# American Coffee Shop Closes after 3rd ADA Lawsuit



## mark handler (May 22, 2019)

*American Coffee Shop Closes after 3rd ADA Lawsuit*
https://www.bigtimedaily.com/american-coffee-shop-closes-after-3rd-ada-lawsuit/
On April 30th, Jason’s Cafe closed after three different ADA lawsuits were filed against the restaurant. The cafe had been doing business in Menlo Park, California for 11 years. 
These lawsuits were all filed for different reasons: the width of bathroom stalls was too narrow, the front door was too heavy, and the lines for the handicap spaces in the parking lot were faded beyond recognition. 
Restaurant owner Jason Kwan says the building was old–built 40 or 50 years ago. This was before the ADA was in place. So, the original building plans did not comply with today’s expectations. 
To meet the requirements of the ADA, Kwan would need to replace the front door or install a handicap door switch with a button, repaint the lines in the parking lot, and do a total renovation of the bathroom. These repairs would certainly add up.
But, if the changes are not made, Kwan will continue to be faced with even more costly lawsuits.
It seems that these are typically the types of buildings that are targeted for lawsuits. People familiar with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) know that, like Jason’s Cafe, these older buildings have likely not been renovated or updated to meet the standards required by the 1990s act.
Two of the three people who filed lawsuits against Jason’s Cafe have sued other restaurants for noncompliance. Each one had already sued a handful of restaurants and hotels in the years previous.
These lawsuits had a devastating effect on Kwan’s bottom line. Not only would he have to pay for the changes made to the restaurant, but he also needs to pay for his own legal fees and the legal fees of the plaintiff, along with any other damages incurred by the noncompliance. 
After the third lawsuit, Kwan was forced to close his doors. He was understandably disappointed, saying, “That’s my baby right there.”
These lawsuits are not uncommon today, and small business like Jason’s Cafe need to be aware of the requirements expected of their stores and websites through the ADA. 
In the first half of 2018, about 5,000 ADA lawsuits were filed. That number is up 30% from the previous year. Of those lawsuits, 1,053 of them were filed for noncompliance on business websites. This number increased a staggering 90% from the previous year.
A good example of noncompliance on a website comes from a lawsuit filed on Avanti Hotel. 
This small, 10-room boutique was sued because its website was not accessible for non-seeing, non-hearing users. In order to have an ADA compliant website, it needs to be coded properly to allow for a screen reader to translate the information. Links and images need tags, videos need captions, etc.
Without proper coding, some people with disabilities will not have access to all of the information on the businesses’ sites.
Though there is no need for physical renovation in this case, these lawsuits can still be incredibly expensive. California sees more ADA lawsuits than any other state in the U.S. The state government has set a minimum $4,000 fee for non compliant businesses. This number does not include any legal fees for the defendant or the plaintiff.  This minimum is only enforced in California at this time.
For Avanti Hotel, they were advised to take a settlement between $8,000 and $13,000 after all fees and costs for damages were covered.
These damages can be much higher depending on the sort of business/association being sued. Healthcare organizations with noncompliant sites have some of the biggest risks associated with these lawsuits. 
A healthcare website that is not ADA complaint is a real danger to the health and wellness of disabled persons. Damages in these cases can easily add up to a six-figure fine. Organizations could lose business, government funding, their good reputation, and would risk the wellbeing of millions of disabled people.
ADA lawsuits are no small matter. They have the power to close down restaurants or businesses if owners are not careful. Many small businesses cannot afford the kinds of fees associated with these lawsuits. So, it is essential that business owners learn how to protect themselves and how to better serve their disabled patrons before they are faced with a lawsuit.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 22, 2019)

Can local governments be sued under Title II. The part below caught my attention and I wonder how many government websites are out of compliance and if the could be sued in CA for monetary damages like a private business.

These lawsuits are not uncommon today, and small business like Jason’s Cafe need to be aware of the requirements expected of their stores and websites through the ADA. 
In the first half of 2018, about 5,000 ADA lawsuits were filed. That number is up 30% from the previous year. Of those lawsuits, 1,053 of them were filed for noncompliance on business websites. This number increased a staggering 90% from the previous year.
A good example of noncompliance on a website comes from a lawsuit filed on Avanti Hotel. 
This small, 10-room boutique was sued because its website was not accessible for non-seeing, non-hearing users. In order to have an ADA compliant website, it needs to be coded properly to allow for a screen reader to translate the information. Links and images need tags, videos need captions, etc.
Without proper coding, some people with disabilities will not have access to all of the information on the businesses’ sites.


----------



## ICE (May 22, 2019)

They close after three lawsuits?  There’s most likely another ten waiting to happen.  The tail is wagging the dog.


----------



## Yikes (May 22, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Can local governments be sued under Title II. The part below caught my attention and I wonder how many government websites are out of compliance and if the could be sued in CA for monetary damages like a private business.



Take a trip to get your access compliance plans checked at Los Angeles Dept of Building and Safety, a high rise at 201 N Figueroa, and you will find they have a number of their own CBC 11B / ADA violations, especially at their stairs (handrails, nosing markings, etc.).  The irony is palpable.


----------



## Robert (May 22, 2019)

mark handler said:


> To meet the requirements of the ADA, Kwan would need to replace the front door or install a handicap door switch with a button, repaint the lines in the parking lot, and do a total renovation of the bathroom. These repairs would certainly add up.
> But, if the changes are not made, Kwan will continue to be faced with even more costly lawsuits.



Please educate me. If his business was established before the ADA act, and he has not made any renovations where the 20% rule applies (CA), then why doesn't the Hardship Clause apply? Isn't that the reason the hardship clause is in the building code?


----------



## mark handler (May 23, 2019)

Robert post: 199019 said:
			
		

> Please educate me. If his business was established before the ADA act, and he has not made any renovations where the 20% rule applies (CA), then why doesn't the Hardship Clause apply? Isn't that the reason the hardship clause is in the building code?


Because there Is no 20% rulein the federal ADA law. It requires,  retroactie compliance.


----------



## ADAguy (May 23, 2019)

Once is fore warned, 3 times indicates willfull resistance. the Unrhu Act provides a bounty (penalty) to the filer but does not require removal of barriers "duh"!
Hardship requires opening your books, most don't want to.


----------



## JCraver (May 23, 2019)

_edit:_ nevermind.  I don't need the drama..


----------



## JPohling (May 23, 2019)

It is accessibility blackmail at the federal level and needs to be stopped


----------



## ADAguy (May 23, 2019)

ADA benefits "all" of us.


----------



## conarb (May 23, 2019)

JPohling said:


> It is accessibility blackmail at the federal level and needs to be stopped


It now appears that the entire Justice Department that wrote these regulations is corrupt, look for some indictments at the upper end and "The fish rots from the head down".


----------



## JCraver (May 23, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> ADA benefits "all" of us.



And you drag me in anyway.

I'm not trying to be contrary but for the sake of conversation, could you elaborate on that?  I'm failing to see how a mom-and-pop going out of business is a benefit for me...


----------



## Yikes (May 23, 2019)

There is a concept in economics called "rent-seeking", where you seek to transfer wealth by creating or encouraging the development of regulatory barriers where none existed before, when you will then make money by being the one who provides the solution to hurdle over those barriers.  The historic example was the person who owns land on opposite riverbanks installing a chain across the river, then charging boaters to lower the chain and let them pass through.
Modern day examples include requirements for licensing in areas that don't need a license (e.g. interior design), so that you can profit from training people to take the license exam, or being the one who administers the exam, or by being a licensed person who has created a licensing barrier to limit the number of competitors in your field.  Most recently, we've had engineers in LA and SF pushing for new soft-story seismic retrofit laws, touting how much business it will generate for our profession.

In my lifetime I have seen ADA go from being a physical barrier removal effort to a economic barrier creation "rent-seeking" project, creating regulations and penalties so that businesses must employ a steady stream of architects (including me), lawyers, certified CASp consultants, undergo training, etc.  I remember my first time hearing about an ADA shakedown in the 1990s, when my friend was working on a big project in the Riverside, CA.  A local activist in a wheelchair approached his firm and said, for $50k I'll keep the other activists away from you, otherwise, we will all make your life hell.  I don't think any of us pictured that on the happy day when President Bush signed ADA into law.
And because ADA is based on case precedent, we are effectively discovering (or perhaps "inventing" is a better term) new ways for people to claim discrimination.  The Unruh Act was well-intentioned California legislation to prevent discrimination, but when joined with ADA, it has metastasized and become weaponized.  I now believe that with the advent of ADA, it is time to repeal Unruh in California.

On my new projects, I passionately advocate not only for 11B/ADA access compliance, but also for Universal Design.  But when ADA becomes more about economic barrier creation rather than physical barrier removal, it is time for reform.  And I say that as a person who personally profits from the design work generated by the whole scheme.


----------



## ADAguy (May 23, 2019)

Yikes, as with any law the unforeseen consequences may not become apparent for many years after its activation. Legislatures (lawmakers!) rarely allow enough time when writing it anticipate the details of regulation writing. The café owner was forewarned and failed to respond in a manner that would not have been costly. I have a bar client who did the same thing and was sued twice.
Ever exceed the speed limit? bet you do daily. Go years without being ticketed and then "bam", right?
ADA is no different, it just makes the news more.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 23, 2019)

ADA is different in it is a civil rights law. If I have COPD and I walk into a restroom and I notice the mirror is 2 inches to high I should have no right to sue because my civil rights where not violated because I was not denied the use of the mirror. I believe each suit should be weighed on if the plaintiffs use of a specific part of a facility was truly hindered


----------



## Yikes (May 23, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Yikes, as with any law the unforeseen consequences may not become apparent for many years after its activation. Legislatures (lawmakers!) rarely allow enough time when writing it anticipate the details of regulation writing. The café owner was forewarned and failed to respond in a manner that would not have been costly. I have a bar client who did the same thing and was sued twice.
> Ever exceed the speed limit? bet you do daily. Go years without being ticketed and then "bam", right?
> ADA is no different, it just makes the news more.


Yes, I have exceeded the limit and taken my chances.  But here's what makes (ADA+Unruh) different: Picture a situation in which your fellow motorists get to take you to court for speeding, at $4k per incident.  Not long before extortion rackets start booming, and suddenly it's no longer about speed or highway safety, it's about money.


----------



## Msradell (May 23, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> ADA benefits "all" of us.


While many people certainly disagree with the ADA and don't see the need for, those of us with true disabilities certainly appreciate it. I'm confined to electric wheelchair and without the ADA many places would not be accessible for me. Now, I do disagree with me bounty that California has where you can file lawsuits and make a profit to get a business to comply. Compliance should be part of the ADA and state/local bldg. inspectors should check for compliance.


----------



## conarb (May 23, 2019)

Over the years I've been telling you guys that the whole ADA is unconstitutional, you have to treat all groups equally, I've also told you that ground zero in this is the educational system and the favoritism they show certain suspect classes, namely racial groups.  We should know shortly, a few years ago several Asian groups sued Harvard for discriminating against them in favor of lower IQ racial groups, the suit has wound it's way to the Supreme Court and all indications are that they are going to rule that race can't be used in admissions.  How will that affect ADA?  The universities, in an effort to preserve their unconstitutional diversity and inclusion objective, are having the ETS devise an "Adversity Score" trying to target the same racial groups, arguing that overcoming adversity (living in a ghetto neighborhood, growing up in a fatherless home, etc.) is a valued trait that can offset lower SAT scores, this may take another legal step but my hope is that the courts will rule that adversity is not a valid reason to discriminate, in effect a disabled man has no right to discriminate against an able bodied man.  I just read an *an article about it today*.  I would certainly hope that the courts rule broadly on the issue of discrimination and maybe even people like Jason Kwan can bring an action against his tormentors to get damages.


----------



## mark handler (May 24, 2019)

JCraver said:


> _edit:_ nevermind.  I don't need the drama..


Thank you


----------



## mark handler (May 24, 2019)

JPohling said:


> It is accessibility blackmail at the federal level and needs to be stopped


Even if the fed's intervene, there will still be state redress
Most states have passed accessibility laws that most refer to as ADA. Most lawsuits are not ADA lawsuits they are trying to enforce locally (or State) enacted laws. in an effort to obtain the restitution of what they perceive as their civil rights (both Federal and State).


----------



## mark handler (May 24, 2019)

The right to equal access is constitutional. Both State and Federal courts and Legislators have said so. The Supreme Court has time and time again refused to take on the matter referring it back to lower courts.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 24, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Can local governments be sued under Title II. The part below caught my attention and I wonder how many government websites are out of compliance and if the could be sued in CA for monetary damages like a private business.



I don't know how local governments can be sued. We didn't even adopt any codes until 2004 here. There where no accessible inspections before that and most places did't have any kind of building inspector.


----------



## tmurray (May 24, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't know how local governments can be sued. We didn't even adopt any codes until 2004 here. There where no accessible inspections before that and most places did't have any kind of building inspector.


Sued not for the work you did, but the access you provide to the public though websites, offices, etc.


----------



## conarb (May 24, 2019)

mark handler said:


> The right to equal access is constitutional. Both State and Federal courts and Legislators have said so. The Supreme Court has time and time again refused to take on the matter referring it back to lower courts.



That's the problem, the Court has avoided it because they know that eventually all civil rights laws are going to have to be declared unconstitutional, they couldn't avoid it any longer and now they have taken the suit by Asian groups against Harvard, lots will depend upon how broad their decision is, they may narrowly rule limiting it to college admissions, but with the ETS creating an "Adversity Index" they should broaden their decision enough to include disability.


----------



## Yikes (May 24, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't know how local governments can be sued. We didn't even adopt any codes until 2004 here. There where no accessible inspections before that and most places did't have any kind of building inspector.



Yes, and here is a current lawsuit against the city of LA for failing to provide accessible housing.  On the surface, it sounds like LA falsified its records.  Dig deeper, and the backstory is that the various architecture firms that worked on the projects certified compliance to the city's redevelopment agency, but the architects were too focused on just CBC 11A (FHA), and they forgot about UFAS.  The city relied on these compliance statements in their reporting to HUD. 

I should add: in this example, the city was a partial funder of the housing projects, so they were not being sued in the role of plan check / building inspection.  In other words, the local government's  assistance in providing affordable housing funds is what made them liable for the omissions of the design professionals.  No good deed goes unpunished.


----------



## mark handler (May 24, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Can local governments be sued under Title II. .


http://www.westerncity.com/article/lessons-local-governments-about-ada-lawsuits


----------



## Yikes (May 24, 2019)

"The recent Ninth Circuit case of Fortyune v. City of Lomita establishes that a plaintiff may sue a city under Title II of the ADA (the Title applicable to public entities) for failure to provide accessible on-street parking, _even in the absence of regulatory design specifications_. In other words, the defendant City had argued that, to sue under the ADA, there has to be a violation of existing specifications. The court disagreed and held that under the ADA, cities, including small towns, have an affirmative duty to make on-street parking accessible, even if no regulatory design specifications exist."

https://www.wzllp.com/suing-cities-on-street-parking-design-ada/

Good luck figuring out how to redesign your 1940's era street's parallel parking stalls to add an 8' loading/unloading aisle, maintaining a 2% slope on that former gutter location.


----------



## ADAguy (May 24, 2019)

mark handler said:


> http://www.westerncity.com/article/lessons-local-governments-about-ada-lawsuits


Thank you for this.


----------



## ICE (May 24, 2019)

The whole ADA thing will expand until there is nothing that isn't covered under a panoply of excessive laws.  Do-gooders went from a benign desire to help to a burdensome crusade.  Look at the growth of protected classes.  People that can't figure out what they are is another flower needing water.  Now there is a new one here in California.  I heard about it yesterday.  My first reaction was "That can't be true".  I thought the same with many of the other classes but this one might tip the balance.  It's hair....you can not discriminate based on hair style.  Hairdressers are rejoicing .....mostly in West Hollywood.....that's where this protected class stuff germinated.


----------



## Robert (May 24, 2019)

This is a pic of a page in a manual I like because it lists both the federal ADA and CA guidelines and explains the most restrictive. Even though Fed ADA does not have a 20% rule as CA allows as ADAGUY pointed out, it does talk about readily achievable including the verbiage "modest measures, easily accomplishable and burdensome expense". If you read the top line, and the bottom underlined verbiage, it starts to go into barrier removal and readily achievable. The ADA did remove "loss of profit" from it's criteria of readily achievable. However, the fact that there is verbiage about extensive restructuring and burdensome expense leads me to believe it is not black and white and there are exceptions. Certainly the owner can restripe his parking space and add a power assisted entry door. Enlarging & reconfiguring a bathroom is not as easy as some think. Construction cost in SF is $500/ sq . ft. I can understand this putting him out of business.


----------



## jar546 (May 24, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't know how local governments can be sued. We didn't even adopt any codes until 2004 here. There where no accessible inspections before that and most places did't have any kind of building inspector.



Oh, they are more than you realize and the muni's lose too, sometimes using their insurance carrier to settle before it goes to court.  Don't think that you are immune as an inspector and, if you work for a third-party, you are a target.  Trust me.  This can be not just for missing something important on an inspection but it can be from requiring something that is not a code and overstepping your boundaries.


----------



## mark handler (May 25, 2019)

Robert said:


> This is a pic of a page in a manual I like because it lists both the federal ADA and CA guidelines and explains the most restrictive. Even though Fed ADA does not have a 20% rule as CA allows as ADAGUY pointed out, it does talk about readily achievable including the verbiage "modest measures, easily accomplishable and burdensome expense". If you read the top line, and the bottom underlined verbiage, it starts to go into barrier removal and readily achievable. The ADA did remove "loss of profit" from it's criteria of readily achievable. However, the fact that there is verbiage about extensive restructuring and burdensome expense leads me to believe it is not black and white and there are exceptions. Certainly the owner can restripe his parking space and add a power assisted entry door. Enlarging & reconfiguring a bathroom is not as easy as some think. Construction cost in SF is $500/ sq . ft. I can understand this putting him out of business.


Just remember Robert, the interpretations in CalDag are not Code. It is a Guide that Mike
Gibbens writes and edits.  It is his interpretations, not the Building Official.
Don't get me wrong, he is "the go to expert", but it is not always the code.



*In my opinion the FREE *2016 California Access Compliance Advisory Reference Manual
State Of California Department Of General Services Division of the State Architect
*"Holds more weight on interpretations than does Gibbens" !*

https://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/dsa/pubs/2016CBC_Advisory_Manual.pdf


----------



## ADAguy (May 25, 2019)

You are so right MH. Gibbons created a cottage industry for defense counsel with his book. 
Give him credit for "cashing" in early on but not for his interpretations.


----------



## Robert (May 28, 2019)

I posted the page not because of Gibbens opinions/interpretations but because of the first paragraph which is straight from ADA section 36.104  "readily achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense". If the bathroom addition/remodel put him out of business, then it obviously was not "readily achievable" per the ADA definition. Business owners need to be educated about their rights too, so they can fight some of these.


----------



## Rick18071 (May 28, 2019)

jar546 said:


> Oh, they are more than you realize and the muni's lose too, sometimes using their insurance carrier to settle before it goes to court.  Don't think that you are immune as an inspector and, if you work for a third-party, you are a target.  Trust me.  This can be not just for missing something important on an inspection but it can be from requiring something that is not a code and overstepping your boundaries.



So you are saying that i can be sued for a private building that was built when the state had only minimum safety codes and the township did not have any codes at all or any inspectors, that isn't accessible and did not ask or give permission for an inspector to come into the private property?


----------



## ADAguy (May 28, 2019)

"That" would be a "Yes"! No one said inspectors were the ADA cops. Feds say it is for those with disabilities to make the call.
No "grandfathering", Readily achievable requires a case by case determination; unfortunately, like French law you may be guilty until you prove your innocence and that may cost you to prove it. 
Burger stand in Sacramento had a similar issue many years ago. He leased the building so chose to move rather than invest in improvements. Feds require barrier removal, Unrhu in CA does not (only payment of a bounty) - that is what draws out "opportunists/" to sue.  Coffee shop "chose" not to fight it, his choice.


----------



## Yikes (May 28, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> So you are saying that i can be sued for a private building that was built when the state had only minimum safety codes and the township did not have any codes at all or any inspectors, that isn't accessible and did not ask or give permission for an inspector to come into the private property?





ADAguy said:


> "That" would be a "Yes"! No one said inspectors were the ADA cops. Feds say it is for those with disabilities to make the call.



Rick18071, can you clarify, are you asking the question as if you were (a) the inspector, or (b) the property owner?

It sounds to me like ADAguy is aswering you as if you were the property owner.


----------



## ADAguy (May 28, 2019)

Inspectors only respond to complaints of non-code compliance, they don't enforce the ADA but if the code is not complied with and the building had been altered post ADA and the local code for the alterations met or exceeded the ADA then that might give cause for an inspector/ (or code enforcement officer) to have inspected the facility. It has not been shared as to the age of the facility and what the specific barriers allegedly encountered were.


----------



## jar546 (May 28, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> I don't know how local governments can be sued. We didn't even adopt any codes until 2004 here. There where no accessible inspections before that and most places did't have any kind of building inspector.



That is an incorrect statement.  Although PA adopted a statewide code in 2004 that covered residential and commercial, PA enforced the 1927 Fire & Panic Act on commercial properties and then later, PA Labor & Industry then adopted and enforced ADA standards.  It wasn't until 2004 that certified inspectors outside of L&I began enforcing the new adopted ANSI A117.1 in 2004.


----------



## Yikes (May 28, 2019)

This probably is (and probably has been) a topic for another thread, but my understanding is that a person acting solely in the role of  AHJ / building official (or plan checker, or city construction inspector, etc.) cannot be sued for the failure of an owner or design professional or contractor to comply with ADA, or for that matter with any building code or related codes.  This is even true if said AHJ screwed up and failed to identify code deficiencies.
Exceptions could be criminal negligence, accepting bribes to "look the other way", etc.

Of course, if said AHJ was wearing two hats - for example, was the property owner as well as the building official, then they could be sued as the owner.  This would include a person acting as the Public works director on a city-owned property, such as a public street.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 29, 2019)

Maybe not under Federal ADA laws but they can be sued under the Fair Housing accessibility rules.
Basically the lawsuit was the building department was not informing builders and owners of the possibility of additional accessibility requirements by other agencies that they may need to adhere to.

http://www.montanafairhousing.org/newsletters_press/2003/nov03.pdf


----------



## linnrg (May 29, 2019)

If I have to be sued because I did not enforce ADA - I would hope that all of the legislators, the Judges,, all DOJ persons should be sued at the same time.

I spend a lot of time showing others where to get the ADA Guidelines so that they can make their determinations.

I have yet to read how the ADA takes into account hair style or color!  It is getting way out of hand.


----------



## Yikes (May 30, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> Maybe not under Federal ADA laws but they can be sued under the Fair Housing accessibility rules.
> Basically the lawsuit was the building department was not informing builders and owners of the possibility of additional accessibility requirements by other agencies that they may need to adhere to.
> 
> http://www.montanafairhousing.org/newsletters_press/2003/nov03.pdf



Wasn't there a slew of FHA cases in NW Montana like this?  If i recall correctly, they lawsuits were not because a city building official allowed a private owner to violate FHA.  Rather, they were lawsuits against a city because the city's own zoning ordinances were deemed discriminatory.  Basically, the city would not allow assisted living facilities in certain zones where other types of residential uses were otherwise allowed.
I've also seen lawsuits of a similar nature where (for example) a front yard setback code made a homeowner unable to construct a ramp with handrails to their front door.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 30, 2019)

I have been here since 2002 and am not aware of the type of lawsuits you describe. We have always allowed ramps to encroach into setbacks for existing buildings, res and comm  but not newly developed lots.


----------



## Yikes (May 30, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> I have been here since 2002 and am not aware of the type of lawsuits you describe. We have always allowed ramps to encroach into setbacks for existing buildings, res and comm  but not newly developed lots.


Glad to hear it's not been a problem.
Main point of previous post was: when a city gets sued under ADA or FHA, it's not because some 3rd party violated ADA/FHA within the city limits; it's because (1) the city's own property, or the city's own (2) ordinances or (3) practices, violated ADA/FHA.  Or (4) the city channeled funds to, or was a financial partner with, a 3rd party in a development that violated ADA/FHA/UFAS.


----------



## conarb (Jun 3, 2019)

That wheelchair-bound attorney who has filed so many ADA suits has been charged with tax evasion:



> “Yaaaaay,” said Steven Johnson, who runs a costume and magic shop in Carmichael with his mother and was sued in 2005 over a lack of ADA-compliant parking. “It isn’t enough. The penalties for tax evasion are well and good, but he really should be caught up for his abuse of the ADA laws.”
> 
> Across Northern California, Scott Johnson has filed thousands of lawsuits alleging ADA violations, collecting settlements and, sometimes, driving business owners to close their doors.
> 
> ...




¹ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/0...e-serial-ada-filer-faces-tax-evasion-charges/


----------



## e hilton (Jun 4, 2019)

mtlogcabin said:


> ADA is different in it is a civil rights law.



No, its not a law, its an act.  The ADA does not havd any enforcement or punative provisions, all those are handles by civil law suits.   And what everyone is building toward ... ADAAG ... the AG is accessibility guidelines.  The states and in some cases cities then incorporate those guidelihes into their codes.  

The effect is the same, but the ADA is not wielding the stick, just the carrot.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 4, 2019)

e hilton said:


> No, its not a law, its an act.  The ADA does not havd any enforcement or punative provisions, all those are handles by civil law suits.   And what everyone is building toward ... ADAAG ... the AG is accessibility guidelines.  The states and in some cases cities then incorporate those guidelihes into their codes.
> 
> The effect is the same, but the ADA is not wielding the stick, just the carrot.



An *act* officially becomes *law* when a legislature votes for a bill, Congress voted on it, President Bush Signed it, It is LAW, .


Also just so you know The ADAAG were replaced in 2010 with the 2010 ADASAD.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 4, 2019)

e hilton said:


> No, its not a law, its an act.  The ADA does not have any enforcement or punitive provisions, all those are handles by civil law suits.   And what everyone is building toward ... ADAAG ... the AG is accessibility guidelines.  The states and in some cases cities then incorporate those guidelines into their codes.
> 
> The effect is the same, but the ADA is not wielding the stick, just the carrot.


https://www.ada.gov/civil_penalties_2014.htm
On March 28, 2014, the Department of Justice issued a Final Rule that adjusts for inflation the civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Civil Rights Division, including civil penalties available under title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).   For the ADA, this adjustment increases the maximum civil penalty for a first violation under title III from $55,000 to $75,000; for a subsequent violation the new maximum is $150,000.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 4, 2019)

Hi gang, visiting the east coast (Virginia) from CA. Interpretation here is obviously "not" held to the degree we are in CA (smiling).
As to Johnson, similar to Capone, greed and the $$$'s brought the IRS into the game and brought him down. 
Ultimately the DOR still has a responsibility to adhere to codes, laws and regulations; many of which are not addressed by AHJ's. 
There in lies a level of responsibility often misunderstood/assumed/overlooked by clients and DORs.


----------



## conarb (Jun 4, 2019)

mark handler said:


> https://www.ada.gov/civil_penalties_2014.htm
> On March 28, 2014, the Department of Justice issued a Final Rule that adjusts for inflation the civil monetary penalties assessed or enforced by the Civil Rights Division, including civil penalties available under title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).   For the ADA, this adjustment increases the maximum civil penalty for a first violation under title III from $55,000 to $75,000; for a subsequent violation the new maximum is $150,000.


That DOJ was run by Eric Holder, a corrupt *a corrupt Attorney General*, he is the only Attorney General to ever be held in contempt of congress:



> The House has voted to hold Attorney General  Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over his failure to turn over documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, the first time Congress has taken such a dramatic move against a sitting Cabinet official.
> 
> The vote was 255-67, with 17 Democrats voting in support of a criminal contempt resolution, which authorizes Republicans leaders to seek criminal charges against Holder. This Democratic support came despite a round of behind-the-scenes lobbying by senior White House and Justice officials - as well as pressure from party leaders - to support Holder. ¹



If he doesn't believe in following the law why should we follow his regulations?  Hopefully, the new Attorney General will clean house in the Justice Department and throw a lot of this crap out.  Again, this is all political, now that the IRS has gone after Johnson maybe they will go after all ADA filers, if it took the IRS to bring down Al Capone maybe they can bring down these ADA blackmailers.  

¹ https://www.politico.com/story/2012/06/holder-held-in-contempt-of-congress-077988


----------



## conarb (Jun 4, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> Hi gang, visiting the east coast (Virginia) from CA. Interpretation here is obviously "not" held to the degree we are in CA (smiling).
> As to Johnson, similar to Capone, greed and the $$$'s brought the IRS into the game and brought him down.
> Ultimately the DOR still has a responsibility to adhere to codes, laws and regulations; many of which are not addressed by AHJ's.
> There in lies a level of responsibility often misunderstood/assumed/overlooked by clients and DORs.



Hey ADAguy, were you in Virginia Beach when the public works guy went ballistic?  If those city guys want to off themselves that's okay, but the first guy he killed was a poor innocent contractor who was there to buy a permit, first reports said he was at the counter when shot, some wag commented: "The city probably went ahead and cashed his check.", later reports said he was sitting in his car.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 5, 2019)

mark handler said:


> An *act* officially becomes *law* when a legislature votes for a bill, Congress voted on it, President Bush Signed it, It is LAW, .
> 
> 
> Also just so you know The ADAAG were replaced in 2010 with the 2010 ADASAD.



Ok, there is a heavy dose of semantics involved here.  An act can be signed into law and it becomes effective, but it is not a "law".    "Fair labor standars act of 1939".  "Clean air act".  "ADA" .   States then enact laws to enforce the act.


----------



## mark handler (Jun 5, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Ok, there is a heavy dose of semantics involved here.  An act can be signed into law and it becomes effective, but it is not a "law".    "Fair labor standars act of 1939".  "Clean air act".  "ADA" .   States then enact laws to enforce the act.


You need to talk to a lawyer
An Act is law.

_Law is a generic term that refers to all rules and regulations passed by the parliament and are meant to guide the conduct of people. Laws also help in the protection of the citizens and also in maintaining public order._

_Acts are a type of Laws that pertain to specific situations and circumstances. They are passed by the government, to let people know the rules and regulations about specific situations._

O_nce an act is passed by the Legislature, it becomes a law. 

ADA was passed by congress and signed by the President. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND._


----------



## conarb (Jun 5, 2019)

mark handler said:


> You need to talk to a lawyer
> An Act is law.
> 
> _Law is a generic term that refers to all rules and regulations passed by the parliament and are meant to guide the conduct of people. Laws also help in the protection of the citizens and also in maintaining public order._
> ...



Not really, the federal congress passes laws, the state legislature passes statutes, city councils pass ordinances, in addition to this bureaucrats write regulations, all have the force of law. The whole area of regulation has come into question, in particular Justice Thomas has questioned regulations having the force of law when they are written by bureaucrats and not representatives of the people.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 5, 2019)

[QUOTE
An Act is law.

O_nce an act is passed by the Legislature, it becomes a law. 

ADA was passed by congress and signed by the President. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND._[/QUOTE]

Right ... an act is law, its something thst needs to be obeyed.  But it is not "a law" , it remains an Act. 
Conarb explained it a little better.


----------



## conarb (Jun 5, 2019)

e hilton said:


> An Act is law.
> 
> O_nce an act is passed by the Legislature, it becomes a law.
> 
> ADA was passed by congress and signed by the President. IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND._



Right ... an act is law, its something that needs to be obeyed.  But it is not "a law" , it remains an Act.
Conarb explained it a little better.[/QUOTE]

I don't know where we are going with thnis but California is picking and choosing the laws it wants to obey, as examples it is ignoring drug laws and both the state and cities are passing sanctuary state/city laws in contravention of federal laws, so if our state and our cities don't have to obey laws why do we?  As far as the regulations, which are what you are actually enforcing, they are not supposed to be "created laws" but interpretations of the laws that congress has passed, that is Justice Thomas' point, these government agencies have gone way too far actually writing law as opposed to interpreting the laws that congress has passed, any President could issue an Executive Order scrapping all regulations then order the various departments to write new regulations.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jun 6, 2019)

We use to have a lot of "Blue Laws" here that no one ever enforced like no open stores on Sunday. Government is slow in changing laws and most people are OK with ignoring ones that should be changed.


----------



## conarb (Jun 6, 2019)

Rick18071 said:


> We use to have a lot of "Blue Laws" here that no one ever enforced like no open stores on Sunday. Government is slow in changing laws and most people are OK with ignoring ones that should be changed.



Maybe it's time to put disability laws in the trash can of history along with the blue laws.  Disability laws are political, part of the VS (victimization studies) agenda in colleges, here is a list of oppressors vs. victims:


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 8, 2019)

Guess it comes down to "what" you can get away with, "until" you are caught.
Try if you dare, but be wary.


----------



## e hilton (Jun 9, 2019)

conarb said:


> Maybe it's time to put disability laws in the trash.  Disability laws are political



Nice chart, where did you get it.  
Disability laws may have morphed into political beasts, but their core is justified.  People in wheelchairs deserve access just like everyone else.  People with severe arthritis need to able to open doors.  People with mental issues do not have the right to take pet peacocks on airplanes for emotional support.


----------



## conarb (Jun 9, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Nice chart, where did you get it.



I found it in an article addressing Cultural Marxism, creating victim classes to advocate for socialism/Marxism"



			
				Chronicles Magazine said:
			
		

> Since the Left, of which the Democratic Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary, gave up on its original focus on industrial workers as the revolutionary class, the old bourgeois/proletarian dichotomy is out. Tribes now line up according to categories in a plural Cultural Marxist schematic of oppressor and victim pairings, with the latter claiming unlimited redress from the former.
> 
> As the late Joe Sobran said, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim in America these days. The following is a helpful guide to who’s who under the new dispensation:
> Disability laws may have morphed into political beasts, but their core is justified.  People in wheelchairs deserve access just like everyone else.  People with severe arthritis need to able to open doors.  People with mental issues do not have the right to take pet peacocks on airplanes for emotional support.
> ...



I try not to get into it but my undergraduate major was philosophy, this Cultural Marxism came from The Frankfurt School which Hitler threw out of Germany, most came to Columbia University and the cancer of egalitarianism spread from there, as I've said, there is a good chance that the Supreme Court will resolve this in the Asian Students' lawsuit against Harvard:



			
				New York Times said:
			
		

> But the Trump administration is turning the same tool against affirmative action in college admissions, a major — and highly contentious — legacy of the civil rights era, and one that white conservatives have opposed for decades. In the past few years, the anti-affirmative action cause has been joined by Asian-Americans who argue that they are being held to a higher standard, losing out on coveted slots at places like Harvard as African-Americans, Latinos and other groups get a *****.²



If the court rules that you can't give special privileges to black people at the expense of Asian people, can you give special privileges to disabled people at the expense of able boded people? 



¹ https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/the-dictatorship-of-victims-strikes-back/

² https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/30/us/politics/asian-students-affirmative-action-harvard.html


----------



## e hilton (Jun 10, 2019)

conarb said:


> , can you give special privileges to disabled people



There is a difference between special priviledge and the ability to live somewhat normally.  I dont think anyone here would deny accommodations for severly disabled citizens, or those confined to wheelchairs, but its the ones who game the system that need to be reined in.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 10, 2019)

conarb said:


> Hey ADAguy, were you in Virginia Beach when the public works guy went ballistic?  If those city guys want to off themselves that's okay, but the first guy he killed was a poor innocent contractor who was there to buy a permit, first reports said he was at the counter when shot, some wag commented: "The city probably went ahead and cashed his check.", later reports said he was sitting in his car.


Unfortunately for the contractor he was in the right place at the wrong time. Much more will bill be coming out on this in the future. Weapons are as available if not more so in Virginia then in Texas or Arizona. You can fill your trunk, cross the border to another state and who is to know? Shooter was after management.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 10, 2019)

ADAguy said:


> and who is to know?


And why should anyone know if he has a trunk full if they are all legally purchased or have been given to him? After all it is a civil right to be able to own a firearm backed up by the Supreme Court with no limits on how many an individual may own.
Conarb
Everybody but the shooter that day was an innocent victim that left behind loved ones.


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 11, 2019)

"If" Legally purchased is the key, what if an adjacent state does not allow free purchase? Can/should that state inspect any and all vehicles entering that state?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jun 11, 2019)

Define what you mean by the term "Free Purchase"


ADAguy said:


> Can/should that state inspect any and all vehicles entering that state?


 NO not without a warrant or probable cause
 4th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things.....


----------



## Yikes (Jun 11, 2019)

OK, maybe this thread has strayed off topic... unless we can bring it all back together by utilizing ADA to allow "emotional support weapons"...?


----------



## ADAguy (Jun 11, 2019)

That would be those animals with the NRA patch on their body wraps (smiling).


----------



## fatboy (Jun 11, 2019)

Yikes said:


> OK, maybe this thread has strayed off topic... unless we can bring it all back together by utilizing ADA to allow "emotional support weapons"...?



WAY off topic, I had to back out to remember what the OP really was. Let's bring it back. A coffee shop closed due to a third accessibility lawsuit.


----------

