# Abercrombie & Fitch brand Hollister Co. ALL U.S. store entrances



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

Abercrombie & Fitch brand Hollister Co. ALL U.S. store entrances after losing legal battle against disabled shoppers

A lawsuit launched in 2009 accused the Abercrombie & Fitch-owned company of discriminating against disabled customers

Many of its stores have entrances that resemble a stepped front porch making it for difficult for wheelchairs to enter

By ASSOCIATED PRESS

PUBLISHED: 08:40 EST, 19 August 2013

Hollister ordered to redesign ALL U.S. store entrances after losing legal battle against disabled shoppers | Mail Online







Abercrombie & Fitch brand Hollister Co. must redesign hundreds of its storefronts to ensure that they are wheelchair-friendly.

An advocacy group for the disabled says a federal judge is giving the surf-inspired clothing label, which has more than 500 locations worldwide, until January 1, 2017, to make the changes.

Many of its stores have entrances that resemble a stepped front porch and a lawsuit launched in 2009 accused the company of discriminating against disabled customers.

The Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition says a ruling Friday by a federal judge in Denver requires Hollister to make changes at a rate of 77 stores per year so they are more accessible.

The ruling says the company has options including leveling out stairs at entrances or installing ramps.

It also can close off stairway entrances so that all customers, not just those who can't walk, would use secondary entrances.

The lawsuit was filed in 2009 against J.M. Hollister LLC and its owner, Ohio-based Abercrombie & Fitch Co., on behalf of several Colorado customers.

In March the district court for Colorado ordered company executives to comply with disability advocates but according to The Colorado Independent the two parties failed to reach an agreement and the steps remained a problem.

The long-running case originally grew from complaints filed against two Hollister stores in Colorado by the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition.

Julie Farrar, 45, one of the plaintiffs in the four-year dispute, said she visited the Orchard Town Center store, which has since closed, to buy items for her 12-year-old daughter but her wheelchair couldn’t make it up the steps.

Lawyers for the Equal Rights Center, a national civil-rights organization, found similar access problems at Abercrombie & Fitch and Hollister stores in nine States and filed a similar lawsuit in November 2009 in Maryland.

In 2012 the Colorado-focused case grew into a class-action suit targeting the 248 Hollister stores across the U.S. that feature imitation porch steps as a main entrance.

Despite the uproar, Hollister vigorously defended the use of stairs in its stores.

A company spokesman said that the raised entrances were designed to create 'an entry to a house in Southern California that you would walk up onto the porch or walk down into the porch, to enter, like you would do at a beach house.'

The firm argued that it complies with the law because the stores include side doors disguised as shuttered windows that are wheelchair accessible.

However plaintiffs said these doors are often are blocked with tables stacked with merchandise and they should not be made to enter through an 'inferior' entrance.

Ms Farrar, who was born without a sacrum - the triangular bone at the bottom of the spine - told The Colorado Independent: 'I would never go through a side door. It’s not something I would do. I’m philosophically opposed to that.

'These stores are designed to look shuttered and hidden, as if to keep out the riffraff. I want people to know that, as a society, we have evolved over the past 25 years.

'Despite the fact that [Hollister] market beauty and athleticism as a stereotype, the reality is they still need the rest of us people who are short, chubby and maybe with acne and wheelchairs.'

In March U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel agreed that Hollister’s inaccessible porches violate the American with Disabilities Act, also known as the ADA.

The 23-year-old law prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation, communications, and governmental activities.

Judge Daniel ruled that customers who use wheelchairs must be entitled to the same experience as all other customers.

He suggested that Hollister could flatten out its entrance ways and remove the steps or install wheelchair-accessible ramps.

Commenting on the ruling, a spokesman for Hollister told MailOnline  'We are surprised by the Judge’s decision that the Hollister entrances are not compliant with the ADA.

'We’ve maintained throughout the litigation, and continue to maintain, that the stores comply with the ADA and allow access to all patrons.

'Beyond that, we want all of our customers to have a positive experience when shopping in our stores. While we reserve the right to appeal the underlying legal issue, we are currently working with the court and the plaintiffs to reach a mutually agreeable resolution.'

Hollister, like all of the Abercrombie brands, markets its clothing as a lifestyle, its main inspiration being Southern California's beach and surf scene. The website explains that it is the 'coolest destination for genuine SoCal style clothes for guys and girls.'

And a 2013 report to shareholders reads: 'It’s all about hot lifeguards and beautiful beaches… Young and fun, with a sense of humor, Hollister never takes itself too seriously. Hollister’s laid-back lifestyle and All-American image is timeless and effortlessly cool.'

The U.S. Justice Department has also weighed in on the discrimination case. It highlighted that the Hollister stores were built long after the ADA came into play and therefore the entrances violate both the 'spirit and letter of the law.'


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

Once again BO's allowing new stores to circumvent the Accessibility laws


----------



## mjesse (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Once again BO's allowing new stores to circumvent the Accessibility laws


_The firm argued that it complies with the law because the stores include side doors disguised as shuttered windows that are wheelchair accessible. _



Federal ruling aside, does the second entrance meet the requirements?

Additionally, does a revolving door meet the same criteria if secondary doors are installed?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Once again BO's allowing new stores to circumvent the Accessibility laws


Lets see the 2003 IBC only required 50% of entrances to be accessible. The 2006 raised that to 60% of all entrances.

If they installed an accessible entrance on each side of the raised entrance and met the 60% requirement in the 2006 and later editions is the BO circumventing the ADA? No he is properly enforcing the building code.

I don't view it any different than a revolving door or a turnstile where an alternative is provided.


----------



## cda (Aug 20, 2013)

Additionally, does a revolving door meet the same criteria if secondary doors are installed

A walk  thorugh door is required when a revolving door is installed

1008.1.4 Special doors. Special doors and security grilles

shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1008.1.4.1

through 1008.1.4.5.

1008.1.4.1 Revolving doors. Revolving doors shall

comply with the following:

1. Each revolving door shall be capable of collapsing

into a bookfold position with parallel egress paths

providing an aggregate width of 36 inches (914

mm).

2. A revolving door shall not be located within 10

feet (3048 mm) of the foot of or top of stairs or

escalators. A dispersal area shall be provided

between the stairs or escalators and the revolving

doors.

3. The revolutions per minute (rpm) for a revolving

door shall not exceed those shown in Table

1008.1.4.1.

4. Each revolving door shall have a side-hinged

swinging door which complies with Section

1008.1 in the same wall and within 10 feet (3048

mm) of the revolving door.

5. Revolving doors shall not be part of an accessible

route required by Section 1007 and Chapter 11.


----------



## steveray (Aug 20, 2013)

At a minimum....they would have to have directional signage.....under 2003....Do they step back down on the inside? What would allow that part of the store to be inaccessible?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Lets see the 2003 IBC only required 50% of entrances to be accessible. The 2006 raised that to 60% of all entrances. If they installed an accessible entrance on each side of the raised entrance and met the 60% requirement in the 2006 and later editions is the BO circumventing the ADA? No he is properly enforcing the building code.
> 
> I don't view it any different than a revolving door or a turnstile where an alternative is provided.


You read some sections and not others:

1104.5 Location.

Accessible routes shall coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path.

So, wheelchair users need to enter the side door where the business removed the colored only signs


----------



## mjesse (Aug 20, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Lets see the 2003 IBC only required 50% of entrances to be accessible. The 2006 raised that to 60% of all entrances. If they installed an accessible entrance on each side of the raised entrance and met the 60% requirement in the 2006 and later editions is the BO circumventing the ADA? No he is properly enforcing the building code.
> 
> I don't view it any different than a revolving door or a turnstile where an alternative is provided.


Agreed, assuming the above is met, I would have to approve it without circumventing anything.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> Agreed, assuming the above is met, I would have to approve it without circumventing anything.


And that is why we have the lawsuits, lack of education.

You read some sections and not others:

1104.5 Location.

Accessible routes shall coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 20, 2013)

It is located in the same area


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> It is located in the same area


Not a side entry

You learn nothing from the court


----------



## JPohling (Aug 20, 2013)

banging my head against a brick wall.  I thought you guys knew better?


----------



## steveray (Aug 20, 2013)

It would depend on how far off the side it was to me (Sorry Mark)...If they flanked the non accessible entrance, I might be OK (have to approve it)..... if everything else was met and my concerns from post #6 were met..


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

steveray said:
			
		

> It would depend on how far off the side it was to me (Sorry Mark)...If they flanked the non accessible entrance, I might be OK (have to approve it)..... if everything else was met and my concerns from post #6 were met..


You don't need to apologize to me.

It is the disabled vet or the 85 year old mother you need to apologize to.

A side entry might be okay in an existing nonconforming building, but most of

the  Abercrombie & Fitch/Hollister Co. stores were built after the ADA went into effect


----------



## mjesse (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Not a side entryYou learn nothing from the court


Unless you have specific information that hasn't been shared, there is no way to say that "SIDE" isn't the same as - _"__coincide with or be located in the same area as a general circulation path"_



No one said "on the OTHER side, or AROUND the side of the building" SIDE may very well mean be-SIDE...as in next to...as in "THE SAME AREA" as required by Code.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Not a side entryYou learn nothing from the court


One judge one mans opinion. I bet the results might be different if it was a jury trail

You are right I don't apply the code requirements based upon court decisions.

The fact that a person has an attitude of "'I would never go through a side door. It’s not something I would do. I’m philosophically opposed to that". I don't care what they are "philosophically oppose to" , the entrances are less than 6 ft apart. Hardly a side door in my opinion.



They where never denied access, they where never made to use the back door. There is no such thing as equal for all, it will never happen.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> They where never denied access,


One mans opinion

Obviously not most courts....


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

If you ever wonder why the lawsuits, look in the mirror...


----------



## mjesse (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If you ever wonder why the lawsuits, look in the mirror...


So sue me :devil

Seriously though, this discussion proves that WE are far from finding the "right" answer.

These issues quickly dissolve into the likes of politics and religion; I'm right-You're wrong-We all lose.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> We all lose.


No, Not all of us lose, Someone out there, obviously not you, will be educated by this, provide proper access and prevent a lawsuit


----------



## mjesse (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> No, Not all of us loose, Someone out there, obviously not you, will be educated by this, provide proper access and prevent a lawsuit


Let me educate you first on the proper spelling of the word "lose"

Loose, is what one of your screws is.

You have my respect Mark, you are far more knowledgeable than most on issues regarding the ADA. You are the "go-to" guy on these issues for the forum.

Lest you believe I cannot be educated, please enlighten me. Are revolving doors still allowed? Are monument stairs still allowed? What distance from these is acceptable to have an accessible entry? I really don't know.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

New or existing? Historic?

Are revolving doors still allowed? *Yes, if there are compliant swinging doors*

*Read the code:*

*4. Each revolving door shall have a side-hinged swinging door which complies with Section 1008.1 in the same wall and within 10 feet of the revolving door.*

Are monument stairs still allowed?

*Yes, if there is an accessible entry element, lift, ramp or elevator withing the proximity of the stair*

What distance from these is acceptable to have an accessible entry?* Case by case basis, and depends on the code, but sending someone to the side or rear of a building MAY not be accessible, as identified in the case in post #1*


----------



## mjesse (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> *Case by case basis, and depends on the code, but sending someone to the side or rear of a building MAY not be accessible, as identified in the case in post #1*


Excellent.

In the photo in your original post, there appears to be a doorway of some sort just to the right of the porch structure. Would this doorway be within an acceptable distance, and therefore permissible under the current Codes?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> Excellent.In the photo in your original post, there appears to be a doorway of some sort just to the right of the porch structure. Would this doorway be within an acceptable distance, and therefore permissible under the current Codes?


I do not have all the facts, it looks like a display window to me.

There is no visible signage directing a disabled user to that door.

I might accept it if there were signage inside and out and if i arrived in the same space inside, as the main door. But only if the building were existing. I would prefer seeing a ramp leading to the platform so that the disabled could enter through the same doors. Truly equal access.


----------



## mjesse (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> I do not have all the facts, it looks like a display window to me.There is no visible signage directing a disabled user to that door.
> 
> I might accept it if there were signage inside and out and if i arrived in the same space inside, as the main door. But only if the building were existing. I would prefer seeing a ramp leading to the platform so that the disabled could enter through the same doors. Truly equal access.


I can accept that. Seems reasonable.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

Noncompling Double door


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

Hollister has argued that it complies with the law because the stores include side doors disguised as shuttered windows that are wheelchair accessible.* Plaintiffs say those doors often are blocked with tables stacked with merchandise.*

*Two newer stores, in Aurora and at Flatiron Crossing, are wheelchair accessible.*

*The U.S. Justice Department has also weighed in on the case, noting that the Hollister stores were built long after the ADA was enacted and that the entrances violated both the spirit and letter of the law. Justice officials criticized the company for relegating people in wheelchairs to separate side entrances.*

*The corporation is unabashed about its exclusionary efforts. In 2006, Abercrombie CEO Mike Jeffries told Salon that his stores specifically don’t market to teens who are overweight, unattractive or outliers among their peers.*

*“Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong.*


----------



## JPohling (Aug 20, 2013)

Which, if you have seen a picture of Jeffries its actually hilarious.  There is actually a movement to specifically provide A/F branded clothes to the homeless.


----------



## Span (Aug 20, 2013)

Don't know when will the ADA group badger beach cities to provide ramps into ocean.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 20, 2013)

we have access to the water on plank type walkways and balloon tire wheelchairs are available for public use.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 21, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Hollister has argued that it complies with the law because the stores include side doors disguised as shuttered windows that are wheelchair accessible.* Plaintiffs say those doors often are blocked with tables stacked with merchandise.*


Move the clothes

Brent.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 21, 2013)

> *Mike Jeffries told Salon that his stores specifically don’t market to teens who are overweight, unattractive or outliers among their peers.** “Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong.*


   Wow someone who is honest about their marketing strategy and desired customer base. There is nothing discriminatory about his statement and should not influence an ADA lawsuit.  





> *and that the entrances violated both the spirit and letter of the law*


 I would disagree since the accessible entrance was in the area it meant the intent of the law (to provide access in the same area) The blocking the entrance with clothes and other merchandise. I agree guilty.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 21, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The blocking the entrance with clothes and other merchandise. I agree guilty.


Blocking an entrance with clothing is not a violation of anyone's civil rights, unless of course it was promptly followed by a good firehosing. I would classify it more as a numbskull employee or set of employees that are battling HUA syndrome.

Must everything be made more than it is?

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Aug 21, 2013)

Span said:
			
		

> Don't know when will the ADA group badger beach cities to provide ramps into ocean.


Ne careful what you ask for


----------



## Msradell (Aug 21, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> One judge one mans opinion. I bet the results might be different if it was a jury trail


You are probably correct.  If it had gone to a jury, Hollister not only would have had to correct the entrances but they probably also would have had to done faster and been hit with a massive payment to the class that filed the lawsuit.  That is unless the jury was made up of 21-year-old or younger surfers!


----------



## gjmaia (Aug 21, 2013)

I have been to their mall stores while taking my kids shopping,.............as I walked (up) in, I tried to understand how they were permitted, and then saw the accessible route, and thought it was quite clever, as there were ramps up to the "porch" level just inside, but the store was generally at the accessible entrance level.

a couple thoughts and questions come to mind like: Why are BCO's not held accountable for thier actions?,........how soon before the AF architects are sued?, (if they haven't been already), how about the local architect on the fit up projects?

Personally, I would put some blame on the interior designer for not putting SOME MORE emphasis on the accessible route/entrance,...........as I believe just a little effort would have resulted in a completely different outcome here


----------



## globe trekker (Aug 21, 2013)

> Why are BCO's not held accountable for thier actions?,........how soon before the AF architects are sued?, (if they haven't beenalready), how about the local architect on the fit up projects?


In some locations the BCO's & BO's are not allowed to enforce the ADA. When trying to

enforce either the Building Codes, ANSI A117.1, or the 2010 ADA SAD, they are

(sometimes) reigned in by "the powers that be ". (READ: personal experience)

FWIW, the BCO's & BO's ARE held accountable. Held accountable to remain employed

in that location!

Remember, ..the squeaky wheel gets the grease!

.


----------



## mjesse (Aug 21, 2013)

gjmaia said:
			
		

> a couple thoughts and questions come to mind like: Why are BCO's not held accountable for thier actions?,........how soon before the AF architects are sued?, (if they haven't been already), how about the local architect on the fit up projects?


As stated in several posts above, poor design does not necessarily equal Code violation.

The Codes have been written in a way that allows such a design, provided an accessible entrance is nearby. You even state "(I) thought it was quite clever"

If the accessible entrance is provided as permitted in the Code, the architects and BO's can/shall approve it.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 21, 2013)

If they had 3 entrances at the front of this store and the center one was not accessible and the other 2 where would that be a violation of the ADA. Please provide a specific section that clarifies which doors have to be accessible and which do not. I do not see anything in the ADA that mentions a "main entrance" they just talk about entrances.


----------



## gjmaia (Aug 22, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> As stated in several posts above, poor design does not necessarily equal Code violation.The Codes have been written in a way that allows such a design, provided an accessible entrance is nearby. You even state "(I) thought it was quite clever"
> 
> If the accessible entrance is provided as permitted in the Code, the architects and BO's can/shall approve it.


sorry I was not clear,.............i guess my point is that all on the thread tend to agree that the condition is generally code compliant, so the suit was brought forward for "compliant but bad design"? and the defendant lost,.....do they now go after their architects for bad design?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 22, 2013)

gjmaia said:
			
		

> sorry I was not clear,.............i guess my point is that all on the thread tend to agree that the condition is generally code compliant, so the suit was brought forward for "compliant but bad design"? and the defendant lost,.....do they now go after their architects for bad design?


 Depends on which court you go through

[h=1]Liability under the ADA – Architects & Contractors[/h]The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 USC 12181 et seq. prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in the design and construction of public accommodations and commercial facilities.

Examples of such facilities include sports arenas, stadiums, movie theaters, and hotels.  The law clearly holds owners and operators of inaccessible facilities liable.  This article will discuss whether the liability extends to architects or contractors who design and/or build an inaccessible facility they do not own or operate.

Federal courts, including the Eight and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals, have addressed the issue of liability for architects and contractors and have reached different conclusions.  The cases have centered around two provisions in the ADA.  Section 302 which provides that owners and operators of public accommodations are liable for discrimination against people with disabilities and Section 303 which states the failure to design and construct public accommodations and commercial facilities that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities is discriminatory.

The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals in US v. Days Inns of America, Inc., 151 F. 3d 822 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1249 (1999), and three district courts Johanson v. Huizenga Holdings, Inc., 963 F. Supp. 1175 (S.D. Fla. 1997); US v. Days Inns of America, Inc., 997 F. Supp. 1080 (C.D. Ill. 1998); and US V Ellerbe Becket, Inc., 976 F. Supp. 1262 (D. Minn. 1997), have held that architects and contractors are potentially liable under the ADA reasoning that Section 302 which applies to owners and operators does not limit Section 303 which deals with the design and construction of public accommodations and commercial facilities.  In other words, these courts believe that parties who do not own, lease or operate a facility built with inaccessible features may be held liable for failure to design and/or construct an accessible facility.

Once the Eight Circuit found that Section 302 does not limit and define who may be liable under Section 303, it reviewed Section 303 and found it was silent on the question of who is liable.  The Eight Circuit then looked to the position taken by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), the executive agency responsible for enforcing the ADA.  The Court cited DOJ’s Technical Assistance Manual Section III-5.1000 which provides an example of a newly constructed facility that does not comply with the ADA and states that any of the entities involved in the design and construction, including the architect and the construction contractor, may all be held liable.

The Ninth Circuit Court in Lonberg v. Sanborn Theaters, Inc., 259 F. 3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2001, and two district courts Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Ellerbe Becket Architects & Engineers, 945 F. Supp. 1 (D. D.C. 1996); US v Days Inns of America, Inc., 22 F. Supp. 2d 612 (E.D. Ky. 1998) have taken the opposite view and have held that parties must own, lease or operate a facility to be subject to the design and construct liability in Section 303. These courts looked at the structure of the language of the entire ADA and found that each title was set up the same way.  First are the definitions, next is the rule of liability, and then actions that constitute discrimination.  Thus, the Ninth Circuit and the two district courts found that Section 302 sets forth a rule of liability that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by certain individuals and Section 303 sets forth actions by these individuals that constitute the discrimination.  In other words, Under the ADA only owners and operators are liable for the design and construction of a facility that was built in violation of the ADA.

Since courts have decided the liability issue differently, architects and contractors need to keep in mind that they may be liable under the ADA for the design and construction of facilities that violate the ADA.  The risk may depend on the project’s location.  Is it in the Eight Circuit, Ninth Circuit or a district that has not weighed in on the issue to date?  Be careful because sometimes a court may hear a case and the decision is unpublished sand therefore not well know.  For example, in 2004 the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington held in Marshall v. Cafaro Co., that the ADA does not provide a statutory basis for claims against design professionals.  The court sited Lonberg in its decision.

Finally, architects and contractors must keep in mind that they may have liability for failure to design and/or build compliant facilities based on the terms of the contract with the owner or tort law in the state the project is located.  For example, even in a location where the court has determined an architect is not liable under the ADA, the architect may still be liable if the contract mandates the work to comply with the ADA.  Also, if an owner is held liable because his new building was designed and built in violation of the ADA, the owner may pursue an action against his architect and/or contractor.

The answer to who is liable is complicated and can be expensive if a party is drawn into a court case.  The best course of action an architect or builder can take is to ensure that the design and/or construction complies with the ADA.

One of the reasons I do not let court decisions influence accessibility decisions within the construction phase. The court is looking at civil rights violations I look at the code and does it meet the requirements and the intent of the code. Two very different applications of similar rules.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 22, 2013)

The intent of the code is that the buildings be accessible

If the buildings were designed per the IBC and ANSI 117, you would not have the lawsuits

And no that does not include segrigated "accessible and colored only" entries in the side or rear


----------



## mjesse (Aug 22, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> The intent of the code is that the buildings be accessibleIf the buildings were designed per the IBC and ANSI 117, you would not have the lawsuits
> 
> And no that does not include segrigated "accessible and colored only" entries in the side or rear


Keep race-baiting Mark, and your arguments lose credibility.

If you don't agree that additional entries located nearby should be permitted, lobby for a Code change that states the primary entrance should be the only entrance, and accessible to all.

Since you like to be the pessimist, currently the Code allows for design that "excludes" some persons of differing mobility from the main entry.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 22, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> Keep race-baiting Mark, and your arguments lose credibility.


You not I are trying so hard to find justification for discrimination.

Discrimination is discrimination.


----------



## mjesse (Aug 22, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> You not I are trying so hard to find justification for discrimination.Discrimination is discrimination.


You'll find discrimination in anything if you look hard enough, life is not fair.

Should every automobile come with hand controls since I cant move my legs?

Should all Motorcycles have three wheels since my legs won't support me.

I wanted to climb half-dome in Yosemite NP, but they didn't make it accessible for me.

My neighbor weighs 500# and can't fit in an airplane seat, is that discriminatory? She can't help it she's "different"

My dad lost his thumbs in 'Nam, and the Vietnamese restaurant keeps delivering chopsticks with his take-out. Outrageous.

You don't like the current laws that allow for "discrimination" as you see it, that doesn't mean BO's can deny a plan based on a perceived civil rights violation.

We very clearly disagree, and I can see your point completely. But I would have to allow the A&F entry if submitted, BECAUSE IT MEETS CODE.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 22, 2013)

mjesse said:
			
		

> . But I would have to allow the A&F entry if submitted, BECAUSE IT MEETS CODE.


In your opinion, but as the court pointed out, you would be wrong.

That case, A&F, discriminated.

Side and rear entries might be okay in existing buildings but not in new building or as a company policy


----------



## mark handler (Aug 22, 2013)

Learn from the mistakes of others.

The lack of signage directing those in wheelchairs to the other entrance effectively prevents them from using it: You can't see the button unless you know it's there and know what to look for.

The alternative entrance was either locked or was impossible to use because of displays.

In this day of pilfering and shoplifting, how many nondepartment stores have multiple public entrances......not exits, entrances.

We are not talking about an existing nonaccessible building, we are talking about, on a corporate level, intentionally building obstacles preventing access, and knowingly circumventing the code.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 23, 2013)

*Whaaaaaaaaaa    *Abercrombie & Fitch earnings fall 30% on weak demand

Abercrombie's shares tumble 18% as the company and other teen retailers struggle with weak sales in the latest quarter.

Abercrombie & Fitch earnings fall 30% on weak demand - latimes.com


----------



## jar546 (Aug 24, 2013)

Was just in the Boca Raton mall on Thursday and their entrances were compliant.  I wonder if FL held them to a standard and it was just a few states that did not?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 24, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> *Whaaaaaaaaaa    *Abercrombie & Fitch earnings fall 30% on weak demandAbercrombie's shares tumble 18% as the company and other teen retailers struggle with weak sales in the latest quarter.
> 
> Abercrombie & Fitch earnings fall 30% on weak demand - latimes.com


Feels good, doesn't it?

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 24, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Learn from the mistakes of others.We are not talking about an existing nonaccessible building, we are talking about, on a corporate level, intentionally building obstacles preventing access, and knowingly circumventing the code.


Except they knowingly made a compliant entrance.

Maybe they needed a sign. Make em make a sign.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 24, 2013)

Paybacks a b**ch


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 24, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Paybacks a b**ch


Payback? From whom?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 24, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Payback? From whom?


We are not talking about an existing nonaccessible building, we are talking about, on a corporate level, *intentionally building obstacles preventing access, and knowingly circumventing the code*


----------



## peach (Aug 24, 2013)

new buildings NEED to be completely accessible.


----------



## Frank (Aug 27, 2013)

Sounds like the stadium style seating debacle a dozen years ago where they put the accessible seating up front and ramped up the rest of the seating.

I remember one of our multiplexes had about half the theaters done that way then the industry lost the ADA case and had to stop and reconfigure with accessible seating in the middle as well as the front--new plans tore out the just completed work and started over.

I also remember questioning A&F but they assured us the adjacent accessible entrance met code. and the met the percentages and we could nto refuse given the letter of the code.

Still not surprised the Feds did not agree regarding intent.


----------



## rooster (Sep 3, 2013)

I just walked by a Hollister the other day.  Not accessible one bit.  The problem was that the shutters were open, but the doors (which are double doors in +/-36" opening) were closed.  The hardware on them was like what you'd find on a closet...an indented metal plate.  And to top it all off, there is a custom accessible sign by the door that is not accessible.  I should have taken a picture.

I agree that these entrances would suffice...IF they were accessible.

What is funny is that my wife said to me as we walked by, "I just read in the news that they got in a lot of trouble for their entrances."

Apparently the people not paying attention are the ones in charge of the store.


----------



## mark handler (Sep 3, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> We are not talking about an existing nonaccessible building, we are talking about, *on a corporate level, intentionally building obstacles preventing access, and knowingly circumventing the code*


As I posted before


----------

