Posted on 01/06/2011 8:16:33 AM PST by SmithL
San Francisco merchants, concerned about being sued for failing to provide access to disabled customers, met Tuesday with city officials who soon will embark on a campaign to educate business owners about accessibility requirements and help forestall lawsuits that might put them out of business.
Since November, several Noe Valley shop owners have received letters from people with disabilities suggesting that their stores may be violating state laws or federal access standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Those notices coincided with a rash of civil rights lawsuits in the Richmond District in late November that led some businesses to close. That followed similar suits in the Mission District in the fall. Letters commonly precede such legal action.
Among those contacted was Bill Hoover, who has owned Gallery of Jewels on 24th Street for 21 years.
"My shop has a 4-inch step and it's only about 250 square feet total, so I can't satisfy any of the requirements," Hoover said. "If I had to meet the code, I wouldn't have room for any inventory."
...the city has seen a spike in ADA lawsuits against small-business owners. She said the city wants the merchants to comply with the law, but also is aware that there are some plaintiffs who are more interested in money than they are in improving conditions for disabled people.
Federal and state laws related to disability access are enforced through civil lawsuits. When a person with a disability believes he has experienced unequal access to goods or services, he has the right to sue.
The federal claims can be combined with the California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, under which a plaintiff may demand $4,000 per impediment. Federal law also allows for attorneys' fees.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
From Day 1 the ADA has been a “Get Rich Quick” scheme for plaintiff lawyers and disability rights activists. The shakedowns continue . . .
Accessibility is like replacing steps with ramps and making it easier to access a business. This isn’t really a major problem.
The problem is attorneys filing shakedown suits at small businesses that have no real merit. A good law can be abused for nefarious ends.
I am glad to see these lawsuits come to the Bay Area. Perhaps some progressive Bay business owners will be enlightened when they are put out of business by government regulations.
That is a nifty way to put your smaller competitors out of business. Almost like having the Mob on your side only legal.
The specifications are very exact and they change a lot to become more specific.
If businesses remodel they can get sued if they are not strictly following ADA - many businesses don’t remodel because of it.
You’re off by a half an inch - you’re in trouble.
Almost 9 years ago we moved our travel agency from a plaza to a residence that we converted to a business building. There were 3 steps at the main entrance. The county made us put a ramp in. Because of the restrictions on the degree of incline we had to build half of it in one direction and the other half going the other way. Cost for this ramp was $12,000 and in 9 years it has never been used!!!!
Its a good law.
Greedy lawyers seeking to exploit it aren’t.
I’m sure there are cases where people with disability don’t get access but the nuisance cases are costly.
Lawsuits on disabled-access are not confined to S.F., these are being filed all over the country by law firms that specialize in this. “Specialize” means it’s extortion by blood sucking plaintiff lawyers. Most laws and regulations put in place on disabilities, the environment, consumer safety, etc. are actually more used to suck money out of businesses, landlords and property owners (the productive part of America) than correcting wrongs.
If access was needed for disabled, why not ask the property owner to make a reasonable correction at modest cost, rather than fining first and requiring an expensive and impossible fix? These laws need a cost benefit add on to protect property owners, plus, keep the lawyers out.
“Its a good law.”
I do not think it is good law. I believe that a tax should have been enacted to pay for the costs of disability compliance rather than forcing the costs on businesses. Provisions in the law that allow nuisance law suits should never have been there.
I deal with this all the time on new construction projects. There is a document called ADA Guidelines, that we have to follow.
Guidelines...not ‘rules’. There is language in there about doing what is ‘practical’ and ‘possible’. However, due to lawsuits, we treat it as an absolute ‘rulebook’ on all new construction. The result: lawsuits over new construction has dried up. Also, some city and county employees who were ‘ADA Policeman’ (one actually had a badge!) were laid off.
What to do now? File lawsuits on existing buildings.
Agree about allowing nuisance suits. Things should be worked out between a business and a customer before heading to court.
How is it a good law? Exactly?
The ADA was written by the Trial Lawyer Association lobbyists and has nothing to do with disability but the ability to extort businesses.
Check the number of actual ADA complaints versus lawsuits.
The complaints number in the tens in each state while the lawsuits number in the thousands.
So the law is not meant to encourage businesses to correct accessibility but to sue them for financial gain.
I assert that that was the intention all along.
Keep out any smaller competitors that can’t afford to comply with regs.
This is not a new story, back in 2005 this article was pubished: “ADA lawsuit abuse is closing small businesses”
This month’s issue of “Fortune Small Business” tells two sad stories of California small-business owners that perfectly encapsulate the scandal being perpetrated on the ADA:
“Dave Mock was hit too - and harder. The owner of Mock Bros., a saddle maker in Yucca Valley, Calif., was sued for several alleged ADA violations, including a counter that was too high to be accessible for disabled customers. When lawyers’ fees hit $27,000, Mock settled and paid $4,000 in damages. But that wasn’t the end of it. To address his ADA violations, he would have to make at least another $20,000 in renovations. Instead he shut down his store this past December and sold the property. The great irony: Mock Bros. was founded in 1941 by Archie Mock, Dave’s uncle, a paraplegic who is now deceased.
If the building was constructed before the law was passed, they should be more-or-less exempted from ADA requirements. A small business doesn’t have the luxury of spending a lot of money on improvements to attract a small number of customers.
It drives me crazy when I see every new baseball stadium having a wheelchair lift next to the dugout. Has there ever been a wheelchair-bound outfielder?
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.