits, state subsidies, sections 190 and 44 of the tax code, and the SBA 1% interest loans, that they can't afford it... then we could have a talk... but if a business simply fails to put forth any effort to either comply or get an exemption/extension, ya, fark em.
 
2012-09-30 08:23:24 PM  

feckingmorons: firefly212: As pointed out about a million times now, you're taking the most expensive option, then arguing how unreasonable it is. He could have gotten an ADA accessible port-a-potty on the cheap and been fully in compliance. I'm not sure how many subsidies he would have qualified for had he actually tried, so I can't speak to what the cost would have been to him to remodel... I can intelligently speak to the minimum cost of coming into compliance, which would have been to either purchase a portable toilet, or rent one (the one we rent from Waste Management for our building is 100 bucks a month including pumping/service).

Apparently his business was circling the bowl as it is, renting a portapot was out of reach. Even if it wasn't the scumbag lawyer helps nobody other than himself.

Should restaurants be accessible for their customers simply because it is good business, you bet. I think that is the impetus behind most architectural barrier removals, not to comply with the ADA but because it is good business. Can they all afford to, unfortunately no. I bought a taqueria this year and one week we had a profit of $47. Yep after all expenses were paid I had forty seven bucks. Sure it is better now, but restaurants run on a thin margin.


If your business cant scrape together 2k to purchase a porta potty over twenty two years, the ADA isn't the problem.

I mean, seriously... how long would you keep that taqueria if you were only making 47 bucks a week every week?

I strongly advocate the SBA loan program and the tax credits to offset these costs, and ya, if this guy had applied and not gotten approved, or if the amount approved was far less than the cost of remodelling, or if he had tried to get his shack declared a historic landmark, but failed... then this would all be relevant conversation... but this guy didn't try to do anything to either get compliant or get an exemption... he sat around with his thumb up his ass and ignored relevant regulations... surely as a business owner (mine doesn't involve food), you know that at the very least, you need to just write to the government and either ask for help or tell them what's going on if you're in a state of non-compliance. The world isn't out to get small business owners, it has been my experience much to the contrary, government will help you at many steps along the way, from free tax classes to all kinds of connections with how to write a proper business plan and other things. This guy chose not to avail himself of any of the options provided to him, and now he wants everyone to feel bad for him. Being a small business owner means working harder, and for less pay than anyone else... this guy didn't want to do the work, and now he doesn't have the business.
 
2012-09-30 08:25:27 PM  

2words1finger: Yeah, you're an idiot, and he isn't "taking it out" on anybody. He's doing what the ADA calls for disabled people to do when they learn of a business that is not in compliance with the ADA.


Where does the ADA call for disabled people to inspect and sue places they don't frequent. The ADA does not appoint him as inspector general.

You do know this guy says he makes a 'good living' suing small businesses for technical violations of voluminous regulations.

My expertise is tax law. If the IRS said I could demand $4K from everyone who makes a mistake on their taxes, even if it was simply transposing two digits in the cents column (or improper rounding) then I would be a millionaire in a month or two.

California has a terrible law that allows this to happen, legislation has been proposed and shot down by legislators bankrolled by trial attorney lobbyists.

Sen, Feinstein has even called upon state officials to end this. This scumbag lawyer is not the only one, in fact he is not the worst. Mr. Frankovich is worse.

Califorinia's Unruh act is why most of the ADA suits are filed by California lawyers, they can profit at small business expense. Rather than just curing the defect they are sucked dry by these lawyers.
 
2012-09-30 08:29:24 PM  

firefly212: I mean, seriously... how long would you keep that taqueria if you were only making 47 bucks a week every week?


Well, a profit is better than a loss. Employing six people and paying all the bills and still having a profit the first week seems pretty good to me.

Why should the guy get a tax break or a government guaranteed loan. Let the guy run his business himself - it seems he doesn't make a lot of money. It could be the economy, it could be because he is just a bad businessman, it could be because his food sucks.

That said, the ADA is a good law that does not actually impose undue burdens on the vast majority of businesses. California's companion is a terrible law that does.
 
2012-09-30 08:30:28 PM  
Buy a ADA complaint port-a-john and stick put it in the parking lot next to the handicapped stall. Ta Da!
 
2012-09-30 08:35:50 PM  

feckingmorons: 2words1finger: Yeah, you're an idiot, and he isn't "taking it out" on anybody. He's doing what the ADA calls for disabled people to do when they learn of a business that is not in compliance with the ADA.

Where does the ADA call for disabled people to inspect and sue places they don't frequent. The ADA does not appoint him as inspector general.

You do know this guy says he makes a 'good living' suing small businesses for technical violations of voluminous regulations.

My expertise is tax law. If the IRS said I could demand $4K from everyone who makes a mistake on their taxes, even if it was simply transposing two digits in the cents column (or improper rounding) then I would be a millionaire in a month or two.

California has a terrible law that allows this to happen, legislation has been proposed and shot down by legislators bankrolled by trial attorney lobbyists.

Sen, Feinstein has even called upon state officials to end this. This scumbag lawyer is not the only one, in fact he is not the worst. Mr. Frankovich is worse.

Califorinia's Unruh act is why most of the ADA suits are filed by California lawyers, they can profit at small business expense. Rather than just curing the defect they are sucked dry by these lawyers.


On this much, we agree...

The ADA was structured so that people who were actually wronged by businesses failure to comply would have a means of redress. IMO, this scuzzbag lawyer wasn't actually wronged by many of the thousand plus businesses he has sued. As a single guy with no prospects, him suing wedding dress places for having aisles too narrow was a joke, his lawsuit against the wheelchair-bound barkeep had absolutely nothing to do with him being denied any kind of reasonable accommodation. The problem here is neither the ADA nor the business, it's the lack of tort reform that makes it easier for scumbag lawyers to sue good-intentioned people because they aren't at risk of losing anything if the people fight... it so heavily defers towards settlements over trials that small businesses are being used as cash cows for ligitious jackasses.

I've been in businesses that actually struggled for ADA compliance and couldn't clear some hurdles... nobody sued the 150 year old copy shop I worked at (bottom of a brownstone in brooklyn) because the ramp was such that we had to send an associate out to push every wheelchair bound customer up. Nobody sued because the counters were too high (we would just go around to their side of the counter). Nobody sued because their pet allergies were offended by the bunny rabbits in the window.

The ADA was made so that disabled people wouldn't get screwed (like when my former employer took my stool away because they found out I actually needed it), not so that every little frivolity was enough to run a business under. Guys like him, running around and collecting tens of thousands of dollars because mirrors are three inches higher than they should be, or toilets are half an inch lower than they should be... that's just abusing the system and making everyone else look bad... all while not actually helping anyone.
 
2012-09-30 08:38:28 PM  

firefly212: The ADA was made so that disabled people wouldn't get screwed (like when my former employer took my stool away because they found out I actually needed it), not so that every little frivolity was enough to run a business under. Guys like him, running around and collecting tens of thousands of dollars because mirrors are three inches higher than they should be, or toilets are half an inch lower than they should be... that's just abusing the system and making everyone else look bad... all while not actually helping anyone.


Yes we do agree. Using the ADA to help people is great, using it (and Unruh) to enrich oneself is vulgar.
 
2012-09-30 08:42:08 PM  

KrispyKritter:
somewhere along the way 'majority rules' ceased to exist.

That's because we figured out a while ago that "the majority" are frequently assholes, especially if they're not affected by the issue being brought up. You can walk and use all your limbs? Screw handicap accessibility! Just put some carpet down so they can crawl in!

That's why we have anti-discrimination laws, so the occasional assholiness of the majority doesn't adversely affect the minority. "Majority rules" is for cavemen.
 
2012-09-30 08:43:22 PM  

firefly212: Oznog: Betep: What can you do?
I'm going to fill in the swimming pool at work because it would cost $5,000 for a Wheelchair Lift. I can think of 5 guests in wheelchairs in the last 10 years. 3 were old and happy to play shuffleboard. 1 was an Uber-Athlete that could have followed me up the stairs and kicked my ass. 2 were profoundly handicapped kids that would have been called "Bob" if they got in the pool.

/Fill it in
//use the ocean


[www.transitionsmobility.com image 487x325]

I had never heard of such a thing.... I'm stunned. I mean only a small portion of disabled persons would be able to make good, safe use of the pool without assistance. If they had assistance, they could use it to get into the pool.

It looks alarmingly awkward and its own liability lawsuit waiting to happen. If anything went wrong the handicapped person could easily drown, the whole goal here seems to being unassisted.

The only place I've seen those lifts is in pools that offer rehab... pools are pretty awesome for rehab btw... if you ever have to re-learn to walk, it's a pretty spiff way to do it b/c your weight is more manageable. That said, 2010 was the first year the government put out guidelines for accessibility of pools (http://www.ada.gov/pools_2010.htm) , that said, they were clear about grandfathering in changes "When structural changes are made to existing pools, including installation of a fixed pool lift, the changes must comply with the 2010 Standards. If a public entity chooses to acquire equipment (e.g., a portable lift) to provide program accessibility, the entity should select equipment that includes features required by the 2010 Standards, including independent operation by individuals with disabilities. ". In short, if you fill in your pool because you believe what the internet says about the ADA, instead of actually doing your homework, you're a moron.


Nope. The letter from the Health Department is posted by my desk. Every hotel/motel I've talked to got the same letter.
(paraphrase): No lift, no pool permit.

/Grandpa doesn't work in Massachusetts.
 
2012-09-30 08:43:43 PM  

feckingmorons: firefly212: I mean, seriously... how long would you keep that taqueria if you were only making 47 bucks a week every week?

Well, a profit is better than a loss. Employing six people and paying all the bills and still having a profit the first week seems pretty good to me.

Why should the guy get a tax break or a government guaranteed loan. Let the guy run his business himself - it seems he doesn't make a lot of money. It could be the economy, it could be because he is just a bad businessman, it could be because his food sucks.

That said, the ADA is a good law that does not actually impose undue burdens on the vast majority of businesses. California's companion is a terrible law that does.


If you're talking about Unduh, we're in agreement... it so badly warps costs that it's almost always preferable to settle instead of go to trial, there's zero chance of a defendant getting reimbursed if they win their case, and the Unduh standard for "substantial deviation" from disabled standards is so ridiculous that there have actually been court cases over toilets a half an inch too low (by this same lawyer, no less).

As for the 47 bucks a week, sure, profit is good... but if you're only making 47 bucks a week as a store owner, you're making far below minimum wage, you'd do better working at someone elses restaurants. Though I'm glad there only was one week that his profits were so low, if they were like that every week, I can assure you that he'd most likely not be doing all the work of store ownership for 22 years if things didn't pick up some.

Why should he get a tax credit to cover some of the cost of ADA renovations? Because that seems fair, it motivates him to make renovations that make the place easier for everyone to use. Why do the SBA loan? Because if you're going to remodel, you might as well wrap it all in ADA compliance and get the best deal you'll ever get on making your business a nicer place. Also, the more we incentivize people to do things like this, the more they make their stores nicer (property value), the easier things get for our aging population, and the more jobs we can help subsidize the creation of in the construction industry.
 
2012-09-30 08:45:52 PM  

Betep: firefly212: Oznog: Betep: What can you do?
I'm going to fill in the swimming pool at work because it would cost $5,000 for a Wheelchair Lift. I can think of 5 guests in wheelchairs in the last 10 years. 3 were old and happy to play shuffleboard. 1 was an Uber-Athlete that could have followed me up the stairs and kicked my ass. 2 were profoundly handicapped kids that would have been called "Bob" if they got in the pool.

/Fill it in
//use the ocean


[www.transitionsmobility.com image 487x325]

I had never heard of such a thing.... I'm stunned. I mean only a small portion of disabled persons would be able to make good, safe use of the pool without assistance. If they had assistance, they could use it to get into the pool.

It looks alarmingly awkward and its own liability lawsuit waiting to happen. If anything went wrong the handicapped person could easily drown, the whole goal here seems to being unassisted.

The only place I've seen those lifts is in pools that offer rehab... pools are pretty awesome for rehab btw... if you ever have to re-learn to walk, it's a pretty spiff way to do it b/c your weight is more manageable. That said, 2010 was the first year the government put out guidelines for accessibility of pools (http://www.ada.gov/pools_2010.htm) , that said, they were clear about grandfathering in changes "When structural changes are made to existing pools, including installation of a fixed pool lift, the changes must comply with the 2010 Standards. If a public entity chooses to acquire equipment (e.g., a portable lift) to provide program accessibility, the entity should select equipment that includes features required by the 2010 Standards, including independent operation by individuals with disabilities. ". In short, if you fill in your pool because you believe what the internet says about the ADA, instead of actually doing your homework, you're a moron.

Nope. The letter from the Health Department is posted by my desk. Every hotel/motel I've talked to ...


Weird, must be a state by state thing... my pool here (I live in a hotel) doesn't have any such wacky contraptions. There is a sign by a phone saying that if you would like help with entering/exiting the pool to pick up the phone and someone will arrive to help you in and remain while you swim to help you exit... but that's it.
 
2012-09-30 08:49:55 PM  

firefly212: There is a sign by a phone saying that if you would like help with entering/exiting the pool to pick up the phone and someone will arrive to help you in and remain while you swim to help you exit... but that's it.


That probably meets the reasonable accommodations test. The state does not enforce the ADA, but it may have some state regulations that require the lift, but I bet there is an appeal or alternate method of compliance.

A good lawyer will happily bill you to help you find out.
 
2012-09-30 08:54:51 PM  

firefly212: Why should he get a tax credit to cover some of the cost of ADA renovations? Because that seems fair, it motivates him to make renovations that make the place easier for everyone to use. Why do the SBA loan? Because if you're going to remodel, you might as well wrap it all in ADA compliance and get the best deal you'll ever get on making your business a nicer place. Also, the more we incentivize people to do things like this, the more they make their stores nicer (property value), the easier things get for our aging population, and the more jobs we can help subsidize the creation of in the construction industry.


I'm of the philosophy that you should not rely on the government for business capital. Of course I'll take any tax credits I can get, heck who wouldn't - although people get their knickers in a twist when rich people do it.

I never had and SBA loan, but then again I never felt like jumping through those hoops. I've always leveraged personal assets either directly or as security for any business loans that needed it.

Some days the 47 bucks a week and free meals sounds a lot better than going to the meetings I have to go to.

/spent a lot of money first few weeks remodeling a bit
// you could drive a truck into our johns
/// were in Florida lots of large people need the room
 
2012-09-30 09:22:29 PM  

Mock26: 2words1finger: I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever other completely ignorant idea you have about it personally experience a handicap that requires a wheelchair... either you or someone you love. I guaran-farking-tee you that you will flip your opinion right away after you've personally experienced the extreme inconvenience and outright insult of not having the same access to venues and services that able-bodied people take for granted.

Oh and BTW, for everyone biatching specifically about how this lawyer has made a living off of ADA suite, you idiots don't farking get it. It's okay, it's not your fault that you are ignorant, but let me go ahead and try to educate you. There is no enforcement authority for the ADA. There aren't ADA inspectors going around to businesses to ensure that they are up to spec. The ADA specifically places that burden on the class of citizens that it seeks to protect. In other words, it is up to disabled people to make sure businesses are in compliance with the ADA, and our only means of redress for that is through the court system. It does not matter one bit that this guy may never even patronize some of the businesses he sues. The point is he is taking a stand and making them comply with FEDERAL LAW in the exact manner that was designed into that law in the first place. He's actually doing things right, and you able-bodied jackasses are just jealous that you can't take advantage of what you perceive as a way to make a living without really working... even though it actually is a full-time job to do what this guy does.

Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violation. Then ...

So, you would rather see a business that cannot afford to be ADA compliant shut down?


Ahhh, so by your philosophy it should be acceptable for businesses to simply ignore any laws that are inconvenient to them. Okay, that's fair. In that case I think that I'll open a restaurant that has a filthy kitchen, because it can be pretty expensive to pay my kitchen staff for the time it takes them to clean it and ensure that it can pass health inspections. I think that I'll neglect to install a fire suppression system as well, because those are pretty darn expensive too... do you see where this is going? It is called "personal responsibility", perhaps you've heard of it. If, as a business owner, you cannot afford to follow all of the laws that your business is bound to, then yes, you go out of business. That's how it works, bucko.
 
2012-09-30 09:31:04 PM  

2words1finger: Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violation.


You're wrong.

Registered mail is for articles of value, You are probably thinking of certified mail.
 
2012-09-30 09:32:45 PM  

2words1finger: Mock26: 2words1finger: I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever other completely ignorant idea you have about it personally experience a handicap that requires a wheelchair... either you or someone you love. I guaran-farking-tee you that you will flip your opinion right away after you've personally experienced the extreme inconvenience and outright insult of not having the same access to venues and services that able-bodied people take for granted.

Oh and BTW, for everyone biatching specifically about how this lawyer has made a living off of ADA suite, you idiots don't farking get it. It's okay, it's not your fault that you are ignorant, but let me go ahead and try to educate you. There is no enforcement authority for the ADA. There aren't ADA inspectors going around to businesses to ensure that they are up to spec. The ADA specifically places that burden on the class of citizens that it seeks to protect. In other words, it is up to disabled people to make sure businesses are in compliance with the ADA, and our only means of redress for that is through the court system. It does not matter one bit that this guy may never even patronize some of the businesses he sues. The point is he is taking a stand and making them comply with FEDERAL LAW in the exact manner that was designed into that law in the first place. He's actually doing things right, and you able-bodied jackasses are just jealous that you can't take advantage of what you perceive as a way to make a living without really working... even though it actually is a full-time job to do what this guy does.


Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violation. Then ...

So, you would rather see a business that cannot afford to be ADA compliant shut down?

Ahhh, so by your philosophy it should be acceptable for businesses to simply ignore any laws that are inconvenient to them. Okay, that's fair. In that case I think that I'll open a restaurant that has a filthy kitchen, because it can be pretty expensive to pay my kitchen staff for the time it takes them to clean it and ensure that it can pass health inspections. I think that I'll neglect to install a fire suppression system as well, because those are pretty darn expensive too... do you see where this is going? It is called "personal responsibility", perhaps you've heard of it. If, as a business owner, you cannot afford to follow all of the laws that your business is bound to, then yes, you go out of business. That's how it works, bucko.


Reductio ad absurdum.
 
2012-09-30 09:33:18 PM  
Azlefty:

2. He makes a whole 5K off these lawsuits- ADA is a damage limited claim

So six people lose their jobs and a restaurant owner is forced to close for $5000? Yeah, that makes sense.

No wonder Penn&Teller did an episode on ADA.
 
2012-09-30 09:37:21 PM  

2words1finger: feckingmorons: Infobahn: feckingmorons: Infobahn: Lived in Sacramento for a year, never heard of the place. Meh.

The ADA has been around for a very long time, suck it up owner and comply.


Yes, do exactly what you are told. There will be no dissent.


Yet people wonder why California is such an economic shiathole.

It's the Law. If you don't like it then get it changed. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse, ignoring the law just means you think you are special douche.

There is an issue that the restaurant may be in compliance, the scumbag lawyer is asserting that they are not, but if the building is 50 years old they may not have to make an alterations to it. They don't have to 'do what they are told' simply because some jackass lawyer sent them a letter.

No they don't. If they believe they have a defense, they can seek redress through the court system. Granted, with ADA cases they will almost always lose because ADA requirements are pretty cut-and-dried, but this owner COULD HAVE gone to court. He chose not to, and that is his folly, just like it was his folly to not correct the ADA violations in his establishment 10 years ago when the economy was much better.

Look, I've read your posts in this thread and I get that you're playing devil's advocate & all, but you are on the wrong side of this and you know it. Tell me, what exactly makes the lawyer who is taking it upon himself to ensure that businesses are complying with the ADA a "scumbag?" What is it exactly? Is it because he's actually calling businesses out on their violations of a 23 year-old law? You do realize that there aren't "ADA Cops" running around, and that it is actually up to disabled people to take exactly the kind of action this lawyer is to ensure that businesses comply with the law, right? So tell me EXACTLY what is it that makes this guy a "scumbag" in your mind?


The fact that his initial demand letters include an offer to settle monetarily prior to court actions being filed? That's extortion...not activism, and it works against everything the ADA is meant to do; improve quality of life for disabled people.
 
2012-09-30 09:39:04 PM  

2words1finger: Ahhh, so by your philosophy it should be acceptable for businesses to simply ignore any laws that are inconvenient to them. Okay, that's fair. In that case I think that I'll open a restaurant that has a filthy kitchen, because it can be pretty expensive to pay my kitchen staff for the time it takes them to clean it and ensure that it can pass health inspections. I think that I'll neglect to install a fire suppression system as well, because those are pretty darn expensive too... do you see where this is going? It is called "personal responsibility", perhaps you've heard of it. If, as a business owner, you cannot afford to follow all of the laws that your business is bound to, then yes, you go out of business. That's how it works, bucko.


Filthy kitchens and no fire precautions puts people in danger.

Nobody's forcing people in wheelchairs to eat there. They're free to vote with their wallets. They can even open restaurants with access ramps and no chairs at the tables if they want to.
 
2012-09-30 09:39:09 PM  

2words1finger: I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever other completely ignorant idea you have about it personally experience a handicap that requires a wheelchair... either you or someone you love. I guaran-farking-tee you that you will flip your opinion right away after you've personally experienced the extreme inconvenience and outright insult of not having the same access to venues and services that able-bodied people take for granted.

Oh and BTW, for everyone biatching specifically about how this lawyer has made a living off of ADA suite, you idiots don't farking get it. It's okay, it's not your fault that you are ignorant, but let me go ahead and try to educate you. There is no enforcement authority for the ADA. There aren't ADA inspectors going around to businesses to ensure that they are up to spec. The ADA specifically places that burden on the class of citizens that it seeks to protect. In other words, it is up to disabled people to make sure businesses are in compliance with the ADA, and our only means of redress for that is through the court system. It does not matter one bit that this guy may never even patronize some of the businesses he sues. The point is he is taking a stand and making them comply with FEDERAL LAW in the exact manner that was designed into that law in the first place. He's actually doing things right, and you able-bodied jackasses are just jealous that you can't take advantage of what you perceive as a way to make a living without really working... even though it actually is a full-time job to do what this guy does.

Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violation. Then you have to giv ...


Did you read any of these other articles posted?

He is not making sure ALL the businesses comply. He is happily taking settlements for his personal "damages" and letting people off the hook until the next the next troll comes along with a tape measure. And I've recently buried two wheelchair bound loved ones who never would have ruined soveones life over taking a piss in a mom and pop joint.
 
2012-09-30 09:40:16 PM  

FF Mac: The fact that his initial demand letters include an offer to settle monetarily prior to court actions being filed?


Settle monetarily with him, personally.

Amirite?
 
2012-09-30 09:42:41 PM  

firefly212: feckingmorons: 2words1finger: Yeah, you're an idiot, and he isn't "taking it out" on anybody. He's doing what the ADA calls for disabled people to do when they learn of a business that is not in compliance with the ADA.

Where does the ADA call for disabled people to inspect and sue places they don't frequent. The ADA does not appoint him as inspector general.

You do know this guy says he makes a 'good living' suing small businesses for technical violations of voluminous regulations.

My expertise is tax law. If the IRS said I could demand $4K from everyone who makes a mistake on their taxes, even if it was simply transposing two digits in the cents column (or improper rounding) then I would be a millionaire in a month or two.

California has a terrible law that allows this to happen, legislation has been proposed and shot down by legislators bankrolled by trial attorney lobbyists.

Sen, Feinstein has even called upon state officials to end this. This scumbag lawyer is not the only one, in fact he is not the worst. Mr. Frankovich is worse.

Califorinia's Unruh act is why most of the ADA suits are filed by California lawyers, they can profit at small business expense. Rather than just curing the defect they are sucked dry by these lawyers.

On this much, we agree...

The ADA was structured so that people who were actually wronged by businesses failure to comply would have a means of redress. IMO, this scuzzbag lawyer wasn't actually wronged by many of the thousand plus businesses he has sued. As a single guy with no prospects, him suing wedding dress places for having aisles too narrow was a joke, his lawsuit against the wheelchair-bound barkeep had absolutely nothing to do with him being denied any kind of reasonable accommodation. The problem here is neither the ADA nor the business, it's the lack of tort reform that makes it easier for scumbag lawyers to sue good-intentioned people because they aren't at risk of losing anything if the people fight... it so ...


Okay, so entities should not be held to the letter of the law, is that what you're saying? Perhaps we should retool the ADA to say that unless a particular business experiences a customer base of whom at least 10% are disabled (that's just an arbitrary number pulled off the top of my head BTW), they they can give a big 'ol middle finger to accessibility requirements because hey, it's not like a bunch of cripples are patronizing it anyway, right? Let those gimps shop at their own stores where decent folks don't have to see them, because seeing disabled people makes folks uncomfortable, and when folks are uncomfortable they don't spend as much money.

You just don't get it, and that's because you've never experienced going into a store and not being able to get around because they cram so much crap into a tiny space. You've never experienced going out to a restaurant and needing to use the restroom only to find out that there is a step up to the door, and that it wouldn't matter if someone did offer to assist you over that step because the door is only 28 inches wide (far too narrow for a wheelchair). Perhaps if someone had come along and made that restaurant owner comply with the ADA before I patronized his business, I would not have had to suffer the indignity of having to choose between cutting my evening short or risking soiling myself. Have YOU ever had to make that kind of choice? Y'see, it's not about whether this specific person or that specific person has been wronged, and that is the primary misunderstanding that I've experienced coming from able-bodied people in regards to ADA enforcement. This guy sues the dress shop so that WHEN a disabled woman comes in there, she will not have to experience the inconvenience and indignity of encountering the obstacles associated with ADA non-compliance. 

Oh and your assertion that "The ADA was structured so that people who were actually wronged by businesses failure to comply..." is entirely inaccurate.
 
2012-09-30 09:43:16 PM  

feckingmorons: 2words1finger: Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violation.

You're wrong.

Registered mail is for articles of value, You are probably thinking of certified mail.


Ack, yes that is what I meant.
 
2012-09-30 09:43:24 PM  

2words1finger: Mock26: 2words1finger: I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever other completely ignorant idea you have about it personally experience a handicap that requires a wheelchair... either you or someone you love. I guaran-farking-tee you that you will flip your opinion right away after you've personally experienced the extreme inconvenience and outright insult of not having the same access to venues and services that able-bodied people take for granted.

Oh and BTW, for everyone biatching specifically about how this lawyer has made a living off of ADA suite, you idiots don't farking get it. It's okay, it's not your fault that you are ignorant, but let me go ahead and try to educate you. There is no enforcement authority for the ADA. There aren't ADA inspectors going around to businesses to ensure that they are up to spec. The ADA specifically places that burden on the class of citizens that it seeks to protect. In other words, it is up to disabled people to make sure businesses are in compliance with the ADA, and our only means of redress for that is through the court system. It does not matter one bit that this guy may never even patronize some of the businesses he sues. The point is he is taking a stand and making them comply with FEDERAL LAW in the exact manner that was designed into that law in the first place. He's actually doing things right, and you able-bodied jackasses are just jealous that you can't take advantage of what you perceive as a way to make a living without really working... even though it actually is a full-time job to do what this guy does.

Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violatio ...


You are good, but you're no professional. You've hooked em and you've held em, and yet, I'm going to dock you points just for the sheer amount of energy expended. Pros need to make it look easy. 4.56/10 with a "Gold Star" for effort.
 
2012-09-30 09:46:53 PM  

Joce678: 2words1finger: Ahhh, so by your philosophy it should be acceptable for businesses to simply ignore any laws that are inconvenient to them. Okay, that's fair. In that case I think that I'll open a restaurant that has a filthy kitchen, because it can be pretty expensive to pay my kitchen staff for the time it takes them to clean it and ensure that it can pass health inspections. I think that I'll neglect to install a fire suppression system as well, because those are pretty darn expensive too... do you see where this is going? It is called "personal responsibility", perhaps you've heard of it. If, as a business owner, you cannot afford to follow all of the laws that your business is bound to, then yes, you go out of business. That's how it works, bucko.

Filthy kitchens and no fire precautions puts people in danger.

Nobody's forcing people in wheelchairs to eat there. They're free to vote with their wallets. They can even open restaurants with access ramps and no chairs at the tables if they want to.


Haha, the absurd argument of "if you don't like it, don't go there." I guess in your world it would be better if disabled people would just keep their crippled asses at home and not subject you decent people to the discomfort you experience when you see them in public. I bet you're a big fan of the whole "separate-but-equal" thing as well. You sir are an idiot.
 
2012-09-30 09:47:26 PM  

2words1finger: This guy sues the dress shop so that WHEN a disabled woman comes in there, she will not have to experience the inconvenience and indignity of encountering the obstacles associated with ADA non-compliance.


Yeah, it has nothing at all to do with making himself rich.
 
2012-09-30 09:51:40 PM  

2words1finger: This guy sues the dress shop so that WHEN a disabled woman comes in there, she will not have to experience the inconvenience and indignity of encountering the obstacles associated with ADA non-compliance.


Then why is he accepting settlements and letting violations stand? Seems to me he'd make sure this stuff got fixed, and its documented in articles posted here that he often does not. One poster claims to have witnessed this guy soliciting a bribe.

I wish this guy really was a hero. But he's just running a legal racket.
 
2012-09-30 09:52:39 PM  

2words1finger: You just don't get it, and that's because you've never experienced going into a store and not being able to get around because they cram so much crap into a tiny space. You've never experienced going out to a restaurant and needing to use the restroom only to find out that there is a step up to the door, and that it wouldn't matter if someone did offer to assist you over that step because the door is only 28 inches wide (far too narrow for a wheelchair).


How do you know that? It may actually be exactly the opposite.

You seem like a bit of a loon.
 
2012-09-30 09:55:29 PM  

2words1finger: Haha, the absurd argument of "if you don't like it, don't go there." I guess in your world it would be better if disabled people would just keep their crippled asses at home and not subject you decent people to the discomfort you experience when you see them in public. I bet you're a big fan of the whole "separate-but-equal" thing as well. You sir are an idiot.


Nope. "Idiocy" is going around closing every business that can't conform to a massive bunch of requirements, on the off-chance they might be needed.

This guy didn't deliberately build his restaurant that way because he didn't want a bunch of freeloading gimps using his bathroom. At some point the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few.
 
2012-09-30 10:01:08 PM  
Okay apparently I have to admit that I stand corrected about this lawyer guy. Several people have pointed out that rather than going through the appropriate administrative channels to ensure that violations were actually being corrected, he was accepting out-of-court settlements from businesses. That is farking wrong wrong WRONG, and he is blatantly taking unwarranted advantage of the system. I was under the impression that he was actually ensuring that businesses rectified their ADA violations in addition to receiving the settlements, but apparently he actually is just an opportunistic jackass who couldn't give a crap about the disabled community.

That said, I still do not believe that able-bodied people really understand just how important it is that ALL businesses be just as accessible to persons with disabilities (particularly mobility disabilities) as they are to everyone else. You folks can simply turn sideways to squeeze down a narrow aisle and you don't even notice it when you have to go up a step or two, and you certainly don't give using the wheelchair accessible bathroom stall a second thought even when there are four other toilets you could have used, but when you have to use a wheelchair you really do notice those things.
 
2012-09-30 10:02:31 PM  

feckingmorons: firefly212: Why should he get a tax credit to cover some of the cost of ADA renovations? Because that seems fair, it motivates him to make renovations that make the place easier for everyone to use. Why do the SBA loan? Because if you're going to remodel, you might as well wrap it all in ADA compliance and get the best deal you'll ever get on making your business a nicer place. Also, the more we incentivize people to do things like this, the more they make their stores nicer (property value), the easier things get for our aging population, and the more jobs we can help subsidize the creation of in the construction industry.

I'm of the philosophy that you should not rely on the government for business capital. Of course I'll take any tax credits I can get, heck who wouldn't - although people get their knickers in a twist when rich people do it.

I never had and SBA loan, but then again I never felt like jumping through those hoops. I've always leveraged personal assets either directly or as security for any business loans that needed it.

Some days the 47 bucks a week and free meals sounds a lot better than going to the meetings I have to go to.

/spent a lot of money first few weeks remodeling a bit
// you could drive a truck into our johns
/// were in Florida lots of large people need the room


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were asking why they should be available to him...
 
2012-09-30 10:02:39 PM  

RoyBatty: IlGreven: Darth_Lukecash: I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.

Fatties, gays, and atheists facepalm.

/I'm 2 of the 3.
//I'll leave you to guess which two.

I sure hope you're fat and gay, because if you're comparing hate of atheism to what the disabled go through...


Hate, no. Fear, contempt and self-righteous disdain? HELL yeah (pun intended).

Never mind that atheists are prohibited from being scoutmasters by the BSA, or the automatic strike against you & your case if you don't swear on a bible in court, or the general scorn you set yourself up for if don't inlcude under god in your recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Atheists are considered dangerous, possibly sociopathic, and generally a menace to the common good in WAY too much of the US. We are less trustworthy than homosexuals, ex-cons, and all other minorities including Muslims. To quote George Bush Sr. "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.

There are still laws on the books in six states prohibiting atheists from holding office.

Try getting away doing that to a guy in a wheelchair.

/By the way, the only accepted discrimination today is, in fact, adult white males.
 
2012-09-30 10:04:20 PM  
Alfredo Garcia

Tom Frankovich

Craig Yates

Jared Molksi

annnd

Scott Johnson, among others.



In case anyone else had any doubts: almost half of all ADA lawsuits are filed in CA, one state out of 57. Good faith is not on the table here; these are vengeful, opportunistic cripples who have found an easy way to hurt other people for cash, without a shred of remorse or even to help other crippled Americans in the same boat. they are literally making the world a worse place, on purpose.


smh
 
2012-09-30 10:05:11 PM  

flucto: New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.


F*ck you, gimps, shoulda thoughta that before you was born gotarded.
 
2012-09-30 10:09:09 PM  

Joce678: 2words1finger: Haha, the absurd argument of "if you don't like it, don't go there." I guess in your world it would be better if disabled people would just keep their crippled asses at home and not subject you decent people to the discomfort you experience when you see them in public. I bet you're a big fan of the whole "separate-but-equal" thing as well. You sir are an idiot.

Nope. "Idiocy" is going around closing every business that can't conform to a massive bunch of requirements, on the off-chance they might be needed.

This guy didn't deliberately build his restaurant that way because he didn't want a bunch of freeloading gimps using his bathroom. At some point the needs of the many should outweigh the needs of the few.


So what you're saying is that since the majority of people in the country are not disabled, we should just ignore the needs of the minority who are. They're crippled, after all, so they don't really need to be going out in public anyway, right? That is what you are saying there. I mean, sure the gimps can eat at somebody's burger joint, but disabled people don't need to use restrooms like able-bodied people... heck I bet most of 'em poop and pee on themselves anyway, 'cause that's what disabled people do, right?

Seriously, how dumb are you? No really, I'm being serious, I really want to know.
 
2012-09-30 10:12:36 PM  

eggrolls: RoyBatty: IlGreven: Darth_Lukecash: I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.

Fatties, gays, and atheists facepalm.

/I'm 2 of the 3.
//I'll leave you to guess which two.

I sure hope you're fat and gay, because if you're comparing hate of atheism to what the disabled go through...

Hate, no. Fear, contempt and self-righteous disdain? HELL yeah (pun intended).

Never mind that atheists are prohibited from being scoutmasters by the BSA, or the automatic strike against you & your case if you don't swear on a bible in court, or the general scorn you set yourself up for if don't inlcude under god in your recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Atheists are considered dangerous, possibly sociopathic, and generally a menace to the common good in WAY too much of the US. We are less trustworthy than homosexuals, ex-cons, and all other minorities including Muslims. To quote George Bush Sr. "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.

There are still laws on the books in six states prohibiting atheists from holding office.

Try getting away doing that to a guy in a wheelchair.

/By the way, the only accepted discrimination today is, in fact, adult white males.


You forgot fat chicks. Just sayin.
 
2012-09-30 10:22:06 PM  

2words1finger:
Seriously, how dumb are you? No really, I'm being serious, I really want to know.


Just look in a mirror. See that goofy face staring back? That's how dumb...
 
2012-09-30 10:32:26 PM  

willfullyobscure: one state out of 57


I was going to do the 57 states thing earlier but I thought nobody would get it.
 
2012-09-30 10:44:53 PM  

2words1finger: Okay apparently I have to admit that I stand corrected about this lawyer guy. Several people have pointed out that rather than going through the appropriate administrative channels to ensure that violations were actually being corrected, he was accepting out-of-court settlements from businesses. That is farking wrong wrong WRONG, and he is blatantly taking unwarranted advantage of the system. I was under the impression that he was actually ensuring that businesses rectified their ADA violations in addition to receiving the settlements, but apparently he actually is just an opportunistic jackass who couldn't give a crap about the disabled community.

That said, I still do not believe that able-bodied people really understand just how important it is that ALL businesses be just as accessible to persons with disabilities (particularly mobility disabilities) as they are to everyone else. You folks can simply turn sideways to squeeze down a narrow aisle and you don't even notice it when you have to go up a step or two, and you certainly don't give using the wheelchair accessible bathroom stall a second thought even when there are four other toilets you could have used, but when you have to use a wheelchair you really do notice those things.


The one thing that I never figured out in a wheelchair was the dreaded three inch wide, half inch high gap between the subway and the platform... even on crutches, you don't farking notice it... but in a wheelchair, might as well be Snake River, because unless you pull off some Evil Knievel style moves, that train ride just isn't gonna happen.

/close second favorite "This elevator is out of service, for handicap access, please take the train one stop further"
//Train is gone
///One stop further= 20 blocks away
 
2012-09-30 10:51:19 PM  

IlGreven: Darth_Lukecash: I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.

Fatties, gays, and atheists facepalm.

/I'm 2 of the 3.
//I'll leave you to guess which two.


LOL, 3 out of 4 here.
Do I win a cookie?
 
2012-09-30 11:01:00 PM  

2words1finger: That said, I still do not believe that able-bodied people really understand just how important it is that ALL businesses be just as accessible to persons with disabilities (particularly mobility disabilities) as they are to everyone else.


You're right. I do not understand.. Why should I be forced, at great expense, to make my business readily-accessible to persons with disabilities?
 
2012-09-30 11:11:10 PM  
It's BULLshiat!

Link
 
2012-09-30 11:17:10 PM  
encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com 

"This story, I've heard it before" 
 
2012-09-30 11:46:26 PM  
The peole of America have gotten exactly what they asked for.
 
2012-09-30 11:52:38 PM  

Betep: What can you do?
I'm going to fill in the swimming pool at work because it would cost $5,000 for a Wheelchair Lift. I can think of 5 guests in wheelchairs in the last 10 years. 3 were old and happy to play shuffleboard. 1 was an Uber-Athlete that could have followed me up the stairs and kicked my ass. 2 were profoundly handicapped kids that would have been called "Bob" if they got in the pool.

/Fill it in
//use the ocean


#1) You aren't required by ADA to do anything like that. That would be an unreasonable expense.

#2) If you're willing to give up a functioning pool at your business and replace it with a concrete slab, for a mere $5,000, then you're not a very successful businessperson. Or is the pool already filled with manure or something and you're just getting rid of an eyesore and blaming the ADA? Generally pools are added because they bring in customers who'd rather be at a place with a pool than a place without a pool. How much is your poor worth to your business per customer?
 
2012-10-01 12:13:36 AM  

bhcompy: A quadriplegic lawyer? This guy chases his own ambulances


andrejkoymasky.com
 
2012-10-01 12:15:57 AM  

NannyStatePark: eggrolls: RoyBatty: IlGreven: Darth_Lukecash: I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.

Fatties, gays, and atheists facepalm.

/I'm 2 of the 3.
//I'll leave you to guess which two.

I sure hope you're fat and gay, because if you're comparing hate of atheism to what the disabled go through...

Hate, no. Fear, contempt and self-righteous disdain? HELL yeah (pun intended).

Never mind that atheists are prohibited from being scoutmasters by the BSA, or the automatic strike against you & your case if you don't swear on a bible in court, or the general scorn you set yourself up for if don't inlcude under god in your recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Atheists are considered dangerous, possibly sociopathic, and generally a menace to the common good in WAY too much of the US. We are less trustworthy than homosexuals, ex-cons, and all other minorities including Muslims. To quote George Bush Sr. "No, I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.

There are still laws on the books in six states prohibiting atheists from holding office.

Try getting away doing that to a guy in a wheelchair.

/By the way, the only accepted discrimination today is, in fact, adult white males.

You forgot fat chicks. Just sayin.


Dude! You know we don't talk about that in public!
 
2012-10-01 12:20:10 AM  

2words1finger: I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever other completely ignorant idea you have about it personally experience a handicap that requires a wheelchair... either you or someone you love. I guaran-farking-tee you that you will flip your opinion right away after you've personally experienced the extreme inconvenience and outright insult of not having the same access to venues and services that able-bodied people take for granted.

Oh and BTW, for everyone biatching specifically about how this lawyer has made a living off of ADA suite, you idiots don't farking get it. It's okay, it's not your fault that you are ignorant, but let me go ahead and try to educate you. There is no enforcement authority for the ADA. There aren't ADA inspectors going around to businesses to ensure that they are up to spec. The ADA specifically places that burden on the class of citizens that it seeks to protect. In other words, it is up to disabled people to make sure businesses are in compliance with the ADA, and our only means of redress for that is through the court system. It does not matter one bit that this guy may never even patronize some of the businesses he sues. The point is he is taking a stand and making them comply with FEDERAL LAW in the exact manner that was designed into that law in the first place. He's actually doing things right, and you able-bodied jackasses are just jealous that you can't take advantage of what you perceive as a way to make a living without really working... even though it actually is a full-time job to do what this guy does.

Here's how it works... when you find a business that is in violation of the ADA, you are required to send them a letter through registered mail detailing exactly what "chapter and verse" of the ADA they are violating, along with the specific ADA guidelines for correcting the violation. Then you have to giv ...


Except no. First off, this is California. ADA suits in Cali are most often filed under the state-level Unruh Act. It gives statutory damages of up to $4,000 plus attorney's fees for each violation (i.e. each time he goes to the shop). Even if the suit is filed under the ADA, you can still be held liable for attorney's fees even if you get the remodeling done quickly. This can also easily be in the thousands of dollars.

Second, the Unruh Act gives no such time for repairs/remodeling. There have been several attempts Remember also that you just can't make the changes. You need an engineer/architect to plan it out and design the change. You need to find a construction crew to make the changes. You also need the government permits, which can take plenty of time to get. And don't forget the government inspectors who have to come in. And if you happen to be in the wrong part of the country at the wrong time of year, much construction becomes impossible because of the weather (i.e. can't dig in frozen ground, too cold for concrete to properly set).

And do you seriously think that things like a mirror being an inch too high or a railing being an inch too short is worth $4,000? How exactly is this guy harmed by that. One would think that as a quad, he wouldn't be able to use these bathrooms by himself anyway.

firefly212: Betep: firefly212: Oznog: Betep: What can you do?
I'm going to fill in the swimming pool at work because it would cost $5,000 for a Wheelchair Lift. I can think of 5 guests in wheelchairs in the last 10 years. 3 were old and happy to play shuffleboard. 1 was an Uber-Athlete that could have followed me up the stairs and kicked my ass. 2 were profoundly handicapped kids that would have been called "Bob" if they got in the pool.

/Fill it in
//use the ocean


[www.transitionsmobility.com image 487x325]

I had never heard of such a thing.... I'm stunned. I mean only a small portion of disabled persons would be able to make good, safe use of the pool without assistance. If they had assistance, they could use it to get into the pool.

It looks alarmingly awkward and its own liability lawsuit waiting to happen. If anything went wrong the handicapped person could easily drown, the whole goal here seems to being unassisted.

The only place I've seen those lifts is in pools that offer rehab... pools are pretty awesome for rehab btw... if you ever have to re-learn to walk, it's a pretty spiff way to do it b/c your weight is more manageable. That said, 2010 was the first year the government put out guidelines for accessibility of pools (http://www.ada.gov/pools_2010.htm) , that said, they were clear about grandfathering in changes "When structural changes are made to existing pools, including installation of a fixed pool lift, the changes must comply with the 2010 Standards. If a public entity chooses to acquire equipment (e.g., a portable lift) to provide program accessibility, the entity should select equipment that includes features required by the 2010 Standards, including independent operation by individuals with disabilities. ". In short, if you fill in your pool because you believe what the internet says about the ADA, instead of actually doing your homework, you're a moron.

Nope. The letter from the Health Department is posted by my desk. Every hotel/motel I've tal ...


Nope. Federal. Every commercial pool in the country is going to need one. It's been delayed several times simply because the companies that make and install the lifts can't do it fast enough.

2words1finger: firefly212: feckingmorons: 2words1finger: Yeah, you're an idiot, and he isn't "taking it out" on anybody. He's doing what the ADA calls for disabled people to do when they learn of a business that is not in compliance with the ADA.

Where does the ADA call for disabled people to inspect and sue places they don't frequent. The ADA does not appoint him as inspector general.

You do know this guy says he makes a 'good living' suing small businesses for technical violations of voluminous regulations.

My expertise is tax law. If the IRS said I could demand $4K from everyone who makes a mistake on their taxes, even if it was simply transposing two digits in the cents column (or improper rounding) then I would be a millionaire in a month or two.

California has a terrible law that allows this to happen, legislation has been proposed and shot down by legislators bankrolled by trial attorney lobbyists.

Sen, Feinstein has even called upon state officials to end this. This scumbag lawyer is not the only one, in fact he is not the worst. Mr. Frankovich is worse.

Califorinia's Unruh act is why most of the ADA suits are filed by California lawyers, they can profit at small business expense. Rather than just curing the defect they are sucked dry by these lawyers.

On this much, we agree...

The ADA was structured so that people who were actually wronged by businesses failure to comply would have a means of redress. IMO, this scuzzbag lawyer wasn't actually wronged by many of the thousand plus businesses he has sued. As a single guy with no prospects, him suing wedding dress places for having aisles too narrow was a joke, his lawsuit against the wheelchair-bound barkeep had absolutely nothing to do with him being denied any kind of reasonable accommodation. The problem here is neither the ADA nor the business, it's the lack of tort reform that makes it easier for scumbag lawyers to sue good-intentioned people because they aren't at risk of losing anything if the people fig ...


If he was being so noble about things, why is he accepting settlements instead of taking it through and forcing compliance? If he is so well-intentioned, why is he forcing people to pay him thousands of dollars instead of actually fixing things? The ADA, while well-intentioned, has had some terrible consequences for the disabled. Unemployment for the disabled increased after in went into effect because the costs of compliance and the risks of a lawsuit were so high.
 
2012-10-01 12:21:46 AM  

2words1finger: That said, I still do not believe that able-bodied people really understand just how important it is that ALL businesses be just as accessible to persons with disabilities (particularly mobility disabilities) as they are to everyone else.


We understand, but there is no need for ALL businesses to be ADA compliant. Disabled people only make up about 20% of the population (according to one source I found). As such only 20% of all businesses should be ADA compliant. That seems fair, does it not?

:-D
 
2012-10-01 12:28:47 AM  
Wow, that article wasn't biased at all. Never mind that the guy has apparently been non-compliant with the ADA for, well, ever, and that he's closing the business rather than pay to make the compliance changes. The ADA has been in place for 22 years - this butthead waited until he was sued, and then decided to fight it, and lost.

He fought the lawsuit and lost, but rather than comply with ADA regulations and ensure access, he's just going to close the business. No problem. I'll bet the next tenant can afford to widen a friggin' bathroom.

That's how business works - you can't comply with the current market requirements, there's always someone else who can, and who can turn a profit while doing so. This guy figured, hey, I've here longer than the law - screw them. Tough.
 
2012-10-01 12:30:17 AM  

2words1finger: Okay apparently I have to admit that I stand corrected about this lawyer guy. Several people have pointed out that rather than going through the appropriate administrative channels to ensure that violations were actually being corrected, he was accepting out-of-court settlements from businesses. That is farking wrong wrong WRONG, and he is blatantly taking unwarranted advantage of the system. I was under the impression that he was actually ensuring that businesses rectified their ADA violations in addition to receiving the settlements, but apparently he actually is just an opportunistic jackass who couldn't give a crap about the disabled community.

That said, I still do not believe that able-bodied people really understand just how important it is that ALL businesses be just as accessible to persons with disabilities (particularly mobility disabilities) as they are to everyone else. You folks can simply turn sideways to squeeze down a narrow aisle and you don't even notice it when you have to go up a step or two, and you certainly don't give using the wheelchair accessible bathroom stall a second thought even when there are four other toilets you could have used, but when you have to use a wheelchair you really do notice those things.


Finally. Look, I've worked in the service industry for 30 years and no one wants to deny disabled folks access. This guy...words don't express how angry he makes me. I'm the one who witnessed him (not an anecdote, I was there for all of this) blatantly and without a hint of shame offer to take money ON THE SPOT to make this all go away. And his reputation proceeds him, it's not like we had no idea who this dirtbag was. It's exactly the same as Tony farking Soprano offering "protection" against "future misfortune". And again, often this is over crap like mirrors and lightswitches, not hallway widths or stairs. And he is very,very canny about his targets. No suits against deep pockets, no suits against establishments owned by less savory individuals, he's too smart for that. Mom and pop businesses operating on a thin margin,naive new owners, the elderly, all law abiding folks without alot of means. He uses threats and intimidation to flat out extort money from folks without the means to fight back. He should be in farking prison. One day, some poor bastard is going to give this guy what he so richly deserves and end up going to prison when he should get a farking medal.
 
2012-10-01 12:45:17 AM  

Mock26: 2words1finger: That said, I still do not believe that able-bodied people really understand just how important it is that ALL businesses be just as accessible to persons with disabilities (particularly mobility disabilities) as they are to everyone else.

We understand, but there is no need for ALL businesses to be ADA compliant. Disabled people only make up about 20% of the population (according to one source I found). As such only 20% of all businesses should be ADA compliant. That seems fair, does it not?

:-D


www.takethepiss.com

Touche sir, touche ;) 

/its amazing what a couple glasses of scotch does for my attitude
 
2012-10-01 12:48:49 AM  

drewogatory: 2words1finger: Okay apparently I have to admit that I stand corrected about this lawyer guy. Several people have pointed out that rather than going through the appropriate administrative channels to ensure that violations were actually being corrected, he was accepting out-of-court settlements from businesses. That is farking wrong wrong WRONG, and he is blatantly taking unwarranted advantage of the system. I was under the impression that he was actually ensuring that businesses rectified their ADA violations in addition to receiving the settlements, but apparently he actually is just an opportunistic jackass who couldn't give a crap about the disabled community.

That said, I still do not believe that able-bodied people really understand just how important it is that ALL businesses be just as accessible to persons with disabilities (particularly mobility disabilities) as they are to everyone else. You folks can simply turn sideways to squeeze down a narrow aisle and you don't even notice it when you have to go up a step or two, and you certainly don't give using the wheelchair accessible bathroom stall a second thought even when there are four other toilets you could have used, but when you have to use a wheelchair you really do notice those things.

Finally. Look, I've worked in the service industry for 30 years and no one wants to deny disabled folks access. This guy...words don't express how angry he makes me. I'm the one who witnessed him (not an anecdote, I was there for all of this) blatantly and without a hint of shame offer to take money ON THE SPOT to make this all go away. And his reputation proceeds him, it's not like we had no idea who this dirtbag was. It's exactly the same as Tony farking Soprano offering "protection" against "future misfortune". And again, often this is over crap like mirrors and lightswitches, not hallway widths or stairs. And he is very,very canny about his targets. No suits against deep pockets, no suits against establishments o ...


Hey I've completely changed my tune about this guy. If he's even half the douchenozzle that my research today suggests, it sounds like he really deserves all the misfortune that has befallen him. I still think that this restaurant owner should have brought his place up to ADA specs years ago though. Maybe if his community cares enough about the establishment, they'll hold a fundraiser or something to allow him to fight this guy in court. t sounds like the California law (and I admit that I wasn't familiar with it) started out noble in spirit, but is too easy to twist to personal advantage.
 
2012-10-01 01:33:06 AM  

hbk72777: It's BULLshiat!

Link


Great. More strawman fallacies from a bloviating libertarian hack who makes a living by misdirection and deceit. He pretends that the opinions of a couple of cherry-picked activists are the content of the ADA. He spends maybe 3 seconds addressing the realities of the ADA and the other 9 minutes and 57 seconds knocking down BS strawman arguments.

This is only the second time I've seen BULLS#!T, and it's just as despicable as the first time.

(The first time, he showed how stupid recycling is by having people sort their garbage in a way that no one is ever required to sort their garbage under any recycling program anywhere. The Aristocrats!)
 
2012-10-01 01:58:13 AM  

simkatu: Betep: What can you do?
I'm going to fill in the swimming pool at work because it would cost $5,000 for a Wheelchair Lift. I can think of 5 guests in wheelchairs in the last 10 years. 3 were old and happy to play shuffleboard. 1 was an Uber-Athlete that could have followed me up the stairs and kicked my ass. 2 were profoundly handicapped kids that would have been called "Bob" if they got in the pool.

/Fill it in
//use the ocean

#1) You aren't required by ADA to do anything like that. That would be an unreasonable expense.

#2) If you're willing to give up a functioning pool at your business and replace it with a concrete slab, for a mere $5,000, then you're not a very successful businessperson. Or is the pool already filled with manure or something and you're just getting rid of an eyesore and blaming the ADA? Generally pools are added because they bring in customers who'd rather be at a place with a pool than a place without a pool. How much is your poor worth to your business per customer?


1. Yes I am. I'm sitting at my desk with the letter tacked up on the wall in front of me.
When YOU handle the hotel/motel licenses and semi/public pool permits here, we'll chat. My town already has stricter laws than the Commonwealth. Closed pools are a non-compliance issue for the whole property. 30 days of a non-compliant pool (repairs/closed) = closed motel. Certified Pool Operator is mostly legal stuff now not just how to properly maintain a pool.

2, Private ocean beach. Pool was just a nice extra. 28 week season. 1 more week to go.

/I'm going home now.
//Teh ghey wedding party has quieted down for the night.
 
2012-10-01 02:22:16 AM  

bubo_sibiricus: Smeggy Smurf: A toilet with grab bars that meets ADA is not worth a business shutting down.

If your business is shutting down because you can't afford grab bars in the washroom, then your business has much larger problems than the ADA.

Again, this article is propaganda.


it's never just grab bars. Odds are the restroom didn't have the 60" accessible space, the stall wasn't wide enough or the shiatter at the right height. Even having the toilet paper dispenser outside of the accessible reach from the shiatter is enough to trigger a suit. It may have been the sink didn't have the approved knee protection or wasn't at the right height. It could be almost anything. But from past experience redesigning restrooms to be ADA compliant I'm going to go with the stall wasn't wide enough, no grab bars and the sink lacked not only the right height but either the front or side approach.

The simple act of moving a plumbing line for the shiatter, removing the wall finishes to install the blocking for the grab bars, replacing the wall finishes, buying the grab bars and having them installed can run thousands of dollars. Then you have to pay for an architect to do the drawings, the permits, fees, inspections, etc. So just to redo a single shiatter can run upwards of $10,000 by the time everything is done.

Small businesses rarely can just whip that kind of spare change out just to appease one asshole. Nor should they. Now if they start a remodel, then that's something different. Then you're talking taking loans out and once you're at that point, do it right. But to appease one crippled troll? Not a chance in hell.
 
2012-10-01 02:36:14 AM  

Smeggy Smurf: bubo_sibiricus: Smeggy Smurf: A toilet with grab bars that meets ADA is not worth a business shutting down.

If your business is shutting down because you can't afford grab bars in the washroom, then your business has much larger problems than the ADA.

Again, this article is propaganda.

it's never just grab bars. Odds are the restroom didn't have the 60" accessible space, the stall wasn't wide enough or the shiatter at the right height. Even having the toilet paper dispenser outside of the accessible reach from the shiatter is enough to trigger a suit. It may have been the sink didn't have the approved knee protection or wasn't at the right height. It could be almost anything. But from past experience redesigning restrooms to be ADA compliant I'm going to go with the stall wasn't wide enough, no grab bars and the sink lacked not only the right height but either the front or side approach.

The simple act of moving a plumbing line for the shiatter, removing the wall finishes to install the blocking for the grab bars, replacing the wall finishes, buying the grab bars and having them installed can run thousands of dollars. Then you have to pay for an architect to do the drawings, the permits, fees, inspections, etc. So just to redo a single shiatter can run upwards of $10,000 by the time everything is done.

Small businesses rarely can just whip that kind of spare change out just to appease one asshole. Nor should they. Now if they start a remodel, then that's something different. Then you're talking taking loans out and once you're at that point, do it right. But to appease one crippled troll? Not a chance in hell.


That is why the ADA offers redress for business owners as well. If they can convince a judge that remodeling would constitute an unreasonable expense, they can be granted an injunction that excludes them from making that specific renovation until such time that they choose to undertake more expansive renovation of the space. Now, would you like to try to demean and denigrate the rights of disabled people in yet another ignorant rant, or is it enough for you to incorporate this new information into your existing paradigm and move on?
 
2012-10-01 03:17:40 AM  

ArkAngel: obscenely long post goes here..


The reason I wrote that it must be a state thing is because I linked directly to the ada.gov regulations pertaining to pools and quoted it directly.

Saying nope is nice, but if you could maybe provide a citation, it'd be nice... I'm not saying your wrong, just that I couldn't find anything more recent than May of this year, and it was pretty clear back then that the only pools needing to meet the new 2010 Standards would be those

"When structural changes are made to existing pools, including installation of a fixed pool lift, the changes must comply with the 2010 Standards. If a public entity chooses to acquire equipment (e.g., a portable lift) to provide program accessibility, the entity should select equipment that includes features required by the 2010 Standards, including independent operation by individuals with disabilities."

I mean, I understand in new pools and pools undergoing renovation, but do you have any source on why you're saying older pools at places of public accommodation are going to need lifts?

If so, please share, I wanna tell the people who own my hotel about it before some litigious jerk gets to em.
 
2012-10-01 04:54:30 AM  
2words1finger I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever...

Re-read my link. Are you saying there aren't abuses of this law?
 
2012-10-01 06:59:50 AM  

2words1finger: That is why the ADA offers redress for business owners as well. If they can convince a judge that remodeling would constitute an unreasonable expense, they can be granted an injunction that excludes them from making that specific renovation until such time that they choose to undertake more expansive renovation of the space. Now, would you like to try to demean and denigrate the rights of disabled people in yet another ignorant rant, or is it enough for you to incorporate this new information into your existing paradigm and move on?


Mmmmmm.

Brand new troll account. It even still has that fresh troll smell on it.
 
2012-10-01 08:39:31 AM  
Ah, the sweet, sweet taste of government regulation.

Well-intentioned, but we all know where that leads.
 
2012-10-01 09:35:20 AM  

firefly212: ArkAngel: obscenely long post goes here..

The reason I wrote that it must be a state thing is because I linked directly to the ada.gov regulations pertaining to pools and quoted it directly.

Saying nope is nice, but if you could maybe provide a citation, it'd be nice... I'm not saying your wrong, just that I couldn't find anything more recent than May of this year, and it was pretty clear back then that the only pools needing to meet the new 2010 Standards would be those

"When structural changes are made to existing pools, including installation of a fixed pool lift, the changes must comply with the 2010 Standards. If a public entity chooses to acquire equipment (e.g., a portable lift) to provide program accessibility, the entity should select equipment that includes features required by the 2010 Standards, including independent operation by individuals with disabilities."

I mean, I understand in new pools and pools undergoing renovation, but do you have any source on why you're saying older pools at places of public accommodation are going to need lifts?

If so, please share, I wanna tell the people who own my hotel about it before some litigious jerk gets to em.


Link
Link
Link
 
2012-10-01 10:57:34 AM  
That is a damn shame those looked like some really great hamburgers and the fries didn't have those stupid skins on them that every place seems to be going to now.
 
2012-10-01 11:11:10 AM  
BREAKING NEWS: Scott Johnson is being sued by former employees for sexual harassment, and many other charges.

/ Just heard this on 8AM hour Armstrong & Getty Show KSTE650AM.
 
2012-10-01 12:03:24 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: I was in a wheelchair when I was younger. Ive been handicapped all my life. I can tell you from experience that being crippled is the last acceptable group one Is allowed to hate.


Redheads.
There's no 'kick a guy in a wheelchair' day.
 
2012-10-01 01:38:37 PM  
It's from Fox News, so the story could be fake.

I hope so.
 
2012-10-01 02:37:59 PM  

Archimedes' Principal: BREAKING NEWS: Scott Johnson is being sued by former employees for sexual harassment, and many other charges.

/ Just heard this on 8AM hour Armstrong & Getty Show KSTE650AM.


Nice, but those guy have been after this asshole for years. You should see the comments section of the Bee today, Johnson is going to be lucky if he doesn't get lynched.
 
2012-10-01 10:38:58 PM  

FlyingJ: 2words1finger I seriously hope to god that every single one of you douchebags who is biatching about this lawyer and spouting crap about how the ADA needs to be "de-fanged" or whatever...

Re-read my link. Are you saying there aren't abuses of this law?


Of the additional powers that the unique California law grants, absolutely yes, and I've learned since posting the comment you referenced that the lawyer the article is talking about is one of the worst violators, but the ADA itself has relatively little "fang" to it and offers businesses gobs of ways to get out of having to comply with it.
 
Displayed 426 of 426 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report