# Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations



## mark handler (Aug 14, 2013)

Pa. man files class action suit against Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations

August 13, 2013 9:16 AM

By JON CAMPISI

Pa. man files class action suit against Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations | Pennsylvania Record

A Pennsylvania man has filed a class action lawsuit against Modell’s Sporting Goods over

allegations that the retailer has been violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.

David Cornelsen, who is suing on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, is a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair to get around because he lost the use of his legs.

In the complaint, Cornelsen claims the Modell’s store in Willow Grove, Pa. lacks handicapped accessible parking and does not have an ADA compliant restroom.

The plaintiff says he visited the Montgomery County store in late June to purchase Philadelphia Phillies paraphernalia.

Cornelsen claims that during his visit to the Willow Grove Modell’s location, he had difficulty accessing the men’s room because of the force required by him to open the door and because the door’s closing mechanism was not adjusted to allow for the door to remain open long enough for him to get inside with his wheelchair.

The plaintiff also says he was unable to use the men’s urinal because of its “excessive height,” and that he was unable to wash his hands due to the fact that the pipes under the sink were not properly covered, which would have raised the risk of Cornelsen burning himself.

The paper towel dispenser was also allegedly unreachable by a wheelchair-bound customer.

The law firm retained by Cornelsen, Brodsky & Smith, subsequently hired professional building experts to investigate the alleged ADA violations, the complaint states, and the investigations, which are still ongoing, have thus far identified multiple Modell’s locations that are apparently in serious violation of the ADA.

The list includes Modell’s stores throughout southeastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey. A number of Philadelphia locations made the list.

Modell’s has discriminated against Cornelsen and other handicapped people why denying them access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its places of public accommodation or commercial facilities in violation of the ADA, the complaint states.

“Defendant has been and continues to be required to remove architectural barriers to the physically disabled where such removal is readily achievable for its places of public accommodation …,” the lawsuit reads.

The plaintiff seeks class certification, arguing that that would be a “fair and efficient” way of adjudicating the claims.

“Because the damages suffered by the individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class individually to redress the wrongs done to them,” the suit reads.

The class is believed to be in the thousands, the complaint states.

Cornelsen, the suit says, intends to visit various Modell’s stores he has not yet been to for the purpose of “availing himself of the goods and services offered to the public at such stores, and to ensure that those stores cease evading their responsibilities under federal and state law.”

In addition to the ADA count, the suit also accuses the defendant of violating the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs and minimum statutory damages to for each class member.

The lawsuit was filed on Aug. 9 at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Brodsky & Smith attorneys Jordan Schatz and Jason L. Brodsky.

The federal case number is 2:13-cv-04632-NIQA.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 15, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Pa. man files class action suit against Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violationsAugust 13, 2013 9:16 AM
> 
> By JON CAMPISI
> 
> ...


This crap needs to stop. It diminishes the the actual problems that need to be fixed.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> This crap needs to stop. It diminishes the the actual problems that need to be fixed. Brent.


Been the law for over twenty years, when are people going to get it......when it hits their pocketbook.....


----------



## Msradell (Aug 15, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Been the law for over twenty years, when are people going to get it......when it hits their pocketbook.....


+1  You would think by now businesses would have learned!


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 15, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Been the law for over twenty years, when are people going to get it......when it hits their pocketbook.....


Doesn't make it right Tater.

ADA shakedowns are a menace, and unethical. That is my position. Proper course of action would be an inspection by a properly appointed building official, A notice of correction, a reasonable time for correction, a reinspection with a hopefully compliant business, and a minimum of fuss.

These examples of lawsuits are reprehensible and my negative comments (and appropriate positive responses) will follow each one. With as much respect and open-mindedness as I can muster.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 15, 2013)

Msradell said:
			
		

> +1  You would think by now businesses would have learned!


Learned what? Sounds like some light maintenance on behalf of the business would resolve the issue, meanwhile the "customer" could use some education on use of toilet facilities, and possibly some situational awareness.

Like, "if I don't see a wrap around a plumbing waste I could..."

1. Just turn on the cold water.

2. Turn a little so I don't burn myself on the unprotected pipe, which is obviously unprotected, because I can see it, and am aware of it, Yep, there it is. Gonna go tell my lawyer.

3. Make sure the water is running super hot enough to melt lead, and stick my legs right up against it, cause that's how I roll.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> A notice of correction, a reasonable time for correction, a reinspection with a hopefully compliant business, and a minimum of fuss.


So you need to get out there and do it.....


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Learned what? Sounds like some light maintenance on behalf of the business would resolve the issue, meanwhile the "customer" could use some education on use of toilet facilities, and possibly some situational awareness.Like, "if I don't see a wrap around a plumbing waste I could..."
> 
> 1. Just turn on the cold water.
> 
> ...


So you are saying everyone but the disabled can use hot water?

So it is the wheelchair users fault?.....?


----------



## jar546 (Aug 15, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Doesn't make it right Tater.ADA shakedowns are a menace, and unethical. That is my position. Proper course of action would be an inspection by a properly appointed building official, A notice of correction, a reasonable time for correction, a reinspection with a hopefully compliant business, and a minimum of fuss.
> 
> These examples of lawsuits are reprehensible and my negative comments (and appropriate positive responses) will follow each one. With as much respect and open-mindedness as I can muster.
> 
> Brent.


Not so fast there, Spanky.  Not quite as easy as you think and since this is in PA, I am pretty well versed with the issues at hand.  Twenty years is a long time to realize that you need to be compliant.  Many of these stores were built and fit out within the past 20 years.  Code compliance has only been stepped up in PA since 2004.  Architects are fully aware of the requirements but know that the DOJ is reactive and not proactive so they get complacent and no one verifies compliance not to mention most RDP's don't visit the job site and some just do what the owners want even if it violates ADA.  I have witnessed it time and time again.

Modell's had every opportunity to do it right from the beginning for the past 20 years but chose not to in a reactive enforcement environment which means they did what they wanted to do, not what was required because they knew they could get away with it.

The only way this is going to work and get their attention is through bad publicity and their pocketbook, otherwise they don't give a crap and have proven that with their history of noncompliance.

Also, what legal right does a local official have to walk into a business that has been existing for years and force them to renovate to today's standards?  The DOJ does not have the capability to handle all of the violations in the US.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 15, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> So you need to get out there and do it.....


You saw the part about "Appointed building official"?

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 15, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> So you are saying everyone but the disabled can use hot water?So it is the wheelchair users fault?.....?


If he has the wherwithal to see that a pipe is unprotected, enough that he can bring a lawsuit to bear and list that very thing as uncompliant, then yes, it is the wheelchairs user's fault if he were to get burned. Just because you are in a wheelchair does not mean you are retarded ( I assume). If you can notice danger, then you can avoid it. See, that's just like "normal people".

Maybe the building standard should be that there is no hot water so nobody can get scalded. That way the bar is lowered for everybody.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 15, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Not so fast there, Spanky.  Not quite as easy as you think and since this is in PA, I am pretty well versed with the issues at hand.  Twenty years is a long time to realize that you need to be compliant.  Many of these stores were built and fit out within the past 20 years.  Code compliance has only been stepped up in PA since 2004.  Architects are fully aware of the requirements but know that the DOJ is reactive and not proactive so they get complacent and no one verifies compliance not to mention most RDP's don't visit the job site and some just do what the owners want even if it violates ADA.  I have witnessed it time and time again.Modell's had every opportunity to do it right from the beginning for the past 20 years but chose not to in a reactive enforcement environment which means they did what they wanted to do, not what was required because they knew they could get away with it.
> 
> The only way this is going to work and get their attention is through bad publicity and their pocketbook, otherwise they don't give a crap and have proven that with their history of noncompliance.
> 
> Also, what legal right does a local official have to walk into a business that has been existing for years and force them to renovate to today's standards?  The DOJ does not have the capability to handle all of the violations in the US.


Let's first ask, since you are well versed and I am not (seriously) is it possible that they were in compliance when the place was built, but because of more recent changes are now no longer compliant. An example would be the stupid yellow dot mats now required to installed in walkways?

Secondly, there are code inspections of different orders already in place so I don't understand the "legal right to renovate" quip. The health department has the authority to inspect, fine, and red tag, the fire department inspects and issues citations for sprinklers, occupancy, exit barriers and hazardous conditions, and here in California it has been required that masonry buildings be reinforced, soft story buildings be seismically stabilized, as well as other "renovations" that have been legally required under threat of condemnation.

I am specifically against anyone getting sued for "discrimination" or "violation of civil rights" because of minor, rediculous ADA violations.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> Let's first ask, since you are well versed and I am not (seriously) is it possible that they were in compliance when the place was built, but because of more recent changes are now no longer compliant. An example would be the stupid yellow dot mats now required to installed in walkways?Secondly, there are code inspections of different orders already in place so I don't understand the "legal right to renovate" quip. The health department has the authority to inspect, fine, and red tag, the fire department inspects and issues citations for sprinklers, occupancy, exit barriers and hazardous conditions, and here in California it has been required that masonry buildings be reinforced, soft story buildings be seismically stabilized, as well as other "renovations" that have been legally required under threat of condemnation.
> 
> I am specifically against anyone getting sued for "discrimination" or "violation of civil rights" because of minor, rediculous ADA violations.
> 
> Brent.


If you compiled under the 1994 ADA, you comply under the 2010 ADASAD.

That is in the scoping of the 2010 ADASAD.

You do not need to "update" to the new standards, just because.

The problem is when the ramp or building never complied.

Even the building code does not make you update everything at once, or at each code change.

When changes are made the need to be made accessible.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 15, 2013)

> _The plaintiff also says he was unable to use the men’s urinal because of its “excessive height,” a_


Was there only one urinal in the room? If so it was code compliant. To my knowledge the ADA does not tell you how many WC or urinals need to meet ADA requirements, that comes from the building code. In fact the building code does not require urinals to be installed. They are permitted in lieu of the total number of WC required

1109.2 Toilet and bathing facilities

Exceptions:

4.	Where no more than one urinal is provided in a toilet room or bathing room, the urinal is not required to be accessible .

Hot water is not required in a public restroom so yes the option to not provide for everyone is already in the plumbing code. (UPC)


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2013)

In this case you can comply to the IBC and still be sued for ADA, a civil rights law.

It goes back to the separate but equal laws of the south, Whites only....


----------



## JPohling (Aug 15, 2013)

I would advise MASSDRIVER to never attempt work in Cali.  you would be expelled.  That is the same kind of attitude that keeps these lawsuits coming.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 15, 2013)

Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations



			
				JPohling said:
			
		

> I would advise MASSDRIVER to never attempt work in Cali.  you would be expelled.  That is the same kind of attitude that keeps these lawsuits coming.


That's a bit harsh but there is some truth to it.  I don't think it's intentional as much as it is a lack of being well versed in that particular area of the code.  Give the man lumber and he knows framing for sure

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 15, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> That's a bit harsh but there is some truth to it.  I don't think it's intentional as much as it is a lack of being well versed in that particular area of the code.  Give the man lumber and he knows framing for sureSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Actually that's where I live work and play. I spent a fair amount of time doing resteraunts and workout facilities and have no problem building and complying with ADA.

This is still America and my attitude has nothing to do with this discussion. As long as I as a builder comply then I'm golden. And free to express my attitude. (In general. I'm not implying freedom of speech extends to this forum).

Mark Handler posts about Ada lawsuits and supports them in an editorial manor, in a positive light. I on the other hand view them negatively. My posts in this regard are advasarial not toward Mark, but towards the issue posted. I wish to keep in civil, but they will be in conflict with his editorial opinion.

I support the California efforts to eliminate or at least minimize predatory litigation. Look at CALCASP efforts in this regard.

Also, I know it's law, but I am against the civil rights angle of prosecution. I know it's there but don't agree, the same way I don't believe in gun control laws. I think they are wrong and misguided.

Again, America, freedom of speech, freedom of attitude, but I comply.

Brent


----------



## JPohling (Aug 15, 2013)

In that case, I would stick to framing what the RDP's have designed and not worry about it.  There is certainly freedom of speech here.  There are definitely some unscrupulous people that file lawsuits for profit, but typically the lawsuits that are filed are based upon valid issues.  The codes have been in place that would prevent these lawsuits if people would design and build to them.  If they dont then sue them!  Thats the only way many disabled feel is the only way to implement change at this point.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2013)

And you are seeing an article, notorious for being incorrect


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 15, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> And you are seeing an article, notorious for being incorrect


What article are you referring too? Could you link it and post what's in accurate?

Here is what I'm reffering to;

http://www.norcalcasp.com/NorCal_CASP_FAQs.pdf

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Aug 15, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> What article are you referring too? Could you link it and post what's in accurate? Here is what I'm reffering to; http://www.norcalcasp.com/NorCal_CASP_FAQs.pdfBrent


If you want to quote CA stuff:

Where urinals are provided, at least one shall have a clear floor space 30 inches by 48 inches in front of the urinal to allow forward approach. This clear space shall comply with Section 1118B.4

The that's not what this thread is about

The incorrectness i was commenting about was that News reports are notoriously incorrect....

You focused in on one item in the article and claim the  plaintiff is an a**hole for filing a multifaceted lawsuit.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 16, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> If you want to quote CA stuff:Where urinals are provided, at least one shall have a clear floor space 30 inches by 48 inches in front of the urinal to allow forward approach. This clear space shall comply with Section 1118B.4
> 
> The that's not what this thread is about
> 
> ...


Mark, you and I are on the same page. I would not so much say that the report was incorrect, as incomplete, possibly misleading. The news report makes it sound like this poor individual was actively prevented from using a bathroom and that a vast cartel had conspired to keep him from taking a whiz in a 6 foot tall urinal by a door hydraulically sealed that only Chuck Norris could open, mounted the paper towel dispenser to the ceiling, then purposely pushed his legs into a burning hot pipe. Wait... he doesn't have legs.

Since I questioned the validity of most of the complaints, I'm curious how you managed to single out "one item".

So I have some questions, and a few observations.

Having done a little research, I see there is no such animal as a "wheelchair accessible urinal". Just a requirement that there be a set amount of clear space around and in front of a rim not higher than 17" AFF. The news  report offered no specifics as to the actual height of the urinal.

The man has no legs. Apparently (again, an incomplete report) he does not use prosthetics. So we are going with wheelchair bound. There is no mention of the availability of an accessible toilet. I find it a far stretch to believe the restroom had a urinal but no toilet. Was that toilet occupied? Welcome to Equality-World, where sometimes a brother has to wait. With or without legs.

Right now I am sitting in a chair with my butt about 18" AFF. I can reach over and out comfortably maybe 5 feet up. Wheelchairs are higher still. When was the last time you saw a towel dispenser mounted higher than eye-level?

The guy was never burned or harmed in any way. Basically, he had a hard time getting the door open, tried to use a fixture not designed for his use, then noticed a few minor things that need to get fixed. Did he bring any of this to the attention of the store management? Again, story does not say. Looks to me he went right to guns, and is looking for a payout. That's where I am at with him.

READ AND UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING PLEASE!

I am not against accessibility standards and compliance for those of us out there that have to deal with physical limitations. Furthermore, I do not wish their lives to be more difficult than it already is. I simply think that this is code enforcement territory, not litigation territory. It is not a violation of someones civil rights if there is a cover missing from the p-trap or you have to wait for the toilet to open up. There IS NO COMPARISON OF THE DISABLED TO RACIAL OR GENDER DISCRIMINATION. PERIOD. Want to know why?

What special construction or fixtures does a black man or any women need to access and patronize a facility, or use a restroom, that a white male can do without. Answer: None.

How many pages is an ADA compliance manual?

But that's OK, because this society deemed it appropriate and compassionate to ease the lives of the disabled.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 16, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> ..."wheelchair accessible urinal". ..


Not all disabled are wheelchair users

and many wheelchair users can stand


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 16, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Not all disabled are wheelchair usersand many wheelchair users can stand


Yes sir, I know this, and it is exactly my point. The urinal can be used by those not bound to a chair. That is why the toilet is mandated.

Also, this plaintiff has no legs, making it _particularly_ difficult to stand. I would say nigh impossible.

But I'm open minded and wish to learn. He may have devised a way to "stand" in his chair to take a leak in a urinal. If that's the case then bravo, he's a stud. Lap height of a wheelchair is 27 inches. So hey, benefit of the doubt; A urinal any higher than that may pose an Olympic-size challenge.

Brent.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 16, 2013)

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> bound to a chair
> 
> .


Bound to a chair? Really? How many chair users have you see "Bound to a chair"?


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 16, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Bound to a chair? Really? How many chair users have you see "Bound to a chair"?


Mark, really?

"The that's not what this thread is about"-Mark Handler

Brent


----------



## mark handler (Aug 16, 2013)

Brent

Your just making it to easy, and fun...

I'm just playing with you....


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 16, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Bound to a chair? Really? How many chair users have you see "Bound to a chair"?


I don't know him personally...





Brent.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 16, 2013)

I am really not sure what your point is?  I understand you believe that these requirements should be enforced by the building codes and not by litigation.  The problem is after 20-30 years of seeing the building code not being able to provide what the courts have required then the option is litigation.  If you achieve greater success for your goal thru litigation then what do you suppose is going to happen.  I attempt to provide facilities that do not allow litigation to be a possibility, or if it is brought, unsuccessful.  This stuff really is not that difficult.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 17, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> I am really not sure what your point is?  I understand you believe that these requirements should be enforced by the building codes and not by litigation.  The problem is after 20-30 years of seeing the building code not being able to provide what the courts have required then the option is litigation.  If you achieve greater success for your goal thru litigation then what do you suppose is going to happen.  I attempt to provide facilities that do not allow litigation to be a possibility, or if it is brought, unsuccessful.  This stuff really is not that difficult.


My issue is with those that go strait to litigation. None of these reports mention the affected approaching the store management about corrections. Just WHAMMO...lawsuit.

I happen to know of a paraplegic man living in California who makes his living visiting stores, new and old, with the specific goal of finding ADA violations and bringing forth lawsuits. He does this and supplements that income by growing pot.

Now the question may be out there wondering why a business can go so long without compliance. I think it has to do with facilities being on the verge of compliance, like I suspect the businesses are in this article. Of the few disabled people I know personally, they simply blow past "inaccessibility" and most of these ADA requirements never cross there mind. I'm sure the vast majority operate similar to that.

So long story short, did this dude alert someone to the problem, with the legitimate goal of correcting the issue? Doesn't sound like it.

Sounds more like a greedy crusader looking for a settlement. Much like SWPP's vultures.

Brent.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 19, 2013)

So...........lets recap...........a disabled person whom is using the legal system to try and force accessibility requirements that have essentially been ignored by a large portion of the business community for decades is despicable and needs to die?  Or is it also that he is growing a legal cash crop that he potentially uses to alleviate some of his and others ailments which is allowed under state law?  After all,  you did say that he "visits"  these establishments correct?


----------



## mjesse (Aug 19, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> So...........lets recap...........a disabled person whom is using the legal system to try and force accessibility requirements that have essentially been ignored by a large portion of the business community for decades is despicable and needs to die?  Or is it also that he is growing a legal cash crop that he potentially uses to alleviate some of his and others ailments which is allowed under state law?  After all,  you did say that he "visits"  these establishments correct?


I don't want to speak for Brent, but you're missing the point.

Litigation should not be step one. Although if it is, it might be viewed by some as profiteering.

To use an analogy I deal with quite often;

Resident calls the Village to complain about a neighbors flood light that stayed on all night.

My first question is always, "did you talk to your neighbor?"

The answer is almost always NO.

If folks would TALK to someone first, before lodging a complaint, calling the cops, or filing suit, the world would be a better place.

There are litigious vultures out there, and they show no signs of slowing down.

Often times these issues can be resolved by reasonable discussion, not lawsuits.

mj


----------



## JPohling (Aug 19, 2013)

Actually I believe you both are missing the point.  I agree that there are several lawyers that will utilize disabled individuals to generate ridiculous numbers of lawsuits and letters of extortion to obtain settlements out of court which in turn provide no additional accessibility.  These are crooks and are not to be condoned.  Progress is being made in trying to reduce this, but can be very difficult.  MASS mentioned that this individual visits each establishment looking to find violations and brings forth lawsuits to effect change.  I can absolutely say for a fact that if I were to suddenly find myself injured and in a wheelchair that I would certainly use my experience in this matter and do exactly that.   I would use my skills to attempt to improve access.  There are many disabled persons that do not know the codes and cannot effectively do this.  Unfortunately the ones that do are labeled as despicable people that need to die.  If you found yourself disabled and unable to provide for your family but you knew the laws and you see that accessibility is still not progressing then I believe that this would be a viable option to feed your family and help out your fellow disabled comrades.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Aug 20, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> Actually I believe you both are missing the point.  I agree that there are several lawyers that will utilize disabled individuals to generate ridiculous numbers of lawsuits and letters of extortion to obtain settlements out of court which in turn provide no additional accessibility.  These are crooks and are not to be condoned.  Progress is being made in trying to reduce this, but can be very difficult.  MASS mentioned that this individual visits each establishment looking to find violations and brings forth lawsuits to effect change.  I can absolutely say for a fact that if I were to suddenly find myself injured and in a wheelchair that I would certainly use my experience in this matter and do exactly that.   I would use my skills to attempt to improve access.  There are many disabled persons that do not know the codes and cannot effectively do this.  Unfortunately the ones that do are labeled as despicable people that need to die.  If you found yourself disabled and unable to provide for your family but you knew the laws and you see that accessibility is still not progressing then I believe that this would be a viable option to feed your family and help out your fellow disabled comrades.


I'm not going to comment past this post in this thread.

Your statement is one of the most vile positions I can think of. I can live with everything I said. All of it. My position is crystal clear, and you can warp it anyway you wish from here on out.

You have aspirations of glorified AMBULANCE CHASING, have at it.  I'm popping smoke.

Brent.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 20, 2013)

OK, I'll try to recap to get to the core of this or at least I hope so because this is a pretty darn good thread.

1) Businesses have had 20 years to comply with ADA and newer buildings, especially those in the past few year have no excuse.

2) Many businesses and architects completely ignore ADA because in many areas there is no local enforcement so ADA is reactive and not proactive.

3) Many businesses simply choose ignorance to the law because it is reactive and no one is there to enforce it since the DOJ enforces it reactively and sparingly at that.

4) There are some individuals and attorneys who prey on non-ADA compliant businesses for the sole sake of generating income.  I am against frivolous litigation for the record.

5) Many of these can quite possibly be settled with compliance after a discussion between the complainant and business without going to court right off the bat. (I believe this is the bone of contention with MASSDIRVER)

6) I can only wish that #5 was so easy.  With the knowledge that this is a reactive enforcement and it takes litigation from someone to get them to make changes, I would guess that many businesses make a conscious, informed decision to skip out on ADA compliance in a gambling sort of way.  The worst that can happen is that they would have to comply that's it.  There is no penalty for non-compiance.  Sort of like getting caught working without a permit and the only thing you have to do is take out a permit so it is worth it to risk it unless there was a large penalty for getting caught.

7) I don't see a happy medium in the mean time and until then, the only way we will se compliance is through the publicity of litigation which will cost companies money.  Even today we get resistance from RDP's and owners for ADA compliance and frequently submit designs that are not ADA compliant.  They know better but try anyway.

So basically I don't have a problem with immediate litigation because it is the only way the word is going to spread.  Otherwise, it is still a risk worth taking for many businesses.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

REVISE #2 to read

2) Many businesses, *cities, building officials *and architects completely ignore ADA because in many areas there is no local enforcement so ADA is reactive and not proactive.


----------



## conarb (Aug 20, 2013)

Mark:

Isn't California the only state that has codified ADA?


----------



## jar546 (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> REVISE #2 to read2) Many businesses, *cities, building officials *and architects completely ignore ADA because in many areas there is no local enforcement so ADA is reactive and not proactive.


Excellent point.  I concur.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

conarb said:
			
		

> Mark:Isn't California the only state that has codified ADA?


No     ....


----------



## conarb (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> No     ....


Mark:

Which other states have codified the law?


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

Many states,I know for example, Maryland Accessibility Code refers you to the 2010 ADAsad. And makes minor modifications.

There are others, use Google.


----------



## conarb (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Many states,I know for example, Maryland Accessibility Code refers you to the 2010 ADAsad. And makes minor modifications.There are others, use Google.


Well all inspectors should find that out before they try enforcing Federal law, maybe they should try enforcing Federal drug and immigration law as well.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 20, 2013)

mark handler said:
			
		

> REVISE #2 to read2) Many businesses, *cities, building officials *and architects completely ignore ADA because in many areas there is no local enforcement so ADA is reactive and not proactive.


Cities and building officials are not ignoring the ADA if there is no adoption of it locally. In fact they can't legally enforce anything that has not been adopted by the AHJ. Do you expect a police officer to enforce zoning laws or public works development standards. How about federal EPA regs or OSHA rules? The same applies to ADA. Enforcement and who is responsible for it was written into the federal law. If you disagree with how it is being enforced by the DOJ then work to amend the law. Quit trying to make others culpable for the Federal Governments failure to do their job.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Cities and building officials are not ignoring the ADA if there is no adoption of it locally. In fact they can't legally enforce anything that has not been adopted by the AHJ. Do you expect a police officer to enforce zoning laws or public works development standards. How about federal EPA regs or OSHA rules? The same applies to ADA. Enforcement and who is responsible for it was written into the federal law. If you disagree with how it is being enforced by the DOJ then work to amend the law. Quit trying to make others culpable for the Federal Governments failure to do their job.


All states have statutes requiring the coherence with the ADA

Many have there own access laws. If these were enforced, on just the buildings built since the enactment, you would not see the sunami of litigation.

If people would employ the disabled, you would not see the sunami of litigation

Employ a disabled vet


----------



## jar546 (Aug 20, 2013)

Many of the Modell's are in PA.

PA has been enforcing the IBC and ANSI A117.1 since April 9th of 2004.  Before that, the department of L&I enforced ADA under the 1927 Fire & Panic Act after ADA became law 20 years ago.

If Modells was not compliant in the past 20 years it is because they bypassed L&I and simply ignored state law along with federal law.

Again, if the only consequence is doing what you were suppose to do anyway, it is worth the risk to not comply.  It takes lawsuits to wake up some companies.


----------



## JPohling (Aug 20, 2013)

Wooohoooo!!  I am a vile ambulance chaser.  And I thought my explanation was so very concise and my position easily understood.  This only reinforces the difficulty that the disabled have.......


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 20, 2013)

> All states have statutes requiring the coherence with the ADA


Really


Printer Friendly Version *24.301.902*    DISCLAIMER

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

History: 50-60-203, MCA; IMP, 50-60-201, MCA; NEW, 1997 MAR p. 2061, Eff. 11/18/97; TRANS, from Commerce, 2001 MAR p. 2301.

IBC and ANSI that is it.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

If the projects complied to the IBC and ANSI, they would not be sued.


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Really


Really

I did not say theyneed to comply to the ADASAD

In Montana, state the laws that protects people with disabilities are the Montana Human Rights Act and the Montana Governmental Fair Practices Act.

Read those Acts

Once again. as some forget, that the ADA is not a building code, it is a Civil Rights Law.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 20, 2013)

That contradicts your post #15 where you responded to the IBC that does not require the first urinal to be accessible


----------



## mtlogcabin (Aug 20, 2013)

> Once again. as some forget, that the ADA is not a building code, it is a Civil Rights Law.


So why do you keep stating the BO's are allowing non-compliance in existing buildings when they do not have the authority to enforce civil right laws


----------



## mark handler (Aug 20, 2013)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> So why do you keep stating the BO's are allowing non-compliance in existing buildings when they do not have the authority to enforce civil right laws


As I have said again and again, and for you once again

If the projects complied to the IBC and ANSI, they would not be sued.

It is BOs that do not enforce the code, whatever code, that are causing the flood of CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION.


----------



## jar546 (Aug 20, 2013)

Modell’s Sporting Goods alleging ADA violations



			
				mark handler said:
			
		

> As I have said again and again, and for you once againIf the projects complied to the IBC and ANSI, they would not be sued.
> 
> It is BOs that do not enforce the code, whatever code, that are causing the flood of CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION.


I will start using that comparison anymore that ADA is not a building code law, it's a civil rights law.  Nice reminder, thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free


----------

