# Fear of ADA lawsuit forces business to lock its doors



## mark handler (Jun 4, 2014)

Fear of ADA lawsuit forces business to lock its doors

http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/1/article/107230/

John Perez is afraid.

It is why he’s locking the door to his business these days.

His fear isn’t some meth crazed thug that might try to rob him.

That’s penny ante stuff.

He’s worried about lawyers using the law to loot the pockets of small businessmen like him.

Ever since Carmichael-based lawyer Scott Johnson slapped civil rights lawsuits against at least 21 Manteca business seeking punitive damages for allegedly being out of compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act access rules he’s been locking the front door to his South Main Street cabinet shop, Perez & Sons. He’s posted a sign that tells potential clients to call a specific number for an appointment. And while he doesn’t get a lot of drop-in clientele he can’t risk the chance.

A good number of the targets of Johnson’s 3,000 lawsuits throughout Northern California over the years have been forced out of business from Lake Tahoe to the Bay Area to Sacramento with punitive damages approaching six figures.

At least one of the 21 Manteca businesses served with court filing in the San Diego District federal court — Johnson avoids the Sacramento federal district as judges there have reportedly developed a low tolerance for his lawsuits — is facing such a possibility. Johnson drove over 60 miles to get a hair cut at The Hair Company on West Yosemite Avenue where none of their handicapped customers have ever complained about ADA accommodations. And instead of leaving a tip he had owner Janice Ward served with papers indicating he intends to sue her for $68,000 for various violations. And the bottom line as in  all of Johnson’s lawsuits is he doesn’t care if ADA improvements are made but failure to do so after paying damages can subject the business owner of a landlord to future lawsuits.

Some of the claims made against businesses include Century 21 Furniture’s failure to move fast enough to move a dinette chair pulled out from a table by a customer who was trying it out that was left in a manner to impede wheelchair access in an aisle.

“I’ve talked to a lot of business people and they’re very afraid,” Perez said.

• • •

Perez Cabinets sponsoring free workshop Friday

Perez decided to lock his doors until such time he could figure out what he needs to do to comply with the law to avoid being a target of attorneys trolling for legal paydays. His cabinet business is roughly 50 years old. His building is even older.

Perez, after listening to other business owners express fear of lawsuits that could wipe them out financially, decided to do something.

He’s secured the services of Dawn Anderson, an architect and inspector that is an expert in the area of construction and accessibility requirement regulations.

He’s arranged for Anderson to addresses concerned business people and landlords this Friday, June 6, from 1 to 4 p.m. at The Emory, 1028 W. Yosemite Ave.

And while Perez said that he and others appreciate the hour-long workshop staged by the city, the ADA expert the city had simply read printed documents and didn’t take questions. This time around there will be a presentation and an opportunity to ask questions.

Perez said Anderson is also trying to bring with her a lawyer that has extensive expertise in fighting the type of lawsuits Manteca businesses are up against.

The free workshop on Friday will cover:

•  how to reduce risk and liability posed by aggressive litigators.

•  ADA laws.

•  a review of basic claims made under ADA rules and protections provided by California statutes.

•  duties of businesses and property owners.

• 10 ways to reduce risk and liability.

• the need to hire an attorney and how to do so.

• • •

Manteca council may press for federal action

The Manteca City Council when they meet tonight is considering sending letters  to federal representatives in support of House of Representatives Bill 994 known as ‘The ACCESS” or ADA Compliance for Consumer Entry to Stores and Services Act. The bill authored by Congressman Ken Calvert of Southern California and co-sponsored by Congressman Jeff Denham and 12 others has languished in committee for over a year.

Johnson did not give businesses a chance to comply first with the ADA laws before suing them. Such a practice is allowed under federal law.

 The letter the council is considering notes for many of California’s small businesses the threat of a lawsuit alone can mean reduced hours, layoffs, limited pay increases for employees or shuttering of a business

The letter details how thousands of such lawsuits are filed in California each year. Based on California Chamber of Commerce statistics, over 40 percent of such ADA lawsuits nationwide are filed in the Golden State.

The proposed law would end the practice of “abusive lawsuits in which unscrupulous attorneys sue businesses seeking quick settlements, not improved access for the disabled.”

The bill would not make businesses immune from lawsuits. Instead it would give business owners and landlords 60 days to provide the aggrieved person with a description outlining the improvements that they will make to address the violation. Then they would have 120 days to remove or fix the violation. If landlords or business owners fail to meet the terms, only then will a lawsuit go forward.

The council meets at 7 p.m.  at the Civic Center, 1001 W. Center St.


----------



## Msradell (Jun 4, 2014)

Nice to see that some businesses are becoming proactive in regards to becoming accessible!  This is actually a good argument for lawsuits because these businesses are not going to become accessible to prevent becoming sued.  Maybe not the best way but after 20+ years something needs to be done to put a fire under their butts to become accessible and this appears to be working.


----------



## ICE (Jun 4, 2014)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Nice to see that some businesses are becoming proactive in regards to becoming accessible!


This is a story about a business that became completely inaccessible...to everyone.

I wonder what accessibility improvements have been made at the 3000 businesses that have been sued by this lawyer.


----------



## Min&Max (Jun 4, 2014)

Due to the "sue them" and " I'm entitled" attitude, I find myself becoming somewhat jaded to the plight of those with ADA issues.


----------



## ICE (Jun 4, 2014)

The number of serial ADA litigants is so small as to not count at all.

This is a man worth remembering when you think about the disabled.

http://www.wimp.com/inspirationalfarmer/


----------



## conarb (Jun 4, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> The number of serial ADA litigants is so small as to not count at all.


The other side of that coin is the number of truly disabled is too small to justify the trillions of dollars being spent extorting monies from private businesses and building new facilities for government agencies.  Nobody to my knowledge has ever done a cost benefit analysis on this.


----------



## MtnArch (Jun 4, 2014)

Once the state/federal legislators finally change the laws to force ALL monies to be put toward fixing the non-accessible features and give the lawyers a mere pittance, the amount of lawsuits will drop like a rock.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 4, 2014)

Do you really believe one lawyer would take from another

"......But if you dig into what’s wrong with America, you’ll find a lawyer at the bottom of every dung heap.That label on coffee that tells us the contents are “hot”?

A lawyer gave us that.

That twelve page rental car agreement?

Lawyers.

Sexual reassignment surgery in the military on the taxpayers’ dime?

More lawyers.

If it weren’t for lawyers you’d never have heard of Rev. Al Sharpton.

Bill Clinton, lawyer; Hillary Clinton, lawyer; Barack Obama, lawyer; John Edwards, lawyer.

And those are just the famous ones.

Right now in your hometown there are likely dozens of them overbilling clients, making and breaking promises, conspiring with the opposing counsel to the keep the billing going until the money is gone.

I’m thinking of one guy right now, locally where I live—a “conservative” mind you—who cheated one woman out of mid six figures when she would have been better off representing herself.

He’s the type of guy that a used car lot wouldn’t hire.

After all, there are standards in most _other_ professions.

But not with lawyers.

Lawyers look for problems, lawyers make problems worse, and in only the most heinous of cases does a lawyer get reprimanded.

So let’s just say that I’m hoping a legal precedent was started here with Judge Murphy.

Because while judges are lawyers themselves, they have to clear a docket after all.

They have to produce something.

So judges are free to pass over the hypocrisy of a legal system that rewards lawyers for producing nothing.

And if you think that sounds a lot like Washington, you’re right.

That’s why we have too many lawyers in DC, and that’s why they produce so little.

Kind of a chicken-and-egg scenario with the chicken billing the egg by the hour.

And before you accuse me of lawyer hate, let me remind you that it was William Shakespeare who penned the line: “The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.''

I don’t want lawyers to die. Too many lawsuits would result......"

John Ransom


----------



## mark handler (Jun 5, 2014)

There are too many lawyers in Washington and state Capitols because, we the people, keep putting them there.


----------



## conarb (Jun 5, 2014)

On the first day of law school they asked us what kind of law we intended to practice, most of us older guys said business law, the young guys were almost unanimous in saying environmental law because that's where the money was going to be, there was one exception, he said he wanted to practice women's civil rights law since that's where the big money was going to be, he went on to bankrupt several businesses including Lucky Stores, Albertsons bought the remains and recently restored the Lucky name.  He made a fortune on that one but came out of retirement to pursue his dream, destroying Walmart, he took that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost, the court saying it was a state court issue, his firm is now bringing his civil rights issues through the state court systems, state by state. He went on to advise lawyers on disability rights law and has recently been appointed a judge.



			
				State of California said:
			
		

> He was of counsel at Lewis Feinberg Lee Renaker and Jackson PC from 2010  to 2012 and a litigation advisor at the Disabilities Rights Education  and Defense Fund from 1992 to 1999.¹


As to the environmental lawyers, almost any project of any size is sued by usually several environmental organizations, in all cases they settle for as much money as they can get and move on to blackmail the next project.

¹ http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17861


----------



## mark handler (Jun 5, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> On the first day of law school they asked us what kind of law we intended to practice, most of us older guys said business law, the young guys were almost unanimous in saying environmental law because that's where the money was going to be, there was one exception, he said he wanted to practice women's civil rights law since that's where the big money was going to be, he went on to bankrupt several businesses including Lucky Stores, Albertsons bought the remains and recently restored the Lucky name.  He made a fortune on that one but came out of retirement to pursue his dream, destroying Walmart, he took that all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and lost, the court saying it was a state court issue, his firm is now bringing his civil rights issues through the state court systems, state by state. He went on to advise lawyers on disability rights law and has recently been appointed a judge.As to the environmental lawyers, almost any project of any size is sued by usually several environmental organizations, in all cases they settle for as much money as they can get and move on to blackmail the next project.
> 
> ¹ http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=17861


Interesting story but not true

Lucky Stores Never went into bankruptcy.  It was acquired by another company


----------



## conarb (Jun 5, 2014)

I heard they had filed Chapter 11, he did win $107 million from them and it could be that Albertsons bought them out to pay the judgement prior to the actual filing, anyway Lucky couldn't have remained in business and pay the judgment too.



			
				Berkeley Law said:
			
		

> *He successfully tried and then settled the third largest sex  discrimination class action recovery in history ($107.25 million), (**Stender **v.** Lucky Stores**,  803 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Cal. 1992))* and settled the first major  challenge to the use of psychological testing by a private employer, (Soroka _v._ Dayton Hudson Corp dba Target Stores). He was co-lead counsel in the then largest Americans with Disabilities Act access settlement, Arnold _v._ United Artists Theatre Circuit, 158 F.R.D. 439 (N.D. Cal. 1994). He settled the largest disability employment class action ever (Glover _v._ Potter (EEOC 2004)). He represented one of the principal objectors to the Georgine  class action settlement before the third Circuit and the United States  Supreme Court, where the standards for assessing settlement classes were  handed down. (Amchem Products, Inc. _v._ Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997)).¹


¹ https://www.law.berkeley.edu/2459.htm


----------



## mark handler (Jun 5, 2014)

Lucky Stores History

Lucky began in San Mateo county, just south of San Francisco as Peninsula Stores. Expansion to the East Bay in 1935, resulted in what investor Charles Crouch called his “lucky stores”, and the name was first used at the Berkeley store on Shattuck Avenue in 1935.Lucky was an innovative homegrown answer to Safeway, and stores were clustered primarily in Oakland and other East Bay locations.Lucky was a leader in the transition from small stores to supermarkets, opening a flagship store at East 14th and Juana, San Leandro in 1947, which featured a coffee shop and more. This store operated even under the Albertson’s name until the summer of 2005 when it was finally retired.Lucky grew by acquisition in many markets including Cardinal Stores (Sacramento), Big Bear (Seattle), Jim Dandy and Food Basket (Southern California), Kash and Karry (Florida), and Eagle Country Markets (Illinois). Many chains were operated under their old names for several years after their takeovers.Lucky also operated a chain of department stores called Gemco throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Memco (a Gemco clone on the east coast which was liquidated in 1983), Hancock Fabrics, and Grand Auto Supply at various periods during the 1970s. In reaction to a 1986 hostile takeover bid by Asher Edelman, Gemco and the specialty stores were sold or closed. Most of California’s Gemco stores were sold to Target, giving the discounter ts first foothold in California; many of these stores are still operating as Target branches today.In 1988, American Stores succesfully acquired Lucky in yet another hostile takeover attempt, and the chain became another division of that company, along with*Jewel-Osco*in the midwest,*Acme*in the northeast, Buttrey Stores in the Rockies, and*Alpha Beta, Food Basket, and Sav-on Drugs in Southern California. Eagle was spun off into a separate entity.Upon FTC review, American Stores’ Alpha Beta units in northern California were re-branded as Lucky, while a number of the southern California Alpha Beta branches were sold to Yucaipa and ultimately merged into*Ralphs*when that chain was also acquired by Yucaipa. The Skaggs Alpha Beta name lived on for a time outside California.In 1998, Albertson’s purchased American Stores and became the second largest grocery retailer in the US; all Lucky stores were rebranded the following year.In the Bay Area, Lucky was notable for retaining many of its older urban locations even when other grocers were closing or consolidating. Particularly in Oakland, many smaller stores were fifty years old and still maintained and modernized on a regular basis. Albertsons eventually closed or replaced many of these stores.In January 2006, Albertsons was sold to a group consisting of Supervalu (who bought Jewel, Acme, Shaw’s, and most of the other grocery proprties outside Northern California), CVS (who took most of the standalone Sav-on and Osco drug stores), and Cerberus (who purchased the Northern Caifornia grocery units plus those in the Rocky Mountain states, Texas, and Florida). There was some speculation that Cerberus might return the Lucky name to Northern California. In a way, this is exactly what happened, as Cerberus sold the Northern california units to*Save-Mart, which announced plans in July 2007 to*re-launch the Lucky Stores brand name*in the San Francisco Bay Area.In April 2006, Grocery Outlet, a chain of closeout stores based in California, attached the Lucky name to a remodeled store in Rocklin, and claimed its right to use the name and trademark that Albertsons had abandoned in 1999. Grocery Outlet backed off after Supervalu began opening its own Lucky-branded stores in Southern California and Nevada.Lucky in San Francisco:The company did not enter the San Francisco market until the 1940s. At one point in the late 1970s and early 1980s, there were four locations in the city. Two of these (1100 Eddy, closed about 1983 and since demolished, and 100 Lakeshore, since relocated within the same shopping center) were built from the ground up. The branch at 816 Geneva started as a Purity store, assumed the Lucky name in the early 1970s, closed in 1984, and has since been demolished.The final of the four, at 3925 Alemany, started as an Albertson’s in the late 1960s, operated as Lucky from about 1979 to 1999, and then (following the merger) became an Alberston’s again until being demolished and relocated within a rebuilt version of the shopping center and apartment complex in 2001.Two more stores (originally planned by Lucky before the merger) have opened in San Francisco since 2002, one at the site of a former Safeway on Clement Street and one at Fulton and Stanyan on the site of the former Petrini’s Market. Had the Lucky name survived, these stores would have brough the chain back to its historic high of four San Francisco units.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 5, 2014)

NOTHING TO DO WITH DISABILITY OR ADA OR ANY OTHER ISSUE ON THIS BOARD Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc   http://gbdhlegal.com/cases/stender-v-lucky-stores/

Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc.*was a class action brought on behalf of women employees of Lucky Stores, Inc.* After a three month trial, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a lengthy opinion finding that Lucky’s employment practices violated federal and state fair employment laws.* The decision is reported at 803 F. Supp. 259 (N.D. Cal. 1992). The court then conducted hearings to determine an appropriate remedy.* The case subsequently settled for $80 million and a ten year settlement agreement under which Lucky Stores agreed to make significant changes to its personnel practices throughout California to insure equal employment opportunities for all employees and to increase the number of women in management positions.


----------



## conarb (Jun 5, 2014)

I don't know the inside machinations, but the word was that he had bankrupted them and the name changed on all the stores around here to Albertsons, those stores are now back to being Luckys.

The fact is that he got $107 million, the way these class actions are settled is there are usually about a half dozen named plaintifs as well as all the other affected employees who didn't opt out, the usual terms of settlement is that the named plaintiffs get something like $10,000 to $20,000 each and the rest of the class gets something like $10 to $20 dollars each, the attorneys get the rest.  The supposedly harmed plaintiffs are simply pawns exploited by the attorneys, just like disability law.  Civil rights law has been a disaster for this country and should entirely be eliminated as soon as possible, it's nothing but a gold mine for attorneys and others who cash in to exploit the law and those supposedly harmed. Here are the *FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW*, there were 7 named plaintiffs in this case.

By far my biggest gripe is government agencies who use ADA compliance as an excuse to pass bond issues that give them everything from, new schools to remodeled city halls and parks, in many cases raiding those funds to fund their unfunded employee benefit obligations.


----------



## conarb (Jun 5, 2014)

Mark said:
			
		

> NOTHING TO DO WITH DISABILITY OR ADA OR ANY OTHER ISSUE ON THIS BOARD Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc


You are the one constantly posting that ADA is civil rights law, women's rights are civil rights law as well.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 5, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> You are the one constantly posting that ADA is civil rights law, women's rights are civil rights law as well.


ADA is a civil rights law that has element that relates to the built environment.  Woman's rights and employment law as related in your tail, do not. A women suing because she was paid less and was not made a manager has nothing to do with built the environment, this has nothing to do with the site topics..

Just because someone may talk about a garage does not mean we want to hear about the tuning up of a humvee


----------



## conarb (Jun 5, 2014)

Mark said:
			
		

> ADA is a civil rights law that has element that relates to the built  environment.  Woman's rights and employment law as related in your tail [sic],  do not. A women suing because she was paid less and was not made a  manager has nothing to do with built the environment, this has nothing  to do with the site topics..


Well, stop posting about ADA and confine yourself to accessibility issues to the extent that similar statutes are adopted in the building codes. Your original post is about attorney Scott Johnson bringing actions in Federal Court for ADA violations, those actions have nothing to do with the codes as enforced here.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 5, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Well, stop posting about ADA and confine yourself to accessibility issues to the extent that similar statutes are adopted in the building codes. Your original post is about attorney Scott Johnson bringing actions in Federal Court for ADA violations, those actions have nothing to do with the codes as enforced here.


And for such an educated man......... that is where you are once again wrong......


----------



## conarb (Jun 5, 2014)

Mark said:
			
		

> that is where you are once again wrong......


Mark:

Where am I wrong?  Building codes are state code issues, ADA is federal law, I see nothing in your posted article about building codes or state law:



			
				Manteca Bulletin said:
			
		

> A good number of the targets of  Johnson’s 3,000 lawsuits throughout Northern California over the years  have been forced out of business from Lake Tahoe to the Bay Area to  Sacramento with punitive damages approaching six figures. At least one of the 21 Manteca businesses served *with court filing in  the San Diego District federal court — Johnson avoids the Sacramento  federal district as judges there have reportedly developed a low  tolerance for his lawsuits —* ¹


¹ http://www.mantecabulletin.com/section/1/article/107230/


----------



## mark handler (Jun 5, 2014)

Dick

The ADA is partially an accessibility issue.  State law requires compliance with the ADA.

The 2013 California Building Code sections ARE NOW BASED ON THE ADASAD. Federal accessibility guidelines.

The problem is the ADA law is so inclusive that it includes too much. Infringement of rights is ambiguous.

People that are suing in federal court for everything and claiming ADA violation.

California allows for 4, 000 per violation. The fed's do not allow for that.

The federal courts should not allow themselves to be used for that.

But to say the ADA should not be a part of the building code is like Donald Sterling to say he is not a racist.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 5, 2014)

Dick

From now on every time you see the term ADA replace it with accessible.

People/newspapers have misused the term.

This may help . The business closed because it was not Accessible. Not because of ADA.

 Accessible parking; accessible toilet; accessible entrance; accessible features. ...all building code issues/violations. ... not civil rights issues.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 5, 2014)

ADA is a dance with two partners, The Feds and the state. The Feds wrote the melody and expect the states to dance to it using the code as the dance steps. You can "Dance with the Stars" or do a simple twostep tp comply.

Attorneys in California being circumvented by CASp revisions are turning to the Feds who will pay them but not the disabled. Johnson is disabled and an attorney so he gets paid no matter what.

As to business owners, ball has been in your court since 91', play with it or (bear the consequences) Why does this continue to be hard to understand?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jun 5, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Dick This may help . The business closed because it was not Accessible. Not because of ADA.


Not accurate.

The business closed because it" _did not meet government mandated accessibility regulations._"

It could very well have been accessible.

Brent.


----------



## JPohling (Jun 5, 2014)

Arghhhhhhhhhh   over and over and over.  Just design it correctly, construct it properly and inspect it per the written code.  It really is not that difficult.  The business was not accessible.  Any successful business would make the necessary improvements to continue to be successful.  A failing business will fold and blame ADA, not on their inability to be run a successful business.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 5, 2014)

Don't know about other states but PA does not require comliance sith ADA or ADASAD. Only accessiblity according to the IBC when a permit is required.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2014)

> Any successful business would make the necessary improvements to continue to be successful.


ADA improvements are not necessary for a business to be successful or continue to be successful as the hundreds of thousands of non fully compliant buildings across the US that have businesses operating out of them proof.

Now before you respond let me post something my wife wrote last night.

Pamper Day...tomorrow marks 3 months since I broke my foot and as silly as it sounds, I finally got to submerge my foot in water. As of last week, the incision finally sealed, so today, in it went, soaked in a hot tub! We take so much for granted, including showers, getting our food, getting in and out of bed, walking, dressing by ourselves, so many other things.... I have a great appreciation for the anxiety felt by those unable to do the simple things in life. Those who's lives are wheel chair bound, unable to tend to their daily needs, we so often take for granted. I appreciate the inventor of the wheelchair, the shower chair, the walker, the scooter, which allows me to get outdoors and sit in the sun while enjoying the cool breeze...so many things that have made life a bit easier. For now, I will treasure the ability to take a simple shower. One day at a time...

Do I have to help push the door open to the ladies room because the closer is out of adjustment? Yes. Do we have to make adjustments to get up a curb or step? Yes. Should she be able to sue and receive $4,000 because or "rights" where violated? No.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jun 5, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Arghhhhhhhhhh   over and over and over.  Just design it correctly, construct it properly and inspect it per the written code.  It really is not that difficult.  *The business was not accessible*.  Any successful business would make the necessary improvements to continue to be successful.  A failing business will fold and blame ADA, not on their inability to be run a successful business.


Not true.

Brent.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 5, 2014)

Surely you jest? PA doesn't recognize a Federal law? Does DOJ Taskforce know this?

Existing businesses don't necessairly require permits to remove barriers.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 5, 2014)

Brent, what do you consider "not true" about his statement? Just his opinion.


----------



## steveray (Jun 5, 2014)

Aren't there several states not recognizing federal laws for marijuana?....Just sayin....



			
				ADAguy said:
			
		

> Surely you jest? PA doesn't recognize a Federal law? Does DOJ Taskforce know this? Existing businesses don't necessairly require permits to remove barriers.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 5, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Surely you jest? PA doesn't recognize a Federal law?


Big difference between recognizing a Federal law and being responsible to enforce it.

Arizona tried to enforce Federal immigration law and the DOJ sued them.

Mt does not review to or enforce ADA Federal rules/law

*24.301.902*    DISCLAIMER (1) A building permit or certificate of occupancy issued by the state or a municipality or county must contain a statement that reads: "Compliance with the requirements of the state building code for physical accessibility to persons with disabilities does not necessarily guarantee compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Title 49, chapter 2, commonly known as the Montana Human Rights Act or other similar federal, state or local laws that mandate accessibility to commercial construction or multifamily housing."


----------



## JPohling (Jun 5, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Not true.Brent.


As long as you could hurdle the 6" step at the shop entry you may find the rest is accessible but clearly Perez Cabinets is not currently accessible.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 5, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> ADA improvements are not necessary for a business to be successful or continue to be successful as the hundreds of thousands of non fully compliant buildings across the US that have businesses operating out of them proof.Now before you respond let me post something my wife wrote last night.
> 
> Pamper Day...tomorrow marks 3 months since I broke my foot and as silly as it sounds, I finally got to submerge my foot in water. As of last week, the incision finally sealed, so today, in it went, soaked in a hot tub! We take so much for granted, including showers, getting our food, getting in and out of bed, walking, dressing by ourselves, so many other things.... I have a great appreciation for the anxiety felt by those unable to do the simple things in life. Those who's lives are wheel chair bound, unable to tend to their daily needs, we so often take for granted. I appreciate the inventor of the wheelchair, the shower chair, the walker, the scooter, which allows me to get outdoors and sit in the sun while enjoying the cool breeze...so many things that have made life a bit easier. For now, I will treasure the ability to take a simple shower. One day at a time...
> 
> Do* I have to help* push the door open to the ladies room because the closer is out of adjustment? Yes. Do *we have to make adjustments* to get up a curb or step? Yes. Should she be able to sue and receive $4,000 because or "rights" where violated? No.


One of the issues was independence of the physically challenged individual. They should not have to rely on someone else for the most simple of things.  Not every person has someone with them.


----------



## jar546 (Jun 5, 2014)

Rick18071 said:
			
		

> Don't know about other states but PA does not require comliance sith ADA or ADASAD. Only accessiblity according to the IBC when a permit is required.


No completely true and a misleading statement.

PA, like all other states does not enforce the ADA, that is a reactive law enforced by the DOJ with hope that there is compliance.

PA, however, did adopt the IBC and ANSI A117.1 which is enforced.

PA has an Accessibility Advisory Review Board that grants variances under State Law, i.e. the IBC and ANSI !117.1 HOWEVER, state variances granted under State Law does not relieve the owners and RDP's of their Federal Responsibilities under the ADA.


----------



## conarb (Jun 5, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> As long as you could hurdle the 6" step at the shop entry you may find the rest is accessible but clearly Perez Cabinets is not currently accessible.


Well maybe Mr. Perez will lose his business if he just goes to another cabinet shop, frankly I never go into a cabinet shop and I've bought many millions of dollars worth of cabinets in my life, nobody needs to go into a cabinet shop, cabinet makers bid off PDFs or CAD drawings today, in some instances they come to job sites and measure them up for cabinets, this is nothing but legalized extortion.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 5, 2014)

Colorado is a home rule state.  I don't know of any jurisdication that enforces ADA requirements.  We enforce our adopted code that references ANSI A117.

When a government rule is made without a mechanism for enforcement...the lawyers become the enforcing body.  Their motivation is certainly not "intent and purpose".


----------



## JPohling (Jun 5, 2014)

Exactly.  The public does not go to his facility.  It is a working millwork shop.  If he had disabled employees he would need to make arrangements, but other than that he is fine.


----------



## steveray (Jun 5, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Exactly.  The public does not go to his facility.  It is a working millwork shop.  If he had disabled employees he would need to make arrangements, but other than that he is fine.


Until he has a showroom.....Kinda like saying a church is exempt.....until they rent out their hall.....


----------



## mark handler (Jun 6, 2014)

As I have continuously said, other than for licensed designers, build or enforce the accessibility standards adopted by the Authority having Jurisdiction, ie: state government.

This means, for most, IBC and ANSI 117.1.

If you do this there will be no problem with ADA/the Fed’s.

Licensed designers need to design to the most restrictive requirements.

This is not brain surgery.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Jun 6, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Brent, what do you consider "not true" about his statement? Just his opinion.


In context, I'm specifically replying to language. In a sense, I refer to it as "battle of language", the use of which sets an opinion, or tone.

If you say "the business is not accessible", you are implying that it is unusable by the handicapped. It may be fully usable and accessible, but may lack a feature or features that would bring it to full compliance.

It could be something inconsequential like a sign made to current standards or a mirror placed too high, or maybe something more serious like a turning radius that's slightly too small, or a toe clearance issue.

The handicapped may be fully able to access and use the facility, but legally it lacks a feature.

In that sense, it is accessible. So the proper description is "does not meet government mandated accessibility regulations." Not "inaccessible".

To tell a handicapped person that a business is inaccessible to them is not necessarily true. (Although if it truly has a barrier, then it could be described as inaccessible).

Thank you for asking the question.

Brent.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 6, 2014)

Thank you for the clarity and logic of your response.

For attorneys and "some" disabled however it comes down to "did you cross your eyes and dot all your "t's"? Is not the law the manipulation of semantics?

At what point have we gone beyond the Ten Commandents or Hammurabi's laws.

Does fairness have a definition and by who's dictionary?

To quote "you know who" can't we all get along?


----------



## JPohling (Jun 6, 2014)

Brent,  If the facility allowed a wheeler to enter and circulate but the transaction top was at 42" or the mirror was to high or the toilet paper only come out in individual sheets I would say it is not *fully* accessible.  If there is a 6" step at the primary entrance I would say it is not accessible, or inaccessible.


----------

