# Manhattan restaurant featured in 'Seinfeld' discriminates against the disabled



## mark handler (Aug 16, 2014)

Manhattan restaurant featured in 'Seinfeld' discriminates against the disabled: lawsuit

Carolyn Coleman, 68, who uses a wheelchair, says Tom's Restaurant discriminates against the disabled because it has 'steps at the entrance.' The lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court seeks more than $30,000 in damages.

BY DAREH GREGORIAN  NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Friday, August 15, 2014, 7:46 PM

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/seinfeld-restaurant-discriminates-disabled-lawsuit-article-1.1905369

A Manhattan restaurant made famous by “Seinfeld” has nada, nada, nada access for the handicapped, court papers charge.

In a suit filed in Manhattan Federal Court, Carolyn Coleman, 68, who uses a wheelchair, says Tom’s Restaurant — scene of countless chats between Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer — discriminates against the disabled because it has “steps at the entrance.” The suit seeks more than $30,000 in damages and a court order to bring the restaurant into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 18, 2014)

Soup Nazi is next?


----------



## ICE (Aug 18, 2014)

That's just a storefront begging for a ramp.





There's been a step there for many years and I bet that plenty of wheelchairs have made it up and over.


----------



## Msradell (Aug 18, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> There's been a step there for many years and I bet that plenty of wheelchairs have made it up and over.


Not sure how!


----------



## mark handler (Aug 18, 2014)

Msradell said:
			
		

> Not sure how!


Magic........Just wish it and it will happen


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 18, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Magic........Just wish it and it will happen


Skillz.





Brent.


----------



## Frank (Aug 19, 2014)

Does the restaurant have the rights to make changes the public sidewalk?  If they are not allowed to change the sidewalk elevation for landing and ramp then it is technically infeasable.  They may be caught between the city and the feds.

Note it looks like that there may be a case against the city as well for excessive cross slope on the sidewalks.

In existing enviroments barrier removal is not easy and never inexpensive.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Aug 19, 2014)

CFR 4.1.1 (5) General exceptions. Unique characteristics of terrain prevent the incorporation of accessibility features?

Restaurant does not own the sidewalk that appears to have been altered by the city. No issue next door at the coffee shops sidewalk.

Could the entrance doors be recessed into the restaurant and a ramp be made from the sidewalk, maybe! Is the building owner responsible for the area beyond the wall face in NYC?

pc1


----------



## mstehlin (Aug 19, 2014)

I have the same issue with my office entrance.  I have attempted to raise the public sidewalk 6 inches but have been deterred by the Public Works department.


----------



## Frank (Aug 19, 2014)

Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Could the entrance doors be recessed into the restaurant and a ramp be made from the sidewalk, maybe! Is the building owner responsible for the area beyond the wall face in NYC?
> 
> pc1


Likely not feasible as would involve major structural changes to lower the floor, headroom issues below in the basement and 6 -7 ft ramp plus 5x5 landing at door would eat up a significant portion of the small dining area.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 19, 2014)

This is a problem in many cities and if it is a small business it would take up quite a bit of interior floor space to put the ramp inside the building. Therefore the DOJ does recognize these issues and may not require the business to comply.

Seating and services are provided on the outside of the buildings so access is provided for the services. There maybe a temporary/portable ramp that is used provide access when needed and within the scope of barrier removal achievement.

(d) *Relationship to alterations requirements of subpart D of this part.*

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section, measures taken to comply with the barrier removal requirements of this section shall comply with the applicable requirements for alterations in Sec.36.402 and Sec..36.404 -36.406 of this part for the element being altered. The path of travel requirements of Sec.36.403 shall not apply to measures taken solely to comply with the barrier removal requirements of this section.

(2) If, as a result of compliance with the alterations requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the measures required to remove a barrier would not be readily achievable, a public accommodation may take other readily achievable measures to remove the barrier that do not fully comply with the specified requirements. Such measures include, for example, providing a ramp with a steeper slope or widening a doorway to a narrower width than that mandated by the alterations requirements. No measure shall be taken, however, that poses a significant risk to the health or safety of individuals with disabilities or others.



(e) *Portable ramps.* Portable ramps should be used to comply with this section only when installation of a permanent ramp is not readily achievable. In order to avoid any significant risk to the health or safety of individuals with disabilities or others in using portable ramps, due consideration shall be given to safety features such as nonslip surfaces, railings, anchoring, and strength of materials

http://www.ada.gov/reachingout/t3regl4.html


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 20, 2014)

The city won't allow them to put a ramp on city property, yet they allow them to put tables outside.  I guess more tables bring in more tax dollars, but a ramp wouldn't bring any.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 20, 2014)

Ramp allows for inclement weather access, doesn't it? Denied otherwise.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 20, 2014)

I am not aware of any city that will not allow you to construct an accessible ramp in the ROW if that is what it will take to provide access to your building.  I have seen it done in many places.


----------



## Msradell (Aug 20, 2014)

JPohling said:
			
		

> I am not aware of any city that will not allow you to construct an accessible ramp in the ROW if that is what it will take to provide access to your building.  I have seen it done in many places.


Very true and especially in this case with the sidewalk area being so wide the rent protruding into it would still allow sufficient space and the sidewalk to pass by the ramp.  It's been done many places without any problems at all especially when wide sidewalks exist.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 20, 2014)

Paul Sweet said:
			
		

> The city won't allow them to put a ramp on city property, yet they allow them to put tables outside.  I guess more tables bring in more tax dollars, but a ramp wouldn't bring any.


That's probably very true Paul.

If you take the clientele, subtract the small percentage of  _official,_ handicapped users, subtract from that those that actually need the ramp, factor in that every meal contains just a small profit compared to expenses, take out the money the additional tables provide, add the cost of the ramp...well, you can see the ramp really can't even conceivably pay for itself. Additional seating can, however.

Brent.


----------



## steveray (Aug 20, 2014)

And then the question is.....did they add bathroom fixtures when they added the outdoor tables? (increased OL)...And then those would be accessible, even if the entrance was not.....I am sure the business didn't make any money from the Seinfeld craze and still can't afford to comply...We moved our meeting location for our state organization to a place more accessible because the first one was unwilling to make changes....


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 20, 2014)

There is both short and long term "green" in "blue" if you look beyond the up front cost.

It does add "cents" to your bottom line if you want to "serve" the public.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 20, 2014)

It adds cents, but costs dollars.

There is no positive monetary return on Accessible spending.

If you can prove it, I'm open to correction. Unsupported opinion articles do not count.

Brent


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 20, 2014)

There is no monetary return for anything in the code book except for the energy codes.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 20, 2014)

Not arguing the code, just the claim that accessibility retrofits can offset costs through their use.

The energy code is also very arguable.

Brent.


----------



## conarb (Aug 20, 2014)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Not arguing the code, just the claim that accessibility retrofits can offset costs through their use. The energy code is also very arguable.
> 
> Brent.


Very true, look at the Griffin/USGBC litigation in New york City, class action dismissed but it showed that green buildings concumed more energy than older buildings.  In Houston:



			
				USA Today said:
			
		

> The Houston Independent School District took a big step in 2007  toward becoming environmentally friendly by designing two new schools to  meet a coveted "green" standard set by a private-builders' group.The  nation's seventh-largest school district added features such as  automated light sensors and a heat-reflecting roof, in hopes of  minimizing energy use.
> 
> But the schools are not operating as promised.
> 
> Thompson  Elementary ranked 205th out of 239 Houston schools in a report last  year for the district that showed each school's energy cost per student.  Walnut Bend Elementary ranked 155th. A third "green" school, built in  2010, ranked 46th in the report, which a local utility did for the  district to find ways of cutting energy costs.¹


¹ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/10/green-schools-construction-leed/1753823/


----------



## steveray (Aug 20, 2014)

Sprinklers typically don't recoup their costs either....Noone is railing against them right now.....(flame suit on)


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 20, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> Sprinklers typically don't recoup their costs either....Noone is railing against them right now.....(flame suit on)


I don't think there has ever been a price reduction argument on that, just a life safety debate maybe. Apples and oranges.

Brent


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 20, 2014)

Mass, at what point do you draw a line between the value/cost of a life, access and code mandated requirements?


----------



## steveray (Aug 20, 2014)

Just saying Brent....ADA, building code, no one is really looking at ROI...someone(s) decided it was required, until we can get them to unrequire it, it is what it is...They are starting to let building officials vote now you know, anything is possible now....


----------



## JPohling (Aug 21, 2014)

so perhaps its a quality of life debate then......................


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 21, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Mass, at what point do you draw a line between the value/cost of a life, access and code mandated requirements?


You just drew the line in your comment. It's obvious.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 21, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> Just saying Brent....ADA, building code, no one is really looking at ROI...someone(s) decided it was required, until we can get them to unrequire it, it is what it is...They are starting to let building officials vote now you know, anything is possible now....


I'm with you Steve I get that. But ROI simply is not a valid argument on its own. Accessibility simply costs money with no chance of return.

You can argue other merits if you like, and we know it's law. But trying to stack on the notion of economic benifit as a profit generator is provably false. That dog won't hunt.

Brent.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 21, 2014)

Are we forgetting that contractors do the work and supply houses provide material which is good for the economy?  This is an investment in the economy and not every aspect of every business has an ROI.  Some things are just simply required and part of doing business.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 21, 2014)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Are we forgetting that contractors do the work and supply houses provide material which is good for the economy?  This is an investment in the economy and not every aspect of every business has an ROI.  Some things are just simply required and part of doing business.


That is a better, valid point. But that does not support the argument that the accessibility work helps generate income. That cost will never recoup, standing on its own merit.

Brent


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 21, 2014)

Recouping cost was never the intent of the ADA, no more than recouping the cost of civil rights which far exceed the costs related to ADA site improvements.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 21, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Recouping cost was never the intent of the ADA, no more than recouping the cost of civil rights which far exceed the costs related to ADA site improvements.


That was not your point here:

"There is both short and long term "green" in "blue" if you look beyond the up front cost.

It does add "cents" to your bottom line if you want to "serve" the public."


----------



## Paul Sweet (Aug 21, 2014)

The restaurant shouldn't be held solely liable if they tried to get permission to build a ramp in the sidewalk but the city denied it.  They should be held liable if they didn't even ask to build a ramp in the sidewalk.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 21, 2014)

It was intended as a counterpoint to your claim that accessible improvements do not create greater cash flow. Each "segment" of the population denied access is a potential dollar lost. Most proprietors want all the dollars they can get in their doors.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 21, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> It was intended as a counterpoint to your claim that accessible improvements do not create greater cash flow. Each "segment" of the population denied access is a potential dollar lost. Most proprietors want all the dollars they can get in their doors.


I understood that.

_Most proprietors _ also understand you don't spend 10 dollars to get one dollar back. That is the reality of accessibility features, for the most part.

Brent.


----------

