# Another View: Delaying lawsuits isn't fair to the disabled



## mark handler (May 20, 2012)

Another View: Delaying lawsuits isn't fair to the disabled

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/20/4500800/delaying-lawsuits-isnt-fair-to.html

Published Sunday, May. 20, 2012

Sacbee

Margaret Jakobson-Johnson, advocacy director for Disability Rights California, is responding to the May 8 editorial "Find balance on disabled access, excess litigation." The editorial said, "Senate Bill 1186 would ban 'demand for money' letters and would require attorneys to send a notice letter listing any alleged construction-related violations at least 30 days before filing suit. That would give businesses a chance to fix the problem before someone could run up the meter on violations."

There's a historic adage that says justice delayed is justice denied. The same can be said about equality. When civil rights come with a waiting period for some but not others; well, that's not equal.

And, yet, that is the consequence of a bill now before the Legislature. Proponents of Senate Bill 1186 say it's about eliminating frivolous lawsuits involving the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.

Make no mistake – there are unscrupulous lawyers in the world. Some of them make money filing ADA lawsuits.

But there is a way to stop unnecessary lawsuits without rolling back civil rights protections: Work to ensure more businesses comply with the law.

Passed in 1990, the ADA mandates that people with disabilities have equal access to buildings, stores, restrooms and other public spaces. For people with disabilities, ADA means freedom to work, go to school, and take part in civic and economic life.

But SB 1186 says that 22 years after the ADA mandated access, businesses can't be held accountable without a 30-day notice of a lawsuit.

That's like hanging out a sign on the first day of school, saying, "Sorry we aren't integrated yet, but let us know 30 days in advance if you intend to sue for your right to come in."

SB 1186 singles out people with disabilities, alone among all groups with civil rights protections, to jump through legal hoops before being able to enforce their civil rights. What other community is told to wait for rights they fought long and hard to earn?

Imposing additional procedural requirements on people with disabilities conflicts with California's proud tradition of civil rights protection. With SB 1186, California – the birthplace of the disability rights movement – would reverse decades of progress made so people with disabilities move from the margins to the mainstream of community life.

Many businesses already comply with the landmark law, recognizing that the nearly one in five Americans living with a disability are a vital part of our communities and the economy.

Rather than helping to bring more businesses up to basic standards that enable full access for our community, SB 1186 discourages businesses from complying with the law, sending a clear message that they need comply only after they're caught.

With our population aging, California must remove barriers, not create more. Let's work together to build a barrier-free California, rather than introduce legislation that creates more obstacles.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.


----------



## Msradell (May 20, 2012)

Very well written and to the point!  The one thing that I would add is that why should it be the responsibility of the disabled people to point out the problems for a business?  Why should they waste their time finding problems the owner is supposed to find and repair?


----------



## LARMGUY (May 21, 2012)

I believe the totality of the circumstances should be taken into account on each and every case.  The ADA act is one of the most controversial and vague laws the federal government ever came up with.  Kinda like the IRS whom we all know and love.  So inept is the law, business owners have to seek out access specialists and pay them big bucks just for a survey and recommendations.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 22, 2012)

My understanding the ADA required existing buildings to remove barriers to allow access into a building. The Ca law as applied seems to exceed the intent of the ADA. A 50 year old building that has never had a change of occupancy or any remodel work done and has an accessible route from the parking lot into the building is compliant even if the restrooms are not accessible. But an individual who does not have to know the history of the building can file a lawsuit and demand a payment. It just seems that the building/business owner is guilty first and has to prove his innocence later or just pay up because it is cheaper.


----------



## brudgers (May 22, 2012)

LARMGUY said:
			
		

> I believe the totality of the circumstances should be taken into account on each and every case.  The ADA act is one of the most controversial and vague laws the federal government ever came up with.  Kinda like the IRS whom we all know and love.  So inept is the law, business owners have to seek out access specialists and pay them big bucks just for a survey and recommendations.


  Business owners pay "big bucks" to lawyers to draft contracts, accountants to keep their books, and media companies for advertising.   It's all just part of being in business.


----------



## brudgers (May 22, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> My understanding the ADA required existing buildings to remove barriers to allow access into a building. The Ca law as applied seems to exceed the intent of the ADA. A 50 year old building that has never had a change of occupancy or any remodel work done and has an accessible route from the parking lot into the building is compliant even if the restrooms are not accessible. But an individual who does not have to know the history of the building can file a lawsuit and demand a payment. It just seems that the building/business owner is guilty first and has to prove his innocence later or just pay up because it is cheaper.


  There's been more than twenty years to bring the building into compliance.  If the Owner has had the building all that time, there's no excuse.

  If the Owner hasn't, then they did not do due diligence prior to purchase and have no one but themselves to blame.

  And if it's a tenant being sued, they likewise failed their due diligence as did whoever negotiated their lease.

  With ADA it's usually the case that alleged violations turn out to be substantiated.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 22, 2012)

There's been more than twenty years to bring the building into compliance. AdA does not require the building be brought into compliance just because it is over 20 years old.

If the Owner has had the building all that time, there's no excuse. Just because an owner has owned a building for over 20 years does not mean he is automatically in violation of the ADA law 



If the Owner hasn't, then they did not do due diligence prior to purchase and have no one but themselves to blame. A does not require compliance with the ADA

And if it's a tenant being sued, they likewise failed their due diligence as did whoever negotiated their lease. A change of tenants is not always a change of occupancy or require a remodel some are just turnkey.

With ADA it's usually the case that alleged violations turn out to be substantiated. That is because the DOJ will investigate and build a cases before allowing their attorney's to send a letter demanding payment.

The Ca law reminds me of a former co-worker who recieved a letter from his insurance company notifing of payment to an individual he did not know because they filed a claim his dog had bit her while jogging past his house. He had not owned a dog in over 10 years. Turned out to be an insurance scam that had been going on for years. 

That is what the Ca law has become, a scam by a select few and it needs to addressed.


----------



## Coug Dad (May 22, 2012)

All small businesses have big bucks for lawyers, accountants and media companies.  Sounds like some of us have left our offices and are working remotely from Zuccotti Park.


----------



## brudgers (May 22, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> AdA does not require the building be brought into compliance just because it is over 20 years old.


  You're correct.   ADA requires that buildings less than 20 years old be in compliance.

  In addition, it requires that buildings more than 20 years old not violate civil rights via non-compliance.

  Tenants and Owners are required to remove any existing architectural barriers on an ongoing basis.

  The practical effect is that buildings more than 20 years old, need to be in compliance.

  Grandpa, ADA died a long time ago.

  And despite it having been law of the land since Bush I, people in the industry still play stupid.


----------



## conarb (May 22, 2012)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> All small businesses have big bucks for lawyers, accountants and media companies.  Sounds like some of us have left our offices and are working remotely from Zuccotti Park.


You should have added architects, CASps, and contractors profiteering from this obscene entitlement legislation.  How many obese people take advantage of these laws and statutes?  A few years back San Francisco did a study showing that over 75% of the downtown parking spaces were taken by people with handicap placards. of concern to the city was the loss of parking meter revenue. One problem that should be seriously looked at is physicians handing out their signatures on state forms entitling many non-handicapped people to the entitlement placards, I could easily get one but refuse to even ask out of principle, I'm not going to to brand myself as inferior entitled to special treatment.


----------



## Msradell (May 22, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> You're correct.   ADA requires that buildings less than 20 years old be in compliance.
> 
> In addition, it requires that buildings more than 20 years old not violate civil rights via non-compliance.
> 
> ...


Exactly my thoughts!


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 23, 2012)

The practical effect is that buildings more than 20 years old, need to be in compliance.

Might be a practical effect and the thoughts of many but not all buildings over 20 years old need to comply 100%. I can think of 20 in my jurisdiction that the use has not changed nor has there been any changes to the building except a coat of paint.


----------



## brudgers (May 23, 2012)

conarb said:
			
		

> A few years back San Francisco did a study showing that over 75% of the downtown parking spaces were taken by people with handicap placards


  A few years ago NASA did a study showing that 95% of all internet statistics are made up.


----------



## brudgers (May 23, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> The practical effect is that buildings more than 20 years old, need to be in compliance.  Might be a practical effect and the thoughts of many but not all buildings over 20 years old need to comply 100%. I can think of 20 in my jurisdiction that the use has not changed nor has there been any changes to the building except a coat of paint.


  Doesn't matter under ADA.   Owners and tenants are required by law to remove architectural barriers.

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


----------



## mark handler (May 23, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> A few years ago NASA did a study showing that 95% of all internet statistics are made up.


Cite the study....


----------



## brudgers (May 23, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Cite the study....


  Their site is http://www.nasa.gov/


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 23, 2012)

In recognition that many smallbusinesses can not afford to makesignificant physical changes totheir stores or places of business toprovide accessibility to wheelchairusers and other people withdisabilities, the ADA has requirementsfor existing facilities builtbefore 1993 that are less strict thanfor ones built after early 1993 or
​modified after early 1992.

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

Exactly my point


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 23, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Their site is http://www.nasa.gov/


you cited the (web)site, but not the study.  is there a keyword by which the search function will produce the study you referenced?


----------



## Doorman (May 23, 2012)

It appears the 95% may be incorrect. This site indicates 73.6% of statistics are fabricated... made up... falsified... buttered up.

_"Statistics are like a bikini - what they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."_ - Aaron Levenstein


----------



## LARMGUY (May 23, 2012)

View attachment 1349

	

		
			
		

		
	
85% of false and misleading statistical studies are statistically false and misleading.

View attachment 580


View attachment 580


/monthly_2012_05/correlation.JPG.a162de8d8391682f69316539c081e0c5.JPG


----------



## GBrackins (May 23, 2012)

when I took statistics in college my professor said when it comes to statistical data and analysis always remember this, "liars can figure, and figures can lie."


----------



## brudgers (May 23, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> In recognition that many smallbusinesses can not afford to makesignificant physical changes totheir stores or places of business toprovide accessibility to wheelchairusers and other people withdisabilities, the ADA has requirementsfor existing facilities builtbefore 1993 that are less strict thanfor ones built after early 1993 or
> ​modified after early 1992.  http://www.ada.gov/smbusgd.pdf  Exactly my point


  Read the document and tell me which requirements don't apply.


----------



## brudgers (May 23, 2012)

Papio Bldg Dept said:
			
		

> you cited the (web)site, but not the study.  is there a keyword by which the search function will produce the study you referenced?


  Did you try a search for "research?"  It's not like this is rocket science.


----------



## mtlogcabin (May 23, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Read the document and tell me which requirements don't apply.


I have read it and it does not specify a time frame for achieving compliance and if the business can not afford it it does not need to be done contrary to what some believe. It could take a mom & pop shop 50 years or longer as long as they have  a plan and are working towards that plan.

*easily accomplishable withoutmuch difficulty or expense*
​


. The“readily achievable” requirement is based on the size and resources of the business. So larger businesses with more resources are expected to take a more active role in removing barriers than small businesses. The ADA also recognizes that economic conditions vary. When a business has resources to remove barriers, it is expected to do so; but when profits are down, barrier removal may be reduced or delayed. Barrier removal is an ongoing obligation --you are expected to remove barriers in the future as resources become available.


​


----------



## brudgers (May 23, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> I have read it and it does not specify a time frame for achieving compliance and if the business can not afford it it does not need to be done contrary to what some believe. It could take a mom & pop shop 50 years or longer as long as they have  a plan and are working towards that plan.   *easily accomplishable withoutmuch difficulty or expense*
> ​
> 
> . The“readily achievable” requirement is based on the size and resources of the business. So larger businesses with more resources are expected to take a more active role in removing barriers than small businesses. The ADA also recognizes that economic conditions vary. When a business has resources to remove barriers, it is expected to do so; but when profits are down, barrier removal may be reduced or delayed. Barrier removal is an ongoing obligation --you are expected to remove barriers in the future as resources become available.
> ​


  Yes, they can take 50 years to remove architectural barriers.   It's their choice to be exposed to the risk of lawsuit for that long.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 23, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Did you try a search for "research?"  It's not like this is rocket science.


Low-hanging fruit...but still funny.  I tried "internet study."


----------



## mark handler (May 23, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Did you try a search for "research?"  It's not like this is rocket science.


So your saying you pulled the statistic out of  your A**


----------



## brudgers (May 23, 2012)

68% of statistics pulled out of my *** are correct.


----------



## GBrackins (May 23, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> 68% of statistics pulled out of my *** are correct.


100% of the time? ; )


----------



## beach (May 23, 2012)

> A few years ago NASA did a study showing that 95% of all internet statistics are made up.


We all realize that that's an old joke........ don't we???


----------



## righter101 (May 23, 2012)

Statistically speaking, half the people are below average.


----------



## Papio Bldg Dept (May 24, 2012)

beach said:
			
		

> We all realize that that's an old joke........ don't we???


that's it, i am calling the Al Gore Center for Internet Truth hotline and settle this once and for all.


----------



## brudgers (May 24, 2012)

righter101 said:
			
		

> Statistically speaking, half the people are below average.


  Not if someone actually is average.  Spock, what are the odds?


----------



## LARMGUY (May 24, 2012)

brudgers said:
			
		

> Not if someone actually is average.  Spock, what are the odds?


Interesting.That's upsetting the bell curve by adding to the middle.
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 1352
View attachment 582


View attachment 582


/monthly_2012_05/loooksleveltome.jpg.ea5ce4d5f151a2d8ec7d9202847fe3d8.jpg


----------

