# Eliminate predatory ADA lawsuits



## mark handler (Aug 19, 2011)

Eliminate predatory ADA lawsuits

By John Selk

Posted: 08/18/2011 06:18:50 PM PDT

http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_18712378

When President George H.W. Bush signed the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) civil rights law in 1990, the intent was to prohibit discrimination based on disability and provide complete access for the disabled in public places. Sadly, opportunists have abused the law by filing tens of thousands of ADA lawsuits meant not to improve access for the disabled, but to extract money from small business owners, especially in California.

A loophole in the law allows professional plaintiffs in California to win monetary awards from noncompliant businesses of up to $4,000 per technical noncompliance. Because businesses often settle rather than pay litigation costs, these lawyers collect outrageous fees for ADA violations without ever ensuring the business owner improves accessibility.

Now, thankfully, Congressman Duncan Hunter is proposing a common sense solution, H.R. 881 - The ADA Notification Act of 2011 - that would eliminate thousands of predatory ADA lawsuits and actually improve public access for disabled individuals.

Currently, the ADA is enforced entirely through civil litigation, and the law does not require any notice before a lawsuit can be filed. Many ADA lawsuits are filed for issues of relatively minor noncompliance - such as a sign being the wrong color or having the wrong wording. Due to California's lawsuit-friendly legal climate, 42 percent of ADA lawsuits filed in the United States are filed in California, causing many small businesses to close and wiping out jobs.

Rep. Hunter's common-sense proposal would require a plaintiff to provide a defendant with notification and an opportunity to correct a violation voluntarily before the plaintiff may commence a civil action and force the business owner to incur legal costs.

California legislators have repeatedly rejected reforms like H.R. 881 at the state level. In 2008, the California Legislature created the California Commission on Disability Access, but the commission has failed make any significant progress in reducing abusive claims. Despite the commission's best intentions, California's accessibility standards continue to conflict with federal laws, and exceed 500 pages of minutely detailed standards that change constantly. Most small business owners are unable to determine with certainty the exact changes they need to make to comply with the law, and those few who can afford it have to hire costly experts. Unfortunately, because the law is so subjective, the experts often disagree, leaving the business open to costly lawsuits.

Under H.R. 881, potential plaintiffs would think twice about filing lawsuits with false, inappropriate or exaggerated claims because the law provides time to properly fix any ADA violations. H.R. 881 would limit the number of lawsuits that could be filed to only those in which a defendant was truly unwilling to make appropriate changes, and would ensure that our legal system's limited resources are expended only for cases in which they are truly needed.

Eliminating frivolous lawsuits would have the added benefit of allowing legitimate claims to move through the legal system faster.

In San Bernardino County, one attorney filed more than 100 ADA access lawsuits for a handful of clients, alleging that each had encountered problems at dozens of different businesses on the same street. However, depositions of three of the plaintiffs confirmed that they knew nothing about the locations the lawyer claimed they visited, suggesting they had never even gone to these businesses.

In another instance, one small business reported spending an entire year's profit on the settlement and legal fees from a single ADA lawsuit. The defendant later learned the plaintiff was completely unaware of the majority of claims his attorney made.

Cases such as these make it clear that some lawsuits alleging ADA violations are not intended to increase access for the disabled, but just to line the pockets of attorneys at the expense of local businesses and jobs.

H.R. 881 would stop these abusive tactics because the defendant would receive a letter stating exactly how they were noncompliant so they could fix the problem. The letter is reviewed by the courts, so an attorney will be less likely to make false or abusive claims. Under the current system, many ADA/accessibility lawsuits are filed with very unspecific allegations to give the defendant direction on what needs to be improved.

California needs to take a hard look at reforming ADA regulations. As our economy struggles to recover, we need to focus on job creation - not costly litigation. Rep. Hunter understands that in California, we need more jobs, not more lawsuits.

John Selk owns a small business in

Rancho Cucamonga. He lives in Claremont


----------



## brudgers (Aug 19, 2011)

This article is bull****, because the lawsuits described are generally being filed under California law, not the ADA which Bush signed...not to mention that the reason all the businesses are being sued is because of their willful non-compliance.


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 19, 2011)

I doubt that " the reason all the businesses being sued is because of thier wilful non-compliance" is an accurate statement.  This proposal offers a non judicial approach for issues to be identified, reasonably addressed, and resolved.  There were accessibility provisions in the codes long before the ADA came along.  The requirements were addressed as most building code requirements were.  Any avenue that allows for discussion and compromise as a step before lawyers and lawsuits is a good step IMHO.


----------



## Alias (Aug 19, 2011)

Finally, a common sense approach to closing the loophole and allowing a business to have a chance to comply before going to court.  As someone who is in CA and has a slew of non-compliant buildings in my jurisdiction, if this would make it easier to comply, I'm for it.  Let's try mitigating measures before suing.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 19, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> ...allowing a business to have a chance to comply before going to court. ..


On the other hand it is a twenty year old law, business  owners have had twenty years to comply ..... There is no grandfathering, which leeds to the idea of "...willful non-compliance."

How long do you allow nonconformance to the building or property maintenance codes


----------



## Alias (Aug 19, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> On the other hand it is a twenty year old law, business  owners have had twenty years to comply ..... There is no grandfathering, which leeds to the idea of "...willful non-compliance."How long do you allow nonconformance to the building or property maintenance codes


Mark -

When you have no permits, no building, and no remodeling of existing buildings, it is pretty hard to force the business to install a new ADA bathroom, etc.  On the other side, when there is a remodel/TI, all the ADA/CA accessibility is covered at the time of construction.

Before I was hired, no one enforced much of anything in reference to the building codes, never mind ADA/CA accessibility regs.  I have been educating the business owners and encouraging them to do the upgrades.  There is a lot of non-compliance, and, from someone who knows what it is actually like to sit in a wheelchair, I get very frustrated at times.  I am not condoning what is happening, but, change here takes a while and it is hard to get anyone to voluntarily comply when they aren't even sure they will be in business next week.  We've lost at least a half dozen businesses here in the past year, and will probably lose more.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 19, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> I doubt that " the reason all the businesses being sued is because of thier wilful non-compliance" is an accurate statement.  This proposal offers a non judicial approach for issues to be identified, reasonably addressed, and resolved.  There were accessibility provisions in the codes long before the ADA came along.  The requirements were addressed as most building code requirements were.  Any avenue that allows for discussion and compromise as a step before lawyers and lawsuits is a good step IMHO.


   Yep, they were addressed just like other building code issues and that's the problem. Civil rights is not building code - we didn't grandfather in 14 hour work days for eight year olds or colored only drinking fountains. But hell, I'd like to use that excuse every time the tax code changes.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 19, 2011)

Sue

It is not your job to enforce the ADA.

I know it's hard, and I too get frustrated at times.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 19, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> Finally, a common sense approach to closing the loophole and allowing a business to have a chance to comply before going to court.  As someone who is in CA and has a slew of non-compliant buildings in my jurisdiction, if this would make it easier to comply, I'm for it.  Let's try mitigating measures before suing.


   If you are the one suing, that's your prerogative. But just out of curiosity, would you apply the same rationale to speeding? "Gee officer you can't give me a ticket because I slowed down once you got behind me and turned on your lights."


----------



## mark handler (Aug 19, 2011)

Sue this might help

http://www.ada.gov/smbusgd.pdf


----------



## conarb (Aug 19, 2011)

The whole ADA should be reformed (state and federal), a read a study stating that over 50% of the Disabled placards in San Francisco were issued by doctors to people who weren't really disabled, parking is very difficult in San Francisco, go down a street and you'll see the vast majority of parked cars with ADA placards, they take most of the parking spaces, and it's a big money loser for the city since they park free.

Another problem is that obese people qualify, we make life as uncomfortable as possible for smokers and drinkers, obesity is a bigger health problem than either of those of so-called vices, yet going into a Costco Store you see the majority of those electric carts are being driven by obese people, obesity is a lifestyle choice like smoking and drinking, should we be punishing over-drinking and smoking, but rewarding over-eating?

In the construction end of things we should be more concerned about the health threatening aspects of modern building materials so people don't end up so ill that they need special accommodation from society.


----------



## Msradell (Aug 19, 2011)

I'm not familiar with what statute these California lawsuits are being filed under, I was under the impression the only way to file suit against someone who didn't comply with is the ADA standards was through a Federal lawsuit in district court.  If there's an easier way I don't know about it.  That being said there needs to be a way for handicapped people who were unable to access a business to force them to comply without the necessity to go to Federal Court.  In many areas, including here in Louisville Kentucky, local code officials do nothing to enforce the standards.

As mentioned above the standards have been in affect for over 20 years, there's no excuse for a business to be ignoring them!


----------



## Rio (Aug 20, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> If you are the one suing, that's your prerogative. But just out of curiosity, would you apply the same rationale to speeding? "Gee officer you can't give me a ticket because I slowed down once you got behind me and turned on your lights."


No, it's more like "Gee officer here's six thousand dollars for what I don't even know (many lawsuits are settled without the problem even being addressed) or "Gee officer, we were going 30.01 miles an hour instead of 30 miles an hour and now we have to pay thousands of dollars (many lawsuits have been for being outside of the rules for safety bars and the like by a matter of inches) or "Gee officer, this is a Model T, why are you ticketing me for not having turn signals and all of the bells and whistles of a modern car".  We've been totally screwed by this insane legislation passed to help trial lawyers rip off architects, contractors and businessmen.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 20, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Another problem is that obese people qualify, we make life as uncomfortable as possible for smokers and drinkers, obesity is a bigger health problem than either of those of so-called vices, yet going into a Costco Store you see the majority of those electric carts are being driven by obese people, obesity is a lifestyle choice like smoking and drinking, should we be punishing over-drinking and smoking, but rewarding over-eating?


I am certainly glad that you can tell who is disabled and who isn't, and that you can tell that obesity caused a disability, instead of PERHAPS the other way 'round, , , geeesh.


----------



## conarb (Aug 20, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> I am certainly glad that you can tell who is disabled and who isn't, and  that you can tell that obesity caused a disability, instead of PERHAPS  the other way 'round, , , geeesh.


Yankee:

In the Costco stores I've made it a point in the checkout lanes to look at the contents of the baskets on the electric carts, without fail they are loaded with large quantities of fattening foods, in contrast looking at the baskets of thin people I see no fattening foods.  While it is true that inactivity caused by disability can cause obesity, in each case I've seen of that the people were obese prior to becoming immobile.  I had a good friend, a brilliant former opera singer, he was always overweight, as he became worse his knees gave out but was told that replacement knees wouldn't support over 200 pounds so he had to get down to 200 pounds before they would operate, being sedentary he couldn't lose weight and eventually fell and died in his apartment with no-one to help him.  Before issuing disabled placards physicians should be required to diagnose the cause of the disability, and if it's from poor lifestyle choices discipline the physicians for issuing them.  To say that obesity is genetic is true in many cases, but so are other addictions, and look at how society is treating people with addictions.  This is to say nothing of the fact that, at least here in California, there are many more disabled placards issued than there are disabled people, San Francisco has been making a big issue of this because of the lost income from parking meters, and they need lots of income to pay the salaries, pensions, and health benefits of the public servants.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 20, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Yankee:In the Costco stores I've made it a point in the checkout lanes to look at the contents of the baskets on the electric carts, without fail they are loaded with large quantities of fattening foods, in contrast looking at the baskets of thin people I see no fattening foods.  While it is true that inactivity caused by disability can cause obesity, in each case I've seen of that the people were obese prior to becoming immobile.  I had a good friend, a brilliant former opera singer, he was always overweight, as he became worse his knees gave out but was told that replacement knees wouldn't support over 200 pounds so he had to get down to 200 pounds before they would operate, being sedentary he couldn't lose weight and eventually fell and died in his apartment with no-one to help him.  Before issuing disabled placards physicians should be required to diagnose the cause of the disability, and if it's from poor lifestyle choices discipline the physicians for issuing them.  To say that obesity is genetic is true in many cases, but so are other addictions, and look at how society is treating people with addictions.  This is to say nothing of the fact that, at least here in California, there are many more disabled placards issued than there are disabled people, San Francisco has been making a big issue of this because of the lost income from parking meters, and they need lots of income to pay the salaries, pensions, and health benefits of the public servants.


I'm glad your one friend has given you so much insight into the thousands of reasons and types of disability. And I am sure that you are correct, there are many more placards issued than there are even disabled people. For sure. Why look! That guy isn't limping! Arrest the sod!


----------



## conarb (Aug 20, 2011)

> In a higher phase of communist society... only then  can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be fully left behind and  society inscribe on its banners: *from each according to his ability, to  each according to his needs*.


 Karl Marx 1818 - 1883


----------



## Msradell (Aug 20, 2011)

Yankee said:
			
		

> I'm glad your one friend has given you so much insight into the thousands of reasons and types of disability. And I am sure that you are correct, there are many more placards issued than there are even disabled people. For sure. Why look! That guy isn't limping! Arrest the sod!


I hope you never become disabled, like I am, and while you can find a handicapped parking space watch twenty something able bodied people jump out of their car that they are using grandma's placard for!  The abuse of handicapped parking is getting ridiculous, I think any new Lexus, BMW or Cadillac is automatically issued a handicapped permit so they don't have to park where they can get their doors banged!

Another ridiculous fact, at least here in Kentucky, is that you are able to get 2 placards when you go to the DMV!  It's not as if they're difficult to move from one vehicle to the other and issuing 2 just encourages abuse!  South Carolina from what I've read is at least trying to address the problem by putting the recipient's picture on the placard.  That way if a person parking vehicle or in the vehicle is not that person a ticket can be issued!  I'm sure even the system will be abused but it's at least a step in the right direction.


----------



## Yankee (Aug 21, 2011)

Msradell said:
			
		

> I hope you never become disabled, like I am, and while you can find a handicapped parking space watch twenty something able bodied people jump out of their car that they are using grandma's placard for!  The abuse of handicapped parking is getting ridiculous, I think any new Lexus, BMW or Cadillac is automatically issued a handicapped permit so they don't have to park where they can get their doors banged!Another ridiculous fact, at least here in Kentucky, is that you are able to get 2 placards when you go to the DMV!  It's not as if they're difficult to move from one vehicle to the other and issuing 2 just encourages abuse!  South Carolina from what I've read is at least trying to address the problem by putting the recipient's picture on the placard.  That way if a person parking vehicle or in the vehicle is not that person a ticket can be issued!  I'm sure even the system will be abused but it's at least a step in the right direction.


I don't disagree that abuse of placards should be addressed. There are many types of disabilities and they might not be visible to the casual observer. For instance, there is a young lady of my acquaintance who is diagnosed with Lupis and has a limited amount of energy to walk about and do her public business. As to the placard picture, not a bad idea however my daughter at one time had a job as driver for a disabled person. In your scenario, if she were to pull into the reserved spot in order to pick up her client from an appointment, with her clients placard attached, , , Again, I don't like to see the system abused either but take a look at your own assumptions.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 21, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> The whole ADA should be reformed (state and federal), a read a study stating that over 50% of the Disabled placards in San Francisco were issued by doctors to people who weren't really disabled, parking is very difficult in San Francisco, go down a street and you'll see the vast majority of parked cars with ADA placards, they take most of the parking spaces, and it's a big money loser for the city since they park free.  Another problem is that obese people qualify, we make life as uncomfortable as possible for smokers and drinkers, obesity is a bigger health problem than either of those of so-called vices, yet going into a Costco Store you see the majority of those electric carts are being driven by obese people, obesity is a lifestyle choice like smoking and drinking, should we be punishing over-drinking and smoking, but rewarding over-eating?  In the construction end of things we should be more concerned about the health threatening aspects of modern building materials so people don't end up so ill that they need special accommodation from society.


  If you can't beat em, join em. You can apply based on mental capacity.


----------



## RickAstoria (Aug 21, 2011)

I would simply argue that people hardly can spend money to repair or mitigate buildings for ADA if the lawyers are robbing the business owners of money to do the ADA fixes when they as a business still need do this and that that is necessary for their business which is more important that ADA. You can't operate a restaurant without cooking equipment and tables for customers. You have to do this and that or there is no money for ADA compliance but if the lawyers are suing then what your budget gets dwiddle down to where you can only do one or the other when the original intent may have been to do both but the lawyers aren't helping anyone but themselves. They aren't even helping the disabled people.

It should be addressed in every possible measure prior to litigation and after numerpus harassment suits, people then say - F*** THIS, I ain't doing it. How is that helping anyone. It should be encouraged to be done vs. predatory harassment suits.


----------



## Msradell (Aug 21, 2011)

Rick, I understand where you're coming from but, then needed to meet ADA requirements is just as necessary as having the proper equipment to cook in your scenario.  When they decided to open the restaurant they should have taken this fact into consideration.  If they have been open the entire 20+ years the ADA has been in effect they should have been able to put aside enough money to reach compliance by now.


----------



## Alias (Aug 23, 2011)

RickAstoria said:
			
		

> I would simply argue that people hardly can spend money to repair or mitigate buildings for ADA if the lawyers are robbing the business owners of money to do the ADA fixes when they as a business still need do this and that that is necessary for their business which is more important that ADA. You can't operate a restaurant without cooking equipment and tables for customers. You have to do this and that or there is no money for ADA compliance but if the lawyers are suing then what your budget gets dwiddle down to where you can only do one or the other when the original intent may have been to do both but the lawyers aren't helping anyone but themselves. They aren't even helping the disabled people.It should be addressed in every possible measure prior to litigation and after numerpus harassment suits, people then say - F*** THIS, I ain't doing it. How is that helping anyone. It should be encouraged to be done vs. predatory harassment suits.


Rick,

Well said.

There are too many cases here in CA (see Mark Handler's posts) of one person literally going down the sidewalk at a mall or shopping area and then calling an attorney to file lawsuits against 5, 13, 20, or more businesses in ONE day.  I think that this qualifies as harassment.  Use the money to modify the building to meet ADA rather than to line the pockets of lawyers and their clients.  No wonder CA is losing businesses left and right, it's all the litigation.


----------



## Alias (Aug 23, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Sue this might helphttp://www.ada.gov/smbusgd.pdf


Mark -

Thanks, I found it a few years ago.  I am also the city's 'ADA compliance specialist'.  I use the term loosely because nobody asks me before doing a project.  Case in point - Nothing like coming in Monday after a nice weekend to find a counter installed with teller windows at 48" in height.  Yep, thanks for asking before installing........and it has never been fixed..............    :banghd


----------



## Alias (Aug 23, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> SueIt is not your job to enforce the ADA.
> 
> I know it's hard, and I too get frustrated at times.


Mark -

I know, I am just trying to educate at this point.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 23, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> Rick,  Well said.    There are too many cases here in CA (see Mark Handler's posts) of one person literally going down the sidewalk at a mall or shopping area and then calling an attorney to file lawsuits against 5, 13, 20, or more businesses in ONE day.  I think that this qualifies as harassment.  Use the money to modify the building to meet ADA rather than to line the pockets of lawyers and their clients.  No wonder CA is losing businesses left and right, it's all the litigation.


  Yeah, we need to end illegal discrimination more slowly.  Twenty years is practically overnight.


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 23, 2011)

Joe the barber has been going to his shop for 30 years.  He knows how to cut hair.  He is not an architect, lawyer or ADA consultant.  He cuts hair and has done so without any accessibility complaints.  He doesn't realize he is discriminating against anyone.  Is it that unreasonable that the law provide for someone at least tell Joe he might have an accessibility issue before hauling him into court?


----------



## brudgers (Aug 23, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Joe the barber has been going to his shop for 30 years.  He knows how to cut hair.  He is not an architect, lawyer or ADA consultant.  He cuts hair and has done so without any accessibility complaints.  He doesn't realize he is discriminating against anyone.  Is it that unreasonable that the law provide for someone at least tell Joe he might have an accessibility issue before hauling him into court?


    Joe the Barber is a fiction of your imagination because Joe is  licensed by his state [http://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/] and probably has a municipal occupational license...heck, I bet that some time in the past twenty years Joe even noticed an accessible parking space or two when he was out buying English Muffins for the missus.    Real world Joe's have heard of ADA.

    They just doesn't want to bother complying because it will cost them money and the risk of getting sued is so low.

   And in a classic case of misdirection, this is California law, and not ADA.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 23, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> And in a classic case of misdirection, this is California law, and not ADA.


NOT, JUST A CA THING

A father of a child with multiple disabilities complained that a *Virginia *barber refused to cut his son’s hair because of his disabilities. The owner of the barber shop dismissed the barber involved, placed the manager on an unpaid leave of absence, and required the manager to attend a customer relations course at a local community college. The owner also agreed to pay the child’s father $5,000.

http://www.ada.gov/octdec02.htm

IT'S A CIVIL RIGHTS THING


----------



## Coug Dad (Aug 23, 2011)

Refusal of service is different than determining what is readily acheivable and technically feasible for architectural barriers.  My opinions on notification only apply to architctural barriers.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 23, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Refusal of service is different than determining what is readily acheivable and technically feasible for architectural barriers.  My opinions on notification only apply to architctural barriers.


If they know the building is not accessible, it is still a denial of service, and a violation of rights.

If you own, operate, lease, or lease to a business that serves the public, then, you are covered by the ADA and have obligations for existing facilities as well as for compliance when a facility is altered or a new facility is constructed. Existing facilities are not exempted by "grandfather provisions"


----------



## brudgers (Aug 24, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> NOT, JUST A CA THING  A father of a child with multiple disabilities complained that a *Virginia *barber refused to cut his son’s hair because of his disabilities. The owner of the barber shop dismissed the barber involved, placed the manager on an unpaid leave of absence, and required the manager to attend a customer relations course at a local community college. The owner also agreed to pay the child’s father $5,000.  http://www.ada.gov/octdec02.htm  IT'S A CIVIL RIGHTS THING


  I agree ADA is Civil Rights.   The "frivolous lawsuit" crap is not about ADA however, it is about California law.

  And shows why it takes teeth to get compliance.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 24, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Refusal of service is different than determining what is readily acheivable and technically feasible for architectural barriers.  My opinions on notification only apply to architctural barriers.


  Most violations are for things that are readily achievable and technically feasible.  Unless one ignores twenty years of willful noncompliance.


----------



## Alias (Aug 24, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If they know the building is not accessible, it is still a denial of service, and a violation of rights.If you own, operate, lease, or lease to a business that serves the public, then, you are covered by the ADA and have obligations for existing facilities as well as for compliance when a facility is altered or a new facility is constructed. Existing facilities are not exempted by "grandfather provisions"


Every day I see folks in wheelchairs, on scooters, with walkers, etc. around town here.  As an affordable part of CA, we have a lot of folks who are seniors or disabled.  I am genuinely shocked that we don't have a slew of lawsuits because they can't get into the bathrooms, buildings, etc. of some businesses.  I just keep hammering away with the fact that the business needs to meet ADA regulations no matter when the building was built.


----------



## Alias (Aug 24, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> Joe the barber has been going to his shop for 30 years. He knows how to cut hair. He is not an architect, lawyer or ADA consultant. He cuts hair and has done so without any accessibility complaints. He doesn't realize he is discriminating against anyone. Is it that unreasonable that the law provide for someone at least tell Joe he might have an accessibility issue before hauling him into court?


I have several 'Joe the barbers' here.  Most of them are 'good ol' boys' who utter 'we've always done it this way'.  Sometimes, it doesn't matter who they are, they just aren't going to do the work to bring the building into compliance.  I just tell 'em that if they don't change, there is the possibility of a lawsuit...........and leave.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 25, 2011)

> As an affordable part of CA, we have a lot of folks who are seniors or disabled


A difference in how we where raised and what we believe. Some will just take their business elsewhere, some don't believe in making others meet their individual needs, and some are just gratefull for the life they have no matter how difficult it may be for them.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 25, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> A difference in how we where raised and what we believe. Some will just


  say "tough ****" and others will say, "there but for the grace of god."


----------



## Alias (Aug 25, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Yeah, we need to end illegal discrimination more slowly. Twenty years is practically overnight.


brudgers,

If you parse my comments correctly, you will read that I am advocating for the ADA requirements.  What I strenuously object to are a few greedy people trying to make a buck off of legitimate business owners by filing lawsuits that drain the business of funds needed to bring the building into compliance with ADA.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 25, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> brudgers,  If you parse my comments correctly, you will read that I am advocating for the ADA requirements.  What I strenuously object to are a few greedy people trying to make a buck off of legitimate business owners by filing lawsuits that drain the business of funds needed to bring the building into compliance with ADA.


  Those business owners are not in compliance because compliance costs them money.    The greed goes both ways.

    The law however does not.

    After 20 years, there's no excuse for noncompliance.

  And the fact that suits still need to be filed to create compliance shows where the bulk of the greed lies.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 25, 2011)

> Those business owners are not in compliance because compliance costs them money.


 or they are lazy or just don't care 





> And the fact that suits still need to be filed to create compliance shows where the bulk of the greed lies.


It is not all about greed. Some are just ignorant of all the requirements. ADA is typical of the federal goverment. Adopt a law and provide no pro-active enforcement mechanism much like illegal imigration.


----------



## KZQuixote (Aug 25, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Those business owners are not in compliance because compliance costs them money.    The greed goes both ways.
> 
> The law however does not.
> 
> ...


These suits don't need to be filed at all! How many of the defendants are willing to go the the expense and liability of defending their rights to conduct a business without the vigilantes/mercenaries harassing them without any thought of improving the rights on the handicapped? Frankly, this system has evolved/devolved as the best system the vigilantes could get passed to keep the fever pitch high.

This thread was  started as a report about a state legislator who had  a desire to assure the rights of the handicapped are preserved without creating or supporting the totally false industry of "Compliance Specialist"

What could be wrong with that intention?

Bill


----------



## conarb (Aug 25, 2011)

Brudgers said:
			
		

> The greed goes both ways.


In 2002 I went into a building department to buy two permits, both for $60,000, one was for voluntary ADA compliance in a Catholic Church, the other for window replacement in a private home, after the issuance of the permits I noticed that the fees for the ADA compliance were almost exactly double the fees for the private home and asked why, I was told that the church was a commercial enterprise and fees were double for commercial as opposed to residential.  Maybe the AHJs should waive fees for ADA compliance talk about greed.  I always hire architects, especially if ADA is involved, maybe the greedy architects should do ADA work _pro bono_ since it's such a financial  burden on small businesses.

As for another greedy group, do you realize that there is a whole profession of ADA Compliance Consultants, can you believe that a whole industry has popped up profiteering of businesses, talk about greed!


----------



## mark handler (Aug 25, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> maybe the greedy architects should do ADA work _pro bono_ since it's such a financial  burden on small businesses.


Dick,

It is easy so to discount the services of others, Perhaps greedy contractors should provide free windows to low income homeowners becase of a financial burden.

Or contractors that charge $150 it install a $14 sign....


----------



## brudgers (Aug 25, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> It is not all about greed. Some are just ignorant of all the requirements. ADA is typical of the federal goverment. Adopt a law and provide no pro-active enforcement mechanism much like illegal imigration.


  Ignorance is never an excuse. Ignorance after twenty years, isn't even entertaining.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 25, 2011)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> These suits don't need to be filed at all! How many of the defendants are willing to go the the expense and liability of defending their rights to conduct a business without the vigilantes/mercenaries harassing them without any thought of improving the rights on the handicapped? Frankly, this system has evolved/devolved as the best system the vigilantes could get passed to keep the fever pitch high.  This thread was  started as a report about a state legislator who had  a desire to assure the rights of the handicapped are preserved without creating or supporting the totally false industry of "Compliance Specialist"  What could be wrong with that intention?  Bill


  What is wrong is that it places the blame for the current situation on the wrong side.  The only reason that someone can file ten suits a day on a single block is because everybody has bet that they won't get caught failing to comply.

  To put it in perspective, most of those businesses have accountants to keep them out of trouble.

  They have lawyers too.

  It's not that they are unaware, just that they don't see compliance as an necessary expense.

  And when the cost of being caught is only doing what should have already been done, it is no surprise that nothing is done without a suit.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 26, 2011)

> Ignorance is never an excuse


I did not say it was an excuse I said it is a fact just as sure a fact you do not know all the tax laws you have to comply with or traffic laws or a number of other laws. Ignorance is not a defense but it is real


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I did not say it was an excuse I said it is a fact just as sure a fact you do not know all the tax laws you have to comply with or traffic laws or a number of other laws. Ignorance is not a defense but it is real


  And it is just as relevant as it is in tax law...you plead ignorant and you take your lumps when you get caught.


----------



## Alias (Aug 26, 2011)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> These suits don't need to be filed at all! How many of the defendants are willing to go the the expense and liability of defending their rights to conduct a business without the vigilantes/mercenaries harassing them without any thought of improving the rights on the handicapped? Frankly, this system has evolved/devolved as the best system the vigilantes could get passed to keep the fever pitch high.This thread was started as a report about a state legislator who had a desire to assure the rights of the handicapped are preserved without creating or supporting the totally false industry of "Compliance Specialist"
> 
> What could be wrong with that intention?
> 
> Bill


Bill -

Exactly.

It is costing the businesses, taxpayers, and the general public a lot of money to fight these predatory lawsuits.  These lawsuits have spawned a new industry here in CA in the form of Accessibility Specialists.

Here in CA, it is required that ALL building departments have a 1:2 ratio of Certified CASp (CA Accessibility Specialist) for every jurisdiction. I did a little digging, and it costs $500 to apply, $800 for the test, and $300 for the certificate for a grand total of $1600. So, as a department of 1 at 3/4 time, I am supposed to shell out $1600 to take this test? Not gonna happen, my training budget is $800 for the entire year.


----------



## Alias (Aug 26, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> The only reason that someone can file ten suits a day on a single block is because everybody has bet that they won't get caught failing to comply.


So, I should just go home and break out my wheelchair to cruise Main Street and see how many lawsuits I can file......



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> To put it in perspective, most of those businesses have accountants to keep them out of trouble.


Not here, only a couple of tax preparers.



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> They have lawyers too.


Not on retainer.



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> It's not that they are unaware, just that they don't see compliance as an necessary expense.


Horse puckey!



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> And when the cost of being caught is only doing what should have already been done, it is no surprise that nothing is done without a suit.


Not here in CA......costs a lot more and has sunk some 'Mom & Pops'.


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> Not here in CA


  Then it ain't ADA.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Then it ain't ADA.


California Laws & Regulations

Unruh Civil Rights Act

California Civil Code Sections 54 through 55.2

Title 24 California Building & Standards Code (Physical Access Regulations)

California Government Code Section 11135-11138

Fair Employment and Housing Act

Federal Laws

Rehabilitation Act

501

503

504

508

Americans with Disabilities Act

Title I

Title II

Title III

Title IV

Air Carrier Access Act


----------



## conarb (Aug 26, 2011)

Which is worse, business and property owners who don't know about the law, or Lawyers,  ADA Compliance Consultants, architects, and AHJ's who advocate enforcement to profit from enforcement of the law?

And the $64 dollar question, why do both Mark Handler and Brudgers, both architects, seem to be obsessive/compulsive about ADA?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> why do both Mark Handler and Brudgers, both architects, seem to be obsessive/compulsive about ADA?


Maybe it has to do with intelligence

Why is  conarb, So fixated on badmouthing Architects, and not including Contractors in his one sided conspiracy theories.

Just so you know, person of little to no knowledge, I have done three Access surveys in the last three years, all for local businesses and all for free. I have never charged for an access survey.

Conarb, How many windows have you given away or installed for free? How many times have you offered to go to court, for free


----------



## conarb (Aug 26, 2011)

Mark:

I'm not bad-mouthing architects, I wouldn't build a dog house without one, I've got the greatest respect for architects, wanted to be one myself but found that I'm not an artist.  I've done ADA compliance in new buildings and remodels and profited from it, but have never advocated forcing people to do anything they don't want to do.  A good example is in the 70s (before ADA) I built a dental building for a dentist near our Rossmoor retirement community, he specifically had the architect design it for wheelchair-bound people since he saw his future business coming from older people, the building has *all* extra wide parking spaces, there is a long wide ramp to the entrance with a low threshold, there is only one unisex bathroom that is large enough to accommodate a wheelchair. His plan worked and he had many wheelchair-bound patients, a few years ago he was planning to take an associated on and train him for a couple of years to take over his practice, selling his practice for the goodwill and receiving rent for the building for his retirement income, he called me about remodeling to add an operatory, I had to tell him that unfortunately neither his bathroom nor his lavatory outside the bathroom met ADA, that my usually method was to combine two bathrooms into one unisex bathroom but he didn't have that option so the only way I could do it was hire an architect to increase the size of his current bathroom taking space from existing operatories instead of adding an operatory.  He sold his practice within a week with no alterations and retired on the spot, he told me that he didn't even want to do business anymore in a society that had such extreme government regulation, all of his wheelchair-bound patients were more than happy with his current facilities.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2011)

Conarb, How many windows have you given away or installed for free? How many times have you offered to go to court, for free


----------



## conarb (Aug 26, 2011)

For the rest of you Mark's knowledge obviously doesn't go back very far:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> On both _Take It or Leave It_ and _The $64 Question_,  contestants were asked questions devised by the series'  writer-researcher Edith Oliver. She attempted to make each question  slightly more difficult than the preceding one. After answering a  question correctly, the contestant had the choice to "take" the prize  for that question or "leave it" in favor of a chance at the next  question. The first question was worth one dollar, and the value doubled  for each successive question, up to the seventh and final question  worth $64. During the 1940s, "That's the $64 question" became a common catchphrase  for a particularly difficult question or problem. In addition to the  common phrase "Take it or leave it", the show also popularized another  phrase, widely spoken in the 1940s as a taunt but now mostly forgotten  (except in Warner Bros. cartoons).  Chanted in unison by the entire audience when someone chose to risk  their winnings by going for the $64 prize, it was vocalized with a  rising inflection: "You'll be sorrr-REEEE!"¹


¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_$64,000_Question


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Which is worse, business and property owners who don't know about the law, or Lawyers,  ADA Compliance Consultants, architects, and AHJ's who advocate enforcement to profit from enforcement of the law?


  So you ain't got a contractor's license?


----------



## brudgers (Aug 26, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> but have never advocated forcing people to do anything they don't want to do.


  Permits? We don't need no stinking permits.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 26, 2011)

brudgers said:
			
		

> So you ain't got a contractor's license?


Na, he has a contractor's license. He's just that guy that says he's been doing it his way for fifty years......and no one else knows as much as he has forgot.


----------

