# Disability Rights Lawyer Targets Burger Stand, Forces It To Close



## mark handler (Oct 1, 2012)

Disability Rights Lawyer Scott Johnson Targets Burger Stand, Forces It To Close

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10/01/disability-rights-lawyer-scott-johnson-targets-burger-stand-for/

Claire Gordon Oct 1st 2012 @ 12:45PM

Employment News & Trends







The poor economy brought Ford's Real Hamburgers to the brink. But the owners of the Sacramento, Calif., burger stand say they finally had to close when they became the target of a disability rights crusader. Without the cash on hand to make its bathroom handicapped-accessible, Ford's says that after more than two decades of business it was forced to fry its last patty.

Scott Johnson, a quadriplegic, sued the burger stand on Sept. 7, claiming that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Under the ADA, all public accommodations must make "reasonable modifications" so that disabled people can enjoy the place like anybody else.

Johnson claimed that the burger stand's lack of disabled parking and an accessible restroom caused him to experience "difficulty, discomfort and embarrassment" on the two times he visited, and made him feel like "a second class citizen." His lawsuit requested a court order to force Ford's to make renovations, as well as attorney's fees and the minimum damages for discrimination: $4,000 for each offense.

 "We scrimped and saved and cut down the staff. I'm down to six employees," owner Hank Vereschzagin told Sacramento TV station KTXL. But there just wasn't the money to renovate the 60-year-old building. "I don't know what I'm going to do next," he added. "I just know I can't keep this open."

Ford's is far from the first small business to be targeted by Johnson, an attorney who was disabled by a hit-and-run drunken driver in 1981. Back in 2010 Sacramento's KXTV reported that, since the early 2000s, Johnson had sued more than 1,000 businesses to enforce the ADA in Northern California,

Johnson has claimed that his average settlement is between $4,000 and $6,000, which means that his compensation may add up to the millions. But he says that it's in the service of a larger cause -- pushing businesses to be ADA-compliant.

 Fellow wheelchair-user and longtime Ford's customer, Jerry Sylvia, said that he doesn't feel as if Johnson is fighting for him, however. "He's strictly crusading on his own behalf," he told KTXL.

And Johnson has made many enemies over the years, including local radio host Joe Getty, who has accused Johnson of "bold-faced extortion masquerading as trying to help the handicapped." "It's crime," he told KXTV. "It's legalized crime."

And what Johnson is doing is, in fact, legal. The controversy swirling around his lawsuits, Johnson has said, simply shows how reluctant many business owners are to ensure that they don't discriminate against the disabled. "I bring change," he told KXTV. "People resist change."


----------



## fatboy (Oct 1, 2012)

Yeah, you brought change.......another small business closed.

I know, I know......they have had 20+ years to come into compliance, but really, it's a mom and pop hamburger stand with a handful of employees, now they are closed, and employees are looking for work.


----------



## JBI (Oct 1, 2012)

Agreed. This person is not fighting the good fight. He is bitter and vengeful and targetting good people. JMHO


----------



## Rider Rick (Oct 1, 2012)

But  how can you stop him?

It is for ADA and with time we will all need.


----------



## ICE (Oct 1, 2012)

Well it's not like you can't get a burger in Sacramento.



> caused him to experience "difficulty, discomfort and embarrassment" on the two times he visited, and made him feel like "a second class citizen."....Johnson had sued more than 1,000 businesses to enforce the ADA in Northern California


Could the burger joint claim that Johnson is way beyond difficulty, discomfort and embarrassment considering that he has brought it upon himself over a 1000 times.


----------



## RJJ (Oct 2, 2012)

No Ice! This is just where we have lost some type of balance in the legal system. ADA has become a driving force. I agree that it is needed and should be complied with, but in the same breath how do we find balance in these types of situations?


----------



## Rio (Oct 2, 2012)

The whole ADA debacle is a great example of the road to hell being paved with good, or maybe not so good intentions.  What could be more noble than pushing for an environment where access is available to the less fortunate among us?  Of course, the way the law is written and applied the result has been a heavy handed sledgehammer crashing into the business lives of way too many people.

 It's also a good example of government regulations run amok; instead of keeping the rules to some sort of straightforward guideline it has morphed and grown to thousands and thousands of pages.  The whole thing is now so complicated that people specialize in interpreting these laws, hence CASP.  It is an absurd situation with severe consequences for not towing the government line.

When I saw ADA ramps being installed at the corners of  sidewalks on hills that a dirt bike would have trouble going up I knew we were screwed.............


----------



## Msradell (Oct 2, 2012)

He had 22 years to become compliant.  Shame on him for ignoring the law for that long.  Yes, it's a shame that a small business had to close but he definitely brought in on himself.  Mr. Johnson has filed many lawsuits against businesses that are not compliant, that's a fact.  I'm sure many other people with disabilities had problems using this business.  The difference is they didn't know how to file a suit or didn't have time to file one and he did.  Maybe people should start looking at the businesses that don't comply instead of the people filing the lawsuits.  If everyone was in compliance he wouldn't have anyone to file suit against!


----------



## jpranch (Oct 2, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> He had 22 years to become compliant.  Shame on him for ignoring the law for that long.  Yes, it's a shame that a small business had to close but he definitely brought in on himself.  Mr. Johnson has filed many lawsuits against businesses that are not compliant, that's a fact.  I'm sure many other people with disabilities had problems using this business.  The difference is they didn't know how to file a suit or didn't have time to file one and he did.  Maybe people should start looking at the businesses that don't comply instead of the people filing the lawsuits.  If everyone was in compliance he wouldn't have anyone to file suit against!


Well... I guess that is one way to make a living... Or better...  And a dam good one at that.  4G a pop... How many times a year... I just cannot sue anyone. Just is not in me even for personal gain... Mon & Pop, roll up the carpets. The party ( and making a living) is over. The cursades...


----------



## Rider Rick (Oct 2, 2012)

Msradell said:
			
		

> He had 22 years to become compliant.  Shame on him for ignoring the law for that long.  Yes, it's a shame that a small business had to close but he definitely brought in on himself.  Mr. Johnson has filed many lawsuits against businesses that are not compliant, that's a fact.  I'm sure many other people with disabilities had problems using this business.  The difference is they didn't know how to file a suit or didn't have time to file one and he did.  Maybe people should start looking at the businesses that don't comply instead of the people filing the lawsuits.  If everyone was in compliance he wouldn't have anyone to file suit against!


I support ADA but I think you are the problem.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 2, 2012)

My point. If I pull into a parking lot, and I can't find a spot, or I look at the lines, and they are longer than my choosing......guess what, I go somewhere else, where I can get timely service. Supply and demand. I understand the access points, but really, for a burger?


----------



## jpranch (Oct 2, 2012)

Law suites of the future: Violation of the green codes & the energy codes, and this is when the feds make it federal law. OMG, where have we come from and where are we going???


----------



## ICE (Oct 2, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> My point. If I pull into a parking lot, and I can't find a spot, or I look at the lines, and they are longer than my choosing......guess what, I go somewhere else, where I can get timely service. Supply and demand. I understand the access points, but really, for a burger?


I'm guessing that you can't drive by a burger joint without stopping.


----------



## conarb (Oct 2, 2012)

Fatboy said:
			
		

> My point. If I pull into a parking lot, and I can't find a spot, or I  look at the lines, and they are longer than my choosing......guess what,  I go somewhere else, where I can get timely service. Supply and demand.  I understand the access points, but really, for a burger?


And I can remember times that I tried to park, found several handicap spaces open but no regular spaces, so I went somewhere else where I could park.  I've had to wonder how much business has been lost because of so many unused handicap slots.  I recently waited over half an hour at my structural engineer's office because of no parking while a half a dozen handicap spaces sat vacant.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 3, 2012)

He had 22 years to remove barriers to make his business accessible. The ADA does not require him to remodel and provide a compliant restroom California brought that upon themselves Not every business in this country that does not have accessible restrooms is in violation of the ADA. Plenty have been in business in the same location and have never remodeled or spent a dime to improve the facilities. If they removed barriers so a wheelchair can enter the premises then they complied with the minumum requirements

If Mr Johnson feels like a second class citizen it might be because he has no class at all


----------



## jar546 (Oct 3, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> And I can remember times that I tried to park, found several handicap spaces open but no regular spaces, so I went somewhere else where I could park.  I've had to wonder how much business has been lost because of so many unused handicap slots.  I recently waited over half an hour at my structural engineer's office because of no parking while a half a dozen handicap spaces sat vacant.


Come to NE PA where we have the 2nd largest elderly population per capita and you will see that even with additional ADA parking spots, there are still often not enough.  We are loaded with handicap license plates and placards.  The law is across the board, but each geographical area is different.


----------



## Rio (Oct 3, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Come to NE PA where we have the 2nd largest elderly population per capita and you will see that even with additional ADA parking spots, there are still often not enough.  We are loaded with handicap license plates and placards.  The law is across the board, but each geographical area is different.


In California if one has an ADA placard hanging from one's rear view mirror one does not have to feed the meter.   I was in downtown San Diego doing business by the State of California business building and over half of the cars parked on the street had placards.


----------



## pmarx (Oct 3, 2012)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> But  how can you stop him?


I suppose by the people of California using I&R to repeal the law that allows people to sue for punitive damages.


----------



## pmarx (Oct 3, 2012)

pmarx said:
			
		

> I suppose by the people of California using I&R to repeal the law that allows people to sue for punitive damages.


It looks like that's not necessary now per

http://www.inspectpa.com/forum/showthread.php?9588-It-s-a-step-in-the-right-direction-but-many-more-need-to-be-taken

but it doesn't take effect in time for this guy.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 3, 2012)

pmarx said:
			
		

> I suppose by the people of California using I&R to repeal the law that allows people to sue for punitive damages.


The new law reduces the amount, but does not eliminate the law that allows people to sue for punitive damages.


----------



## conarb (Oct 3, 2012)

Rio said:
			
		

> In California if one has an ADA placard hanging from one's rear view  mirror one does not have to feed the meter.   I was in downtown San  Diego doing business by the State of California business building and  over half of the cars parked on the street had placards.


A few years ago a reporter did a study in downtown San Francisco, something like 90% of the cars parked downtown had handicap placards or license plates, this is a significant drop in income to the city.  The problem here is physicians giving these things to anybody who wants them, I could easily get one if I wanted, but consider it unethical.  Twenty years ago I had a red temporary placard while I was going through cancer radiation, with colon and bladder damage I was always pulling into service stations parking on sidewalks wherever I could to race into the rest rooms.  The doctors wanted to issue me a permanent blue placard but I refused, not wanting to be labeled inferior.


----------



## Rider Rick (Oct 3, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> A few years ago a reporter did a study in downtown San Francisco, something like 90% of the cars parked downtown had handicap placards or license plates, this is a significant drop in income to the city.  The problem here is physicians giving these things to anybody who wants them, I could easily get one if I wanted, but consider it unethical.  Twenty years ago I had a red temporary placard while I was going through cancer radiation, with colon and bladder damage I was always pulling into service stations parking on sidewalks wherever I could to race into the rest rooms.  The doctors wanted to issue me a permanent blue placard but I refused, not wanting to be labeled inferior.


Conarb,

You are from the old school.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 3, 2012)

> In California if one has an ADA placard hanging from one's rear view  mirror one does not have to feed the meter.


Change that law and make em pay. Equal is equal


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 3, 2012)

[h=3]I thought this was an interesting position from the ADA.

There maybe hope that there is still some common sense within the feds.

208 and 502 Parking      Spaces[/h]*General.* Where parking      spaces are provided, the 1991 Standards, at sections 4.1.2 (5)(a) and (7) and      7(a), and the 2010 Standards, at section 208.1, require a specified number of      the parking spaces to be accessible. The 2010 Standards, at section 208,      include an exception that exempts parking spaces used exclusively for buses,      trucks, delivery vehicles, law enforcement vehicles, or for purposes of      vehicular impound, from the scoping requirement for parking spaces, provided      that when these lots are accessed by the public the lot has an accessible      passenger loading zone.

The 2010 Standards      require accessible parking spaces to be identified by signs that display the      International Symbol of Accessibility. Section 216.5, Exceptions 1 and 2, of      the 2010 Standards exempt certain accessible parking spaces from this signage      requirement. The first exception exempts sites that have four or fewer parking      spaces from the signage requirement. Residential facilities where parking      spaces are assigned to specific dwelling units are also exempted from the      signage requirement.

Commenters stated that      the first exception, by allowing a small parking lot with four or fewer spaces      not to post a sign at its one accessible space, is problematic because it could      allow all drivers to park in accessible parking spaces. The Department believes      that this exception provides necessary relief for small business entities that      may otherwise face the prospect of having between twenty-five percent (25%) and      one hundred percent (100%) of their limited parking area unavailable to their      customers because they are reserved for the exclusive use of persons whose      vehicles display accessible tags or parking placards. The 2010 Standards still require      these businesses to ensure that at least one of their available parking spaces      is designed to be accessible.

A commenter stated that      accessible parking spaces must be clearly marked. The Department notes that      section 502.6 of the 2010 Standards provides that accessible parking spaces      must be identified by signs that include the International Symbol of      Accessibility. Also, section 502.3.3 of the 2010 Standards requires that access      aisles be marked so as to discourage parking in them.

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/Guidance2010ADAstandards.htm


----------



## conarb (Oct 3, 2012)

Looks like Mr. Johnson is getting sued himself for some pretty despicable acts.


----------



## Rider Rick (Oct 3, 2012)

What goes around comes around.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 4, 2012)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> I support ADA but I think you are the problem.


  I support ADA and think you're an idiot...so long as we're sharing meaningless insults.


----------



## Rider Rick (Oct 4, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> I support ADA and think you're an idiot...so long as we're sharing meaningless insults.


I must of hit a nerve.


----------



## ICE (Oct 4, 2012)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> I must of hit a nerve.


Well if anybody has nerve, it's brudgers.


----------



## Rider Rick (Oct 4, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well if anybody has nerve, it's brudgers.


Thanks Tiger.


----------



## ICE (Oct 4, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> A few years ago a reporter did a study in downtown San Francisco, something like 90% of the cars parked downtown had handicap placards or license plates, this is a significant drop in income to the city.  The problem here is physicians giving these things to anybody who wants them, I could easily get one if I wanted, but consider it unethical.  Twenty years ago I had a red temporary placard while I was going through cancer radiation, with colon and bladder damage I was always pulling into service stations parking on sidewalks wherever I could to race into the rest rooms.  The doctors wanted to issue me a permanent blue placard but I refused, *not wanting to be labeled inferior*.


Now that's aiming at a nerve.


----------



## ICE (Oct 5, 2012)

> Originally Posted by ICE Well if anybody has nerve, it's brudgers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No need to thank me. It's not like I gave him any of mine. (nerve that is)

Some days it takes all I've got just to walk into the jungle. (nerve that is)


----------



## jar546 (Oct 5, 2012)

I see the skin is thick in this thread.  Very nice!


----------



## brudgers (Oct 5, 2012)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> I must of hit a nerve.


  Hardly. Non-compliance is the problem. Damages provisions such as California's actually provide the only practical mechanism for creating it. In true free market fashion, it creates economic disincentives to offset the economic incentives of non-compliance.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 5, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Hardly. Non-compliance is the problem. Damages provisions such as California's actually provide the only practical mechanism for creating it. In true free market fashion, it creates economic disincentives to offset the economic incentives of non-compliance.


I agree.  The DOJ is not proactive in enforcement.  They are strictly reactive and they lack the capabilities to provide enforcement at the level required.  Therefore, the only incentive for compliance is through the threat of litigation.  Even with proactive enforcement of Ch 11 of the IBC and the ANSI A117.1 in PA, accessibility is still fought by property owners and design professionals.  The "on your honor" system of self regulation through design professionals and owners simply does not work.

On the other end, the property owners should only be liable for the items that were required to be made accessible under the law.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 5, 2012)

California's ADA law is equal to extortion. Send a letter out that claims a violation. Pay me and I won't sue.

The ADA never intended all existing buildings in 1992 to be 100% compliant 20 years later. So get off the box


----------



## brudgers (Oct 5, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> California's ADA law is equal to extortion. Send a letter out that claims a violation. Pay me and I won't sue.   The ADA never intended all existing buildings in 1992 to be 100% compliant 20 years later. So get off the box


  The ADA requires businesses to actively engage in the removal of architectural barriers.   It requires building owner's to do the same.

  If burger boy had set aside $100 a month for upgrades when the law came into effect, he'd have made the changes years ago.

  He even could have pursued a tax break for it.

  But he chose to ignore the law instead.

  Now he's whining.

  Someone, pass me a tissue.


----------



## pwood (Oct 5, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> California's ADA law is equal to extortion. Send a letter out that claims a violation. Pay me and I won't sue. The ADA never intended all existing buildings in 1992 to be 100% compliant 20 years later. So get off the box


 demand letters have been banned with a new bill from the lawmakers.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 5, 2012)

pwood said:
			
		

> demand letters have been banned with a new bill from the lawmakers.


But is not retroactive, and does not prevent a lawsuit. It just changes the rules and fines.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Oct 5, 2012)

> The ADA requires businesses to actively engage in the removal of architectural barriers.


You seem to forget the "readily achievable" part. Money is not the only thing to consider and at some point it is no longer needed or required. Unfortunatley some items like drinking fountains, pay telephones, and benches will simply be removed and never replaced.

 A small businees may not have the space to expand a restroom to meet ADA without impacting their sales. The ADA recognizes these situations not being "readily achievable" and therefore not required to comply. *How do I determine what is readily achievable?*

“Readily achievable” means easily accomplishable and able to be carried

out without much difficulty or expense. Determining if barrier removal is

readily achievable is, by necessity, a case-by-case judgment. Factors to

consider include:

1) The nature and cost of the action;

2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved; the

number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses

and resources; legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe

operation, including crime prevention measures; or any other

impact of the action on the operation of the site;

3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal

relationship of the site or sites in question to any parent corporation

or entity;

4) If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation

or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or

entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number,

type, and location of its facilities; and

5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any parent

corporation or entity, including the composition, structure, and

functions of the workforce of the parent corporation or entity.

If the public accommodation is a facility that is owned or operated by a

parent entity that conducts operations at many different sites, you must

consider the resources of both the local facility and the parent entity to

determine if removal of a particular barrier is “readily achievable.” The

administrative and fiscal relationship between the local facility and the

parent entity must also be considered in evaluating what resources are

available for any particular act of barrier removal.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 5, 2012)

Over the course of twenty years, anyone can remodel a restroom.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 5, 2012)

Thanks that posting.......sounds reasonable. That being the case, pardon the pun, why are these small businesses settling with this jerk? Of course it is that cost of the business having to litigate it. Another example of why "loser pays all expenses" would make sense. This jerk has nothing better to do than file suits where he represents himself, where the businesses would have to retain Counsel.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 5, 2012)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Thanks that posting.......sounds reasonable. That being the case, pardon the pun, why are these small businesses settling with this jerk? Of course it is that cost of the business having to litigate it. Another example of why "loser pays all expenses" would make sense. This jerk has nothing better to do than file suits where he represents himself, where the businesses would have to retain Counsel.


  Ironically, accessibility is a cost of doing business, too.


----------



## Rio (Oct 5, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Hardly. Non-compliance is the problem. Damages provisions such as California's actually provide the only practical mechanism for creating it. In true free market fashion, it creates economic disincentives to offset the economic incentives of non-compliance.


Nothing free market about it: As MtlogCabin pointed out many times it's nothing more than legal extortion.  A more appropriate name for the legislation should have been 'The Trial Lawyers full employment act'.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 8, 2012)

Rio said:
			
		

> Nothing free market about it: As MtlogCabin pointed out many times it's nothing more than legal extortion.  A more appropriate name for the legislation should have been 'The Trial Lawyers full employment act'.


  It's just one business offering a business proposition to another...that's the free market.


----------

