Posted on 07/28/2017 1:24:44 PM PDT by rey
A California attorney who has made a name for himself suing thousands of businesses and governments across the state over alleged violations of federal disability access law now is taking aim at enterprises in Willits and Ukiah.
Thomas Frankovich and his disabled Willits client have filed eight separate federal discrimination lawsuits affecting more than two dozen Mendocino County businesses since late December, accusing the defendants of failing to provide adequate access for disabled people as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The lawsuits affect restaurants in Willits and Ukiah, a Willits book store, a Ukiah car dealership and a Willits strip mall that contains more than a dozen shops and restaurants.
“The sheriff’s in town and we’re going to clean it up. It’s that simple,” Frankovich said in an interview on Wednesday, the 27th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at pressdemocrat.com ...
I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy
I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy
All around in my home town
They’re trying to track me down
They say they want to bring me in guilty
For the killing of a deputy
For the life of a deputy, but I say
I shot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
I shot the sheriff, and they say it is a capital offense
Sheriff John Brown always hated me
For what I don’t know
Every time that I plant a seed
He said, “Kill it before it grows”
He said, “Kill it before it grows”, I say
I shot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
I shot the sheriff, but I swear it was in self-defense
Freedom came my way one day
And I started out of town
All of a sudden I see sheriff John Brown
Aiming to…
Attorney aside, why are these businesses not compliant?
Some disabled kid’s parents at our preschool made a HUGE stink about there being no ramps for their enrolled daughter. It was an old, historic city building so the city naturally complied (and really uglified the building with the ramp).
So what did the parents do? Show gratitude? Express thanks? Be warm and gracious to the city, the preschool teachers, and other parents for making it possible for their little darling to attend?
Not on your life. They yanked her from the school before the term even started. She never once used her special custom ramp. I’m not sure if it’s ever been used in the 20 years since.
Doobie Brothers - Ukiah
People rushin’ everywhere
If they’d only slow down once
They might find something there
Green trees and timber land
People workin’ with their hands
For sure a different way to live
Gonna keep my cabin at hand
Retreat and live off the land
All around Ukiah, wo
The mountain streams that rush on by
Show the fish a jumpin’
And reflect the open sky
The fresh clean smell of the pines
Symbol of unchanging times
All around this sacred land
Strangely, though, I’ve found my way
Right here I’m gonna stay
In this land Ukiah, wo
Exactly. His client contacts him on one case, he sues 5 other business because he can and pockets most of the money while his client gets a fraction of it.
All locations should be ADA compliant. Consider it might be for a kid, or, maybe, for a disabled veteran.
Architectural Barriers Act
The Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) requires that buildings and facilities that are designed, constructed, or altered with FEDERAL FUNDS, or leased by a FEDERAL AGENCY, comply with Federal standards for physical accessibility. ABA requirements ARE LIMITED TO architectural standards in NEW and ALTERED buildings and in NEWLY LEASED facilities. They do not address the activities conducted in those buildings and facilities. Facilities of the U.S. Postal Service are covered by the ABA.
Sorry. The ADA relies on emotional responses. It is patently unconstitutional. If they can tell you how to be compliant, who to be compliant for, then they can dictate who you must serve, like homosexual cakes, and who gets to use what restroom when and where?
Another thing about this law, for a good 20 years, the feds needn’t be compliant. It was only recently that the buildings the legislature uses were made fully compliant.
AND, every few years the standards change. I have lost count how many times the street corners have been redone to comply with new ADA zoning. Start to add up every street corner in the US and all the other changes required by the law (probably trillions), it would probably be cheaper to give every truly handicapped person a ridiculous chunk of change to facilitate their getting around.
This guy is notorious for looking for loopholes to file charges against businesses.
He’s been making millions off this for over a decade that I know of.
He’s been covered in Southern California in local news media, and not favorably.
To be honest, I’m rather surprised someone hasn’t gone postal on him yet.
Many of these are mom and pop businesses that can’t afford to retrofit. They’re barely making ends meet as it is.
Then there are places like dance clubs that have to comply with wheel chair guidelines.
I think it is possible that a lot of these buildings were built before new laws were passed and codified. Constitutionally this would make them exempt under the Grandfather clause, especially federal laws. But California has heir own codes about disabled access. But Ca is good about passing Ex Post Facto laws and getting away with it.
All RETROACTIVE laws are unconstitutional period. That’s why they couldn’t force everyone to retrofit older cars with seat belts after the seat belt law was passed. It can constitutionally only apply to any cars produced AFTER the law was passed. But they are letting Ca get away with a lot of these.
All locations should be ADA compliant.
Granted, this is a public school and every kid has to be accommodated. But if you are running a business out of a building that’s 100 years old, or if you are a county government in a 100 year old courthouse, getting ADA compliant can be virtually impossible.
Old or new, there is no excuse and should be zero exception for a building to not be ADA compliant. Do you want to be the one to tell a veteran or a kid or grandma that she cannot go in, cannot visit, cannot attend, or even work in the location because of their challenge?
Did they also request at least two handicapped parking spaces per business?
I frequent a local machine shop owned by three brothers. They were hit with this last summer.
Not only did they have to set aside parking spots that will (probably) never be used, but they were told the lot had too much of a slope. They had to add fill, have it regraded, then new asphalt put in.
The ADA is a horrible law.
.
My neighborhood barbershop is run by a wonderful Vietnamese family. They always amaze me by seemingly knowing everyone’s name that walks through the door (I know what you’re thinking, but they don’t make appts).
Anyway, I was there one day when they were “served” a notice that they were being sued because they didn’t have a handicap parking space.
Long story short, the guy suing them wasn’t even a customer; he was a wheel-chair bound individual who apparently spent a lot of his time driving around looking for mom & pop shops to extort by threatening to sue because their handy-cap parking didn’t follow the letter of the law (in the case of my barber, his handy-cap spot wasn’t wide enough).
In the end, a lawyer from the neighborhood took on the case pro-bono (see - it never hurts to learn who your customers are & greet them by name) and took the grifter to task. The threat of a counter-suit seemed ended the matter.
“All locations should be ADA compliant. Consider it might be for a kid, or, maybe, for a disabled veteran.”
—
Nonsense,each case is different——large malls,hospitals,and municipal buildings yes,small private businesses,no.
.
“Old or new, there is no excuse and should be zero exception for a building to not be ADA compliant.”
Because someone’s feeling might be hurt?
Should my house be ADA compliant? Why not? A veteran or a kid or a grandma might not be able to come in and visit.
No, “hurt feelings” are an inadequate reason to enact/enforce any law.
The law this guy sues under actually only requires these businesses to come into compliance when they do "substantial remodeling." The liberal courts have been not following the law in siding with this serial suer due to the gray area about what constitutes "substantial." Some judges have claimed that repairing something at the locations, say a broken window, or replacing chairs or tables, or re-carpeting, can constitute substantial remodeling requiring a complete remodeling of the restrooms to make them handicapped accessible. Some older restrooms are literally not capable of being retrofitted for disabled access, since they require a five-foot turning radius and they may be only four foot wide. He has put numerous small firms out of business because they literally do not have the funds to come into compliance.
He came into San Joaquin County and hit more than thirty businesses before the courts there refused to accept any more suits from him.
He sued a three-story Apple Store claiming that although the third floor where the classrooms were located was accessible via elevator, persons with disabilities would be discriminated against by requiring them to USE the elevator instead of the stairs to reach the classrooms. . . and therefor the classrooms were not "equal access" for persons with disabilities! I forget how much he was demanding in damages, in addition to demanding that Apple ameliorate the conditions. That got tossed out.
I had a favorite restaurant go out of business after the owner made the court ordered "Improvements," losing one restroom, going from a women's and men's room going to a unisex restroom, at a cost of over $75,000. . . and over 10% of his floor space to allow for extra access. In addition, he had to pay this BOZO, who never ate at his restaurant, over $25,000 in the suit. The costs and lack of seats resulted in loss business and bankruptcy. . . yet he had never remodeled his restaurant. He was planning on building a new restaurant and moving to a better location. Instead 30 people were out of a job and he is now working for someone else. . . all because of this bozo and his attorney who have monetized this law.
There are other counties that have prohibited him from bringing suits due to his economic damage.
Funny thing, hilarious actually: this lawyer's office WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE! One of the owners of a businesses that was sued went to complain and found that his bathroom in his office had a door that was only 24" wide and no five foot turning radius!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.