ARTICLE READS LIKE THE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION HAS REALLY BEEN ACTIVE ABOUT GETTING THE WORD OUT!! SOUNDS LIKE THE POOR MEMBERSHIP HAS NOT GOTTEN THE WORD. TOO BAD THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAW. WISH ILLINOIS HAD A SIMILAR LAW, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUE TO FORCE COMPLIANCE.
As the Statute is federal, it applies across the United States and was an amazingly porgressive legislation to be signed in to law by George W. Bush. Contact me via email is I can be of further assistance. David Person, Esq.
I’m of two minds about this. ADA has been law for almost 20 years so there’s no reason for people to be out of compliance. I just hate to see so many lawsuits. At least one lawyer is going for a “fix it or we’ll sue” approach. That should become standard practice.
Four lawsuits in one week? A plaintiff in 38 others? I can’t begin to imagine how difficult her life must be, but even then I still find it hard to not think of her as riding this money train for as long as possible! Is she more concerned with righting past wrongs, or cashing in?
Sorry but every lawsuit is about lining the plaintiff attorney pocket.
Jeri sounds like a miserable person and she should be considered a vexatious litigant so it would be more difficult for her to file frivilous lawsuits like these.
I handled several of these claims in CA with plaintiffs like Jeri. They went from business to business looking for violations of the ADA in order to line her & her attorney’s pockets. In this woman’s case, she would go to local businesses with a tape measure to make sure bathroom stalls were wide enough, parking stalls were in compliance, ramps were properly angled, etc. When a local business refused to allow her on their premises (the business knew of her multiple claims) she sued that business for discrimination. It really disgusted me.
I’ve handled many lawsuits just like this and it really is a lawyers’ cottage industry. These people, for whom one might ordinarily feel a twinge of sympathy for being confined to wheelchairs or walking devices, go from business to business making these suits. The pity is that they often target small businesses whose annual receipts won’t accommodate perfect compliance with the ADA, hence the tape measures, scales, and tilt meters they carry with them. They’ve driven many small businesses right out of business without so much as blinking an eye. Hard to continue to feel sympathy for their physical limitations under those circumstances. I wonder where is the loophole that garners the cash in the “generous” lawyer’s 60-day grace period. I can’t imagine a lawyer allowing such a thing without holding his hand out for some ready cash.
I think what we would find is the lawyer allows 60 days for full compliance – a fairly steep demand for any business, let alone small businesses. Don’t these people know there is an exemption in the ADA for those businesses that can’t afford the renovations? It’s too bad they still have to pay to defend themselves. The business should counter-sue for legal fees.
1. FYI typically in these cases the plaintiff sues for access, not for money, thus there is no “money train” for Jeri. Not a penny.
2. The ADA is a civil rights law. Imagine not being able to reach the toilet paper. Imagine the humiliation. Imagine a sign saying, “toilet paper for whites only” or “jews may not use this toilet” or “evangelical christians may not eat in this restaurant” or “no parking for cripples” or “women may not enter this building.” We’re way beyond that, don’t you agree?
The ADA is a civil rights law and whether you like the law or not it is the law until it is repealed. Every business must comply with the ADA. There are different standards for businesses that existed prior to the effective date of the law. There are also tax credits that will assist small businesses with the cost of compliance.
A business that does not comply with the ADA is violating the civil rights of people with disabilities. There is no local enforcement of the ADA. That is what your representative in Congress voted for in the law. Congress in effect said that people with disabilities should enforce their own civil rights law and the businesses that violate the law should pay for the cost of enforcement.
As a person with a disability I am thankful for the attorneys that will help us fight for our civil rights.
SKM – totally wrong, they do sue for money and obtain it. get real and don’t talk about things unless you know for sure. What we are talking about here are the kind of pltf that goes into a place with a tape measure and if the “toilet paper” holder is even a 1/4 of an inch off of the ADA requirements they sue. It’s repulsive.
There are no damages under the ADA unless the department of Justice brings the case to Federal court. The DoJ can ask for fines up to $110,000 also. Yes, inches matter when you are in a wheelchair that will not go through a 24″ bathroom door.
Are you speaking about the individuals mentioned in the article, or about other plaintiffs in California, a state where people can and do sue for damages in these cases?
I agree with you that 1/4 of an inch might not, in some situations, be a violation of someone’s civil rights, but I do know of many instances where one inch did make the difference between someone being able to use a toilet or not, or enter a restaurant or not, or cross the street or not.
talking about good old CA. I do deal with enough of these B.S. lawsuits as all my clients are in the construction industry. 9 times out of 10, my client building according to plans and specs given by the City/Owner/Architect and once completed are signed off by the City and then come the money grubbing atty and their clients crying that the incline of a ramp is 2.2% instead of the 2%. Or the height of the Starbuck counter is 24.2 inches instead of 24 inches. It’s just totally bogus.
The problem is not the ADA but a poorly crafted California law. The California law makers should make the necessary changes in the California laws. In Oklahoma where I previously lived there are many businesses that are totally inaccessible. Even new businesses were being built that did not make any attempt at ADA compliance.
The ADA allows construction standards to be applied to ADA standards (28CFR Part 36 Section 3.2). If the contractor builds the facility to the architects plans and the plans are wrong then the architect should be liable the costs of the lawsuit. If the contractor builds it wrong then shame on him.
I would ask that you not judge people with disabilities across the nation based on abuses of a California law by Californians.
We have learned the hard way that local building officials are not empowered to “sign off” on federal civil rights law, and that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is not a guarantee that a building is accessible.
Regarding new construction and alterations, here are a couple of things that help ensure compliance with the ADA:
1. Along with the architect, structural engineer, mechanical engineer and so on, include an accessibility consultant in the design team.
2. To avoid even slight deviations from the allowable minimum requirements of enforceable statute, don’t design to the minimum requirements, but add a bit of elbow room to allow for construction tolerances or sloppy workmanship.
For example, the ADAAG (ADA Accessibility Guidelines) says, “The least possible slope shall be used for any ramp. The maximum slope of a ramp in new construction shall be 1:12.”
Translated into the vernacular, this means that the worst allowable ramp slope is 1:12. So, why not design it to be a bit less steep, say 1:13 or 1:14. Then, should there be a slight construction error, the ramp will still be compliant.
The same is true for the pavement at accessible parking spaces, which may slope no more than 2% in any direction. Don’t design it for 2%, design for 1% or 1.5%.
The minimum requirements should not be seen by the architect as a cap or as an ideal, but rather as the worst conditions allowable by law. Don’t design to the minimum and you will avoid getting into trouble down the road.
ARTICLE READS LIKE THE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION HAS REALLY BEEN ACTIVE ABOUT GETTING THE WORD OUT!! SOUNDS LIKE THE POOR MEMBERSHIP HAS NOT GOTTEN THE WORD. TOO BAD THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE LAW. WISH ILLINOIS HAD A SIMILAR LAW, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUE TO FORCE COMPLIANCE.
As the Statute is federal, it applies across the United States and was an amazingly porgressive legislation to be signed in to law by George W. Bush. Contact me via email is I can be of further assistance. David Person, Esq.
No need to yell man.
ADA is a federal law. You could still sue in IL.
I’m of two minds about this. ADA has been law for almost 20 years so there’s no reason for people to be out of compliance. I just hate to see so many lawsuits. At least one lawyer is going for a “fix it or we’ll sue” approach. That should become standard practice.
Four lawsuits in one week? A plaintiff in 38 others? I can’t begin to imagine how difficult her life must be, but even then I still find it hard to not think of her as riding this money train for as long as possible! Is she more concerned with righting past wrongs, or cashing in?
Sorry but every lawsuit is about lining the plaintiff attorney pocket.
Jeri sounds like a miserable person and she should be considered a vexatious litigant so it would be more difficult for her to file frivilous lawsuits like these.
I handled several of these claims in CA with plaintiffs like Jeri. They went from business to business looking for violations of the ADA in order to line her & her attorney’s pockets. In this woman’s case, she would go to local businesses with a tape measure to make sure bathroom stalls were wide enough, parking stalls were in compliance, ramps were properly angled, etc. When a local business refused to allow her on their premises (the business knew of her multiple claims) she sued that business for discrimination. It really disgusted me.
Thank the politicians for a bad law. Fact is they should just have a code enforcement agency to take care of all this and forget the lawsuits.
I’ve handled many lawsuits just like this and it really is a lawyers’ cottage industry. These people, for whom one might ordinarily feel a twinge of sympathy for being confined to wheelchairs or walking devices, go from business to business making these suits. The pity is that they often target small businesses whose annual receipts won’t accommodate perfect compliance with the ADA, hence the tape measures, scales, and tilt meters they carry with them. They’ve driven many small businesses right out of business without so much as blinking an eye. Hard to continue to feel sympathy for their physical limitations under those circumstances. I wonder where is the loophole that garners the cash in the “generous” lawyer’s 60-day grace period. I can’t imagine a lawyer allowing such a thing without holding his hand out for some ready cash.
I think what we would find is the lawyer allows 60 days for full compliance – a fairly steep demand for any business, let alone small businesses. Don’t these people know there is an exemption in the ADA for those businesses that can’t afford the renovations? It’s too bad they still have to pay to defend themselves. The business should counter-sue for legal fees.
Hank,
1. FYI typically in these cases the plaintiff sues for access, not for money, thus there is no “money train” for Jeri. Not a penny.
2. The ADA is a civil rights law. Imagine not being able to reach the toilet paper. Imagine the humiliation. Imagine a sign saying, “toilet paper for whites only” or “jews may not use this toilet” or “evangelical christians may not eat in this restaurant” or “no parking for cripples” or “women may not enter this building.” We’re way beyond that, don’t you agree?
The ADA is a civil rights law and whether you like the law or not it is the law until it is repealed. Every business must comply with the ADA. There are different standards for businesses that existed prior to the effective date of the law. There are also tax credits that will assist small businesses with the cost of compliance.
A business that does not comply with the ADA is violating the civil rights of people with disabilities. There is no local enforcement of the ADA. That is what your representative in Congress voted for in the law. Congress in effect said that people with disabilities should enforce their own civil rights law and the businesses that violate the law should pay for the cost of enforcement.
As a person with a disability I am thankful for the attorneys that will help us fight for our civil rights.
SKM – totally wrong, they do sue for money and obtain it. get real and don’t talk about things unless you know for sure. What we are talking about here are the kind of pltf that goes into a place with a tape measure and if the “toilet paper” holder is even a 1/4 of an inch off of the ADA requirements they sue. It’s repulsive.
There are no damages under the ADA unless the department of Justice brings the case to Federal court. The DoJ can ask for fines up to $110,000 also. Yes, inches matter when you are in a wheelchair that will not go through a 24″ bathroom door.
Nancy,
Are you speaking about the individuals mentioned in the article, or about other plaintiffs in California, a state where people can and do sue for damages in these cases?
I agree with you that 1/4 of an inch might not, in some situations, be a violation of someone’s civil rights, but I do know of many instances where one inch did make the difference between someone being able to use a toilet or not, or enter a restaurant or not, or cross the street or not.
talking about good old CA. I do deal with enough of these B.S. lawsuits as all my clients are in the construction industry. 9 times out of 10, my client building according to plans and specs given by the City/Owner/Architect and once completed are signed off by the City and then come the money grubbing atty and their clients crying that the incline of a ramp is 2.2% instead of the 2%. Or the height of the Starbuck counter is 24.2 inches instead of 24 inches. It’s just totally bogus.
Ms. Nancy,
The problem is not the ADA but a poorly crafted California law. The California law makers should make the necessary changes in the California laws. In Oklahoma where I previously lived there are many businesses that are totally inaccessible. Even new businesses were being built that did not make any attempt at ADA compliance.
The ADA allows construction standards to be applied to ADA standards (28CFR Part 36 Section 3.2). If the contractor builds the facility to the architects plans and the plans are wrong then the architect should be liable the costs of the lawsuit. If the contractor builds it wrong then shame on him.
I would ask that you not judge people with disabilities across the nation based on abuses of a California law by Californians.
Respectfully,
JLL
We have learned the hard way that local building officials are not empowered to “sign off” on federal civil rights law, and that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is not a guarantee that a building is accessible.
Regarding new construction and alterations, here are a couple of things that help ensure compliance with the ADA:
1. Along with the architect, structural engineer, mechanical engineer and so on, include an accessibility consultant in the design team.
2. To avoid even slight deviations from the allowable minimum requirements of enforceable statute, don’t design to the minimum requirements, but add a bit of elbow room to allow for construction tolerances or sloppy workmanship.
For example, the ADAAG (ADA Accessibility Guidelines) says, “The least possible slope shall be used for any ramp. The maximum slope of a ramp in new construction shall be 1:12.”
Translated into the vernacular, this means that the worst allowable ramp slope is 1:12. So, why not design it to be a bit less steep, say 1:13 or 1:14. Then, should there be a slight construction error, the ramp will still be compliant.
The same is true for the pavement at accessible parking spaces, which may slope no more than 2% in any direction. Don’t design it for 2%, design for 1% or 1.5%.
The minimum requirements should not be seen by the architect as a cap or as an ideal, but rather as the worst conditions allowable by law. Don’t design to the minimum and you will avoid getting into trouble down the road.
Just a thought.