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 177
    More: Sad, ADA, attorney-in-fact, activists  
•       •       •

19946 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Sep 2012 at 1:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-30 12:23:57 PM
11 votes:
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 01:17:50 PM
7 votes:

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 01:01:13 PM
7 votes:

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 12:50:13 PM
6 votes:

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 02:31:48 PM
5 votes:
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 02:15:04 PM
5 votes:
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 03:18:00 PM
4 votes:
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 02:29:09 PM
4 votes:

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 02:12:00 PM
4 votes:
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 02:39:54 PM
3 votes:

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 02:20:55 PM
3 votes:

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 02:04:00 PM
3 votes:

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 02:03:52 PM
3 votes:

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 02:02:53 PM
3 votes:

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 01:40:44 PM
3 votes:

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 01:40:31 PM
3 votes:

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 01:38:26 PM
3 votes:

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 01:32:39 PM
3 votes:

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 01:03:41 PM
3 votes:

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 12:19:30 PM
3 votes:
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 12:18:02 PM
3 votes:
New construction must be in compliance? Sure, obvious.
No grandfathering existing structures? Stooopid.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-09-30 12:17:34 PM
3 votes:
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 08:05:41 PM
2 votes:

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 07:55:50 PM
2 votes:
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 04:42:36 PM
2 votes:
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 04:03:46 PM
2 votes:
Remember that Bobcat Goldthwait's Film Satire 'God Bless America'? Where the guy was killing people doing stupid things?

Just saying.
2012-09-30 03:51:42 PM
2 votes:

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 03:16:03 PM
2 votes:

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 03:13:16 PM
2 votes:
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 03:08:36 PM
2 votes:

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 03:05:31 PM
2 votes:

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 02:48:17 PM
2 votes:
>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 02:48:02 PM
2 votes:
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 02:44:50 PM
2 votes:

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 02:38:05 PM
2 votes:

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 02:31:47 PM
2 votes:

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.
M-G
2012-09-30 02:24:55 PM
2 votes:
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 02:23:55 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-09-30 02:16:15 PM
2 votes:
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 02:14:25 PM
2 votes:

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 02:05:25 PM
2 votes:
the law is an ass.

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

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 02:05:00 PM
2 votes:

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 02:04:55 PM
2 votes:
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 02:00:39 PM
2 votes:

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 01:57:04 PM
2 votes:

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 01:56:23 PM
2 votes:

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 01:55:15 PM
2 votes:
I would like to plead guilty, your honor...

i291.photobucket.com

i291.photobucket.com

i291.photobucket.com

... to FAPPING!
2012-09-30 01:51:23 PM
2 votes:
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 01:25:04 PM
2 votes:
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 01:19:05 PM
2 votes:

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 01:02:23 PM
2 votes:

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 12:58:32 PM
2 votes:
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 12:49:02 PM
2 votes:
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 12:44:24 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-10-01 02:22:16 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-09-30 08:10:00 PM
1 votes:

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 07:50:14 PM
1 votes:

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 07:48:25 PM
1 votes:

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 07:36:31 PM
1 votes:
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 06:13:08 PM
1 votes:
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 06:13:07 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:20 PM
1 votes:

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 05:46:44 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:10 PM
1 votes:

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 05:32:18 PM
1 votes:
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 05:26:26 PM
1 votes:
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 05:21:51 PM
1 votes:

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 05:21:49 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:31 PM
1 votes:
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 05:17:41 PM
1 votes:

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 05:14:55 PM
1 votes:
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 05:07:49 PM
1 votes:

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 05:04:54 PM
1 votes:
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 05:04:13 PM
1 votes:

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 04:57:23 PM
1 votes:
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 04:56:53 PM
1 votes:

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 04:54:14 PM
1 votes:
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 04:52:34 PM
1 votes:

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 04:47:00 PM
1 votes:

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 04:41:22 PM
1 votes:

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 04:40:59 PM
1 votes:

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 04:40:50 PM
1 votes:

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 04:39:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:36:46 PM
1 votes:

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 04:34:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:33:24 PM
1 votes:

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 04:32:15 PM
1 votes:
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 04:30:21 PM
1 votes:

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 04:29:58 PM
1 votes:

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 04:29:45 PM
1 votes:
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 04:28:21 PM
1 votes:

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 04:28:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:27:26 PM
1 votes:

feckingmorons: let them be the guiding force for access,


And you'll scream about them too.
2012-09-30 04:26:15 PM
1 votes:

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 04:25:29 PM
1 votes:

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 04:21:02 PM
1 votes:

feckingmorons: . I think he is vermin.


Doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.
2012-09-30 04:19:09 PM
1 votes:
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 04:18:44 PM
1 votes:

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 04:16:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:14:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:10:04 PM
1 votes:

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 04:06:22 PM
1 votes:

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 03:56:54 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:34 PM
1 votes:

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 03:54:14 PM
1 votes:

feckingmorons: I was once accidentally struck by a mime.


i.imgur.com
2012-09-30 03:50:27 PM
1 votes:

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 03:50:24 PM
1 votes:
If he is quadriplegic, am I wrong in thinking that he goes in diapers anyway?
2012-09-30 03:47:45 PM
1 votes:
Story on this guy from a couple years ago.
Disabled attorney defends his 1,000+ ADA lawsuits
2012-09-30 03:44:00 PM
1 votes:

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 03:41:17 PM
1 votes:

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 03:39:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:38:45 PM
1 votes:

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 03:38:25 PM
1 votes:

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 03:34:53 PM
1 votes:

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 03:32:30 PM
1 votes:

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 03:31:59 PM
1 votes:

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 03:29:42 PM
1 votes:

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 03:23:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:14:46 PM
1 votes:

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 03:13:59 PM
1 votes:
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 03:12:40 PM
1 votes:

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 03:10:19 PM
1 votes:

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 03:10:10 PM
1 votes:
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 03:08:48 PM
1 votes:

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 03:07:27 PM
1 votes:

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 03:04:19 PM
1 votes:

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 02:58:45 PM
1 votes:

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 02:55:53 PM
1 votes:
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 02:54:47 PM
1 votes:

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 02:51:43 PM
1 votes:

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 02:51:38 PM
1 votes:
I wonder, is the attorney's office ADA compliant? I hope someone has checked that out.
2012-09-30 02:48:10 PM
1 votes:

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 02:47:20 PM
1 votes:
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?
2012-09-30 02:46:32 PM
1 votes:
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 02:45:25 PM
1 votes:

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 02:45:14 PM
1 votes:

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 02:44:30 PM
1 votes:

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 02:44:29 PM
1 votes:

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 02:42:41 PM
1 votes:

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 02:39:38 PM
1 votes:

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 02:39:08 PM
1 votes:
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 02:37:53 PM
1 votes:

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 02:35:24 PM
1 votes:
Wow. This douchebag seems like a monster in a wheelchair.
2012-09-30 02:34:29 PM
1 votes:

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 02:34:23 PM
1 votes:

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 02:32:30 PM
1 votes:

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 02:29:26 PM
1 votes:
Why didn't he switch to carry-out only, put up an order window and lock the damn door?
2012-09-30 02:23:25 PM
1 votes:

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 02:23:17 PM
1 votes:
I think gat dun gone over his limit, where's the fishin game warden
2012-09-30 02:20:40 PM
1 votes:

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 02:20:13 PM
1 votes:
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 02:18:27 PM
1 votes:
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 02:15:52 PM
1 votes:

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 02:15:44 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:53 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:14 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:00 PM
1 votes:

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 02:12:51 PM
1 votes:

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 02:12:22 PM
1 votes:
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 02:11:54 PM
1 votes:

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 02:11:25 PM
1 votes:

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 02:10:44 PM
1 votes:
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 02:05:06 PM
1 votes:
www.explosm.net
2012-09-30 02:03:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:01:03 PM
1 votes:

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 01:59:36 PM
1 votes:

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 01:58:52 PM
1 votes:
The American Dental Association says that their burgers are bad for your teeth ;)
2012-09-30 01:58:42 PM
1 votes:

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 01:57:59 PM
1 votes:
Is it wrong to punch a dude in a wheelchair?
2012-09-30 01:55:51 PM
1 votes:

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 01:54:10 PM
1 votes:

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 01:41:26 PM
1 votes:

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 01:39:31 PM
1 votes:

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 01:19:01 PM
1 votes:

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 01:05:24 PM
1 votes:

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 12:45:01 PM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 177 of 177 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report