The problem, according to the article isn't that, it's some law firms are doing this in a predatory way.
"But in California unscrupulous lawyers bypass the law’s good intentions by taking advantage of the state’s generous payouts to disabled individuals who sue, often targeting hundreds of small businesses at once, according to Sacramento-based small business defense attorney Rick Morin. For many ADA cases, the minimum in statutory damages starts at $4,000."
It’s not necessarily about how much damages they suffered. Statutory damages also serve as a deterrent and a way of motivating plaintiffs to pursue ADA compliance suits.
In CA’s cast it looks like statutory damages are up to 3x the damages, with a minimum of $4000. That minimum can apply multiple times, as in Hubbard v. Twin Oaks Health and Rehabilitation.
>Plaintiff asserts that, because the minimum statutory amount is $4,000.00 per violation, and she encountered the architectural barriers a minimum of 15 times, she is entitled to damages in the amount of $60,000. Given that defendant does not present any viable evidence to the contrary, plaintiff will be awarded the statutory minimum of $4,000.00 per violation, totaling $60,000.
The question is whether they were being predatory. Visiting 15 times to put a multiplier on statutory damages, which were already 500x the actual damage, is predatory.
$4000 is a nice kick in the pants but there should be a large delay before the same person can get a second instance of statutory payout, if ever.
If businesses only had to pay the actual provable amount of damages caused by non-compliance, few businesses would find it remotely worthwhile to comply. That's why the ADA allows for more.
When one person associated with the attorney is a plaintiff in 200 lawsuits, it does start to seem opportunistic.
Nevertheless, I can't understand why someone would open a cafe in 2007 at a site that wasn't compliant with a 1990 law without budgeting for bringing it into compliance.
> When one person associated with the attorney is a plaintiff in 200 lawsuits, it does start to seem opportunistic.
Wait, why? Certainly one would expect that a lawyer might have a specialization, say, ADA compliance. And you'd equally expect that a person in a wheelchair who is more likely to notice/care about ADA compliance.
It doesn't strike me as that odd, it just seems like, "Hey, why is the city I live in so busted for me? I thought there was a law that was supposed to give me access? Why is no one paying attention to that law?"
Because the lawyer allegedly had her ex-husband pretend to be disabled in order to file the lawsuits.
Lawsuits require standing, which is defined as basically injury or adverse effect done to the suing party. Without that, you cannot sue(and expect to win).
OP said it starts to seem opportunistic, which I think is true, even if the party is actually disabled. Because the odds that a regular disabled person would encounter 200 unique buildings over a year that they couldn't access because of their disability seems quite slim.
And the opportunistic part comes in because these lawsuits are almost always "Fix the problem for $5*X, or pay me personally $X and I will drop the suit".
> Because the odds that a regular disabled person would encounter 200 unique buildings over a year that they couldn't access because of their disability seems quite slim.
I would guess the opposite, that 200 buildings seems low for what a person might encounter in a year that failed to be accessible. That's basically saying, "It's a roughly 4-5 buildings a week" which absolutely seems in the realm of possibility to me. Especially in a older part of town.
The problem is CA has opted to allow "citizen enforcement" via cash settlements instead of allowing grace periods or some other means of remediation. As noted in the article, if the goal was bring businesses up to code, in many cases a simple letter from the lawyer would suffice. But, that doesn't make money for the lawyer and her husband (who faked disabilities in order to sue).
I think you're underestimating the size of 200. ADA compliance is a worthy cause, but at that level of effort I think it would make more sense to create an advocacy group and try to bring about compliance through public pressure than individual lawsuits.
Nevertheless, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the business owner in this case. If you open a business in a non-compliant site 17 years after the ADA went into effect, and 13 years later still can't build a ramp, it might be time for another business to occupy that site.
> The disabled man’s attorney, Tanya E. Moore, for years has been the subject of much scrutiny for suing thousands of small businesses across the South Bay, filing more than 1,400 ADA cases in recent years. The suits have forced mom and pop shops like Cafe Crema to close, as many owners can’t afford to bring their businesses up to code or settle. A little less than three years ago, a beloved San Jose staple, Time Deli, had to shut its doors for the same reason.
> About two years ago, Moore was faced with a federal racketeering civil lawsuit for filing lawsuits based on “false allegations” of disability and injury, first reported by the Fresno Bee.
I wonder how many businesses will be left when Moore is done.
I don't see anything predatory there? 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits?
The theory of the ADA is that rather than just enforce everything via bureaucracy, we'd give individuals the right of private action to push for the accommodations they need. Then we get a hopefully-good level of accommodation without a lot of the kind of waste that goes with central planning.
But if somebody is going to use the legal system to make a lot of money by generating spurious complaints for every business in an area, then that's not the right mechanism. If every business should be immediately compliant, we should just make it part of the building code and/or part of the business licensing process.
No, lawsuits require standing. If nobody is actually harmed, there is nothing to sue over. Where this might factor into this ethically is that these building may not have been compliant with the law, but they might not have had problems because they were close enough to legal requirements that people with disabilities did not have actual problems using the facilities, or other situations that in practice made it a non issue.
For example, ramps must be 36 inches wide. If it was not possible or feasible for the business to change a ramp that was 34 inches wide, that's unlikely to cause actual problems for someone, so they would have no reason to sue, but if someone is faking a disability to qualify for legal standing, whether they actual had problems is of little consequence, they are already committing fraud to qualify, what's a bit more to fake a situation where they were caused harm?
I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut.
>>> 1,400 businesses were potentially breaking the law and denying access to people with disabilities, shouldn't they be the subject of suits?
> I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut.
In this case? Maybe. You made a statement about all the cases they brought. I responded to that general statement, not this specific case.
It's possible every suit they brought against a business was for a situation where people with disabilities really were harmed. If that's the situation, I'm not sure why someone with a real disability didn't bring the cases then.
There are reasons why people are required to have standing to bring a case. I think it's pretty obvious what some of those reasons are.
ADA has affordances for "nearly compliant" facilities.
§ 36.304 Removal of barriers.
(d) Relationship to alterations requirements of subpart D of this part.
(3) If, as a result of compliance with the alterations requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) 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.
Thanks for the additional information. Do you know what "readily achievable" means legally? I suspect it means "can not feasibly be accomplish on the property in question", such as if there's no way to widen a door given load bearing walls, or if a ramp of the appropriate specifications would go past the edge of the property. I imagine "it's too costly to do and keep this business functioning" is not a valid reason, given the examples we are seeing of businesses closing.
What I think it comes down to is whether a real person with disabilities thinks it's worth bringing and/or continuing the suit. Someone bringing a suit to make their life better (and the lives of people in similar circumstances as well), might take things into consideration like whether another business is likely to use that location any time soon if a large outlay is required to fix the problem, and whether removing a local business for everyone is a good solution. Someone bringing suit just for monetary gain (which can be done by someone with a real claim, I understand) may be less likely to do so, resulting in a net loss for the community.
> Do you know what "readily achievable" means legally?
It's quite clearly defined in statute (and includes cost):
> The term "readily achievable" means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include—
> (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;
> (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;
> (C)the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
> (D) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm left confused about why this is happening then. It seems well designed to not allow for the situation we see described here, yet this situation is happening and similar situations are referenced.
That leads me to believe one or more of:
a) the case cited here has more extenuating circumstances that are not being reported, which I see as likely as articles have a point of view to express and I'm willing to believe the author may leave out information they deem not contributing to that point (whether through malice or incompetence)
b) there are additional laws at the state or local level which are less lenient
c) there are other parts of this law or other Federal laws which interact in a way limiting or making ambiguous portions of this law
d) there is specific case law that severely limits how these escape valves are used in practice
I have no idea how any of these apply, if any do, but it's odd that there are specific allowances for businesses to no be forced to shut down, yet, we have examples of exactly that.
How is this predatory? The law has been on the books for some time. This subthread seems to be taking issue with this lawyer's specialty - helping disabled folks get access where they are denied it unjustly. The real anger should be toward folks who don't want to follow the law. It is useful to have an expert on your team to get justice. If you are going to sue for ADA violations, would you rather have a corporate finance expert or an ADA compliance expert?
If compliance were the goal, then I would be inclined to agree with you. However, this lawyer is suing first without any notification first that the shop is non-compliant. That's what makes it come across as predatory.
> These “shakedown” lawsuits, added Morin, are often based on small, “technical violations” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner. But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first.
It looks like if a claimant sends a letter they would not be able to sue for damages. That seems like it might really limit any perspective plaintiff's options.
That depends. Is the plaintiff's goal to encourage a business to comply or is it to get paid? If compliance was the goal, sending a letter would always be the first step.
But if a claimant does send a letter and that letter gets ignored, what's their recourse if they can't sue? Send another, more angrily worded letter? That will show the defiant business owner what for! They'd likely have to find someone else to do file suit.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure that article is simplifying things, but using the information given, I would also sue first.
What is being labeled as predatory was the scheme being led that had the lawyers husband fake a disability in order to launch these lawsuits (200 in one year, over 2000 total). And that it was specifically targeted at small businesses of a size/condition that they would really be susceptible to the lawsuits.
There was also some light witness tampering and evidence destruction as a part of the RICO case against this attorney, so yeah, I think in this one case, there really was some wild stuff going on.
In this case the specific lawsuit against this coffeeshop was labeled predatory which was filed by "a disabled San Jose man", which seems to be someone other than the attorney's ex husband Ronald.
They're apparently asking for something on the order of $60,000 for not being able to go into a cafe and get a cup of coffee. That seems quite far beyond the damages incurred. sounds predatory to me.
That is statutory damages, not compensatory damages. Statutory damages are written into the statue, not a payment for damages actually incurred.
The ADA is mostly enforced by private plaintiffs, that's the way the law was written.
Nationally the ADA doesn't allow for private plaintiffs to profit from ADA lawsuits, however, a few states (like California) have statutes that do.
Of course, a big problem is the businesses don't have a mandatory warning with a grace period to become compliant, it's just now you have a lawsuit. This can create "professional plaintiffs." Then again, the ADA is a civil rights law, and other civil rights laws aren't like that, you don't get "one free racial discrimination," and I don't think that many people would want that.
>Combined with the California Disabled Persons Acts, disability access plaintiffs are allowed to tack on state claims for money damages onto requests for injunctive relief in ADA lawsuits. The act allows plaintiffs to claim treble damages with a minimum of $4000 per access violation plus attorneys fees.
Why does the plaintiff receive the statutory damages? This is similar to a fine in that they are support to force the violator into complying, not to give a payout much larger than the financial loss of the victim.
The obvious solution here is that the government takes a portion of this money to remove the gambling-like incentives.
Devil's advocate: If the lawyer did this pro bono or with only small profits, he would be celebrated as championing accessibility rights. Doing good for bad reasons.
I don't think there's anything wrong with customers demanding ADA compliance. But the accusation here is that the lawyer involved is creating rafts of complaints, possibly false ones, to extract settlement cash. That would indeed be predatory.
I think the ADA on the whole is good, but the burden can fall disproportionately on small businesses. An awful lot of people's favorite neighborhood businesses are more or less break even; as here, a sudden, large expense can be fatal. I'd prefer it if there were programs to help existing small businesses convert. Making society available to everybody is everybody's business.
Yes, it sounds like in this case there is systematic targeting of certain sized businesses in order to extract the maximum amount of cash. Big companies can afford compliance and lawyers. The little companies may not be able to.
Might even be a business possibility for someone knowledgeable with the law and how to demonstrate objective compliance. I thought in an earlier comment maybe a chamber of commerce could develop something, or some locals with disabilities who would like to be part of the process and maybe even used as witnesses.
Yes and no. Businesses that aren't ADA-compliant are violating the law. But the motives of many of those filing are also suspect. From the article:
"The disabled man’s attorney, Tanya E. Moore, for years has been the subject of much scrutiny for suing thousands of small businesses across the South Bay, filing more than 1,400 ADA cases in recent years...The attorney who filed the lawsuit, Moji Saniefar, claims Moore’s ex-husband Ronald, who is a plaintiff in more than 200 filed cases, faked a disability in order “to collect quick settlements."
So in this case, the filing attorney is being sued for fraud? (I'm not a lawyer). Not a good look. But going on..
"...in California unscrupulous lawyers bypass the law’s good intentions by taking advantage of the state’s generous payouts to disabled individuals who sue, often targeting hundreds of small businesses at once, according to Sacramento-based small business defense attorney Rick Morin. For many ADA cases, the minimum in statutory damages starts at $4,000."
Sounds like patent troll tactics. Damages large enough to add up to serious money at scale, but small enough that they aren't worth fighting for the defendant.
"These “shakedown” lawsuits, added Morin, are often based on small, “technical violations” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner. But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first."
Which means the money is more important than fixing anything. A business that couldn't afford to become ADA-compliant can definitely not afford to fix it after paying a settlement. And it's very well possible that money that could have gone into fixing the problem for all future disabled customers (surely the actual point of the law) is instead going to attorneys and plaintiffs.
Bottomline: no one comes out looking good in this particular case. If this cafe's ADA retrofit is going to cost $100k then it wasn't an easy fix and the business owner should have done better research into the law before renting/buying that location.
But there also seems to be a non-zero number of BS lawsuits incentivized by the way the law is right now.
What you hear from people "on the ground" is that ADA is written in a way that makes it very difficult to comply with.
An experienced ADA "predator" can find some technical violation in most any place of business, and make a profit suing for it. Normally, these technical flaws have no real impact on accessibility for actual disabled people. It's just a legal quirk.
Or so I've read/heard in a few places. I have no personal insight, so take this post FWIW!
Do any of these businesses contest the facts of the case? I'm unaware of any that do, but I don't follow ADA cases very closely. So is the outrage is more that someone is advocating for compliance with the law, by bringing civil suits... as required to enforce the law? Did this "serial plantiff" hit a quota limit or something?
I understand the empathy with the business, but I don't understand the animus towards the disabled person.
The disabled person works with a serial litigator to sue. They might win $4k in damages. If they do, serial litigator is able to recover attorney's fees which can top $200k. Serial litigator can demand a $50k settlement rather than you spending $100k defending and risking being $304k out of pocket in total.
Thus, it's possible to extract settlements far beyond any actual damages incurred by the disabled person. This is what makes it a shakedown operation.
Well that's not the point of damages. Compensatory damages are paid the the person that suffered in compensation of the suffering caused. Punitive damages are punishment. Remedial action isn't always ordered (You can always roll the dice on enforcement again, and probably get even worse punitive damages for being a repeat offender.), but remedial action is always separate, and it's not up the court to decide how much you're going to spend on compliance. That's your job.
The whole point of qui tam and pseudo-qui tam statutes like the ADA (with regimes of minimum damages, recovery of legal fees, etc) -- is to encourage private parties to do enforcement that will compel the desired behavior.
Well I would have thought the pain of having to pay damages would have been enough to encourage remedial action to avoid a similar situation in the future. Especially since the damages would be even higher the second time since it would be flagrant violation.
In this case, the remedial action is not economically possible, and the business is closing the location instead.
A court would likely agree that there was no violation-- but at how much cost of legal fees? And the potential downside of the court disagreeing is even greater.
It's no-win for someone facing one of these dubious actions. You can: A) fight and incur huge costs coupled with unreasonable amounts of risk, B) capitulate and settle and try to remediate, or C) just fold entirely.
The business is likely in compliance. The appropriate language of the ADA is:
> (iv) a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities, and transportation barriers in existing vehicles and rail passenger cars used by an establishment for transporting individuals (not including barriers that can only be removed through the retrofitting of vehicles or rail passenger cars by the installation of a hydraulic or other lift), where such removal is readily achievable;
Is the removal of the barrier of the steps in a 100 year old building "readily achievable" if it takes $100k in construction? Probably not.
But if you don't do it, and someone sues you-- the lawyer suing you has a chance of a $200k payday; the disabled plaintiff may get $4k; you will have to spend $100k to defend; and if you lose, you'll have to pay the $100k in construction or face the next person doing this too. The potential downside in litigating is too high to bear the risk-- even if you're right you're incurring a massive cost.
This is a big issue with qui tam statutes where private claimants can bring actions to enforce the policy. The upside is they often encourage enthusiastic enforcement at low cost to the state... the downside is they often encourage very enthusiastic and unfair enforcement at high cost to society.
It's kind of insane that attorney fees are allowed to go that high (and higher). Really just predatory and bad when you think about it. In a lot of lawsuits, the plaintiff's attorney can essentially set whatever rate they want and then force the defendant to pay a cost that's far above any damages allowed by the law.
There’s a guy in NYC who does this and shuts small businesses down that can’t afford to make the required changes. It’s usually a small restaurant with a bathroom down narrow stairs that would cost a fortune to renovate to modern code. It feels like an exploitation of the law.
There’s another guy recently who has been trying to shakedown small businesses by threatening a huge lawsuit if they don’t pay him 50k to go away. He uses a wheelchair but it’s a prop as he was found out to be able to walk.
Anything new, sure it should be accessible. Old building’s where it would cost a fortune? It’s not practical.
>He uses a wheelchair but it’s a prop as he was found out to be able to walk.
I don't know anything about this guy specifically but I just want to point out many wheelchair users have some ability to stand and walk. Merely having the ability to walk doesn't necessarily mean someone's wheelchair is a "prop" or unnecessary.
The RICO laws permit private citizens suing other private citizens where it can be demonstrated there was a conspiracy.
If the conspiracy is for barratry, and this can be demonstrated, then the case should be able to move forward.
RICO means suing directly the conspirators, so there is no option for any sort of organizational protections or "corporate veil" meaning all of the personal assets will be up for grabs.
I suspect this would send a lot of fear into the conspirators because a case like the one linked here will likely draw more sympathy than the plight of a handicapped person being blocked from accessing some more common venue (grocery store, hospital, etc.). This is very important because as a lawyer-acquaintance would put it, the verdict is ultimately "what 12 idiots decide."
$100,000 to replace stairs with a wheel chair ramp? Were more fixes necessary than just this, or is that really how much it costs to create a wheel chair ramp?
It looks like they'd have to redo a significant portion of the front of the building to make it work, from the street up to the patio, then up again to the door. (Which, itself, may need replacing.) My guess is that $100,000 is a rounded up, order of magnitude estimate rather than a specific amount.
Even for California that seems a bit … steep (pun intended).
Sure, there’s a relatively high minimum wage. And maybe one has to get planning approval. And maybe an engineer’s sign-off. And possibly get some sort of union labour force to install it. And maybe an environmental impact study? Still doesn’t make sense that a wheelchair ramp would incur three times the U.S. median income.
Or maybe it does, and that explains why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
From the pictures in the article, it looks like there are at least two flights of stairs involved, and the one near the door is too narrow to add a ramp that a wheelchair can climb. (Simply putting a ramp over the stairs wouldn't cut it; it'd be too steep to roll up.) I can certainly imagine how adding ramps to this building approach could require some major restructuring.
Unfortunately $100K is not that much in the Bay Area. I had to spend $50K total 10 years ago to make my side walk ADA compliant (as it is front of a bus stop) when I bought my place in SF. They would not issue any further building permits otherwise. And that was a fairly simple job without any stairs.
I'm not sure about that, homeowners are typically responsable for the sidewalk in front of their homes, even for damage caused by public works such as trees, which are maintained by the city.
That being said, 50k buys a decent amount of sidewalk even in the SFBAY, especially if one is merely repairing/grinding down certain areas for pedestrians, and lots aren't particularly wide in SF.
From retrofitting an older building some years ago, I well recall that an ADA compliant ramp has at most a 1:12 pitch (one inch rise per foot) and must provide I forget how many square feet of flat landing outside the door (to allow opening the door after reaching the level of it). So if your doorsill is, say, 2 feet above grade -- not uncommon, 3 steps -- that's a 24-foot long ramp minimum. It's hard to tell from the pictures in the article, but it looks like there's more like a four-foot rise to that coffee shop. That's a 48-foot ramp, of a certain width, with a railing.
Few existing buildings have room for such a ramp on a straight run. So, easy fix you think, we fold the ramp in a hairpin. But wait; wherever it changes direction you must have a level landing of I forget how many square feet, to allow the chair and the attendant pushing it, to turn the corner.
By the time you add a compliant ramp to an existing building you are likely to have covered a lot of ground with ramp. If you had that much ground to spare, and can give up the landscaping or outdoor patio it once was.
The alternative is a wheelchair lift. Like a little outdoor elevator platform. These are fairly expensive to buy and install, but require much less space.
You need at least 30 feet of ramp for a 2 and a half foot incline. I don't know about the environment this coffee shop is set in, but these standards would make it impossible for non-corporate shops to exist in many cities around the world. Most cities don't have 30 feet of space outside open and free for building ramps that (being generous) 0.1% of every store's potential customers will use. You can compact that 30 feet with a couple bends, but then you vastly increase width of the sidewalk space required.
Assuming this building doesn't have a mass expanse of free space extending around its premises, it probably required restructuring of the building itself, which takes quite a bit of time and money, as well as lost business while this single person waits for their coffee or $60,000.
I'm pretty sure that is not true, because (as someone who has been to both locations) the original location was too busy. The staff I talked to at the second location also told me that the second location was opened because the first location was so busy. And the article references this also:
"Over the years, the shop grew into a well-recognized brand, leading Tran to open another location down the street in 2017."
I doubt the case is that the business couldn’t come up with the money - she could have taken a loan, for example - but more likely it just wasn’t worth the investment given the success of the much larger location within walking distance.
As mentioned above, it may be a 60k to settle, 100k+ to build something compliant, or close down (and maybe move to another location).
It's not hard to see why it's not worth the investment. Shut it down, take the breach of contract hit on the rent, and then use that would-be-ADA-compliance loan to pick up at a different location.
Not an expert, but $100K claimed by the owner seems rather much. A third party assessment would be good to procure. Given the touted popularity, cost would be amortized, too. Maybe the owner derived what they had hoped out of the business.
She mentioned the building is old. Maybe there are other structural issues that would be brought up if a ramp was installed that would have to be delt with. I don't know though, it's just a guess.
Besides the ramp, the other big thing (from a customer's perspective) would be the bathroom. This business was basically in a converted house. So the existing "half-bath" would probably not be large enough for ADA standards (with enough room for someone in a wheelchair to enter, close the door, transfer to the toilet, etc.).
ADA compliance (IANAL), if the owner is being comprehensive, includes things not just for customers but for employees too, so maybe their kitchen/working spaces are also not compliant and would involve significant interior redesign etc... I dunno. Seems plausible, anything that has some legal definition of compliance also has some overhead cost to make sure that the thing implemented also complies :)
Ramps are surprisingly space-consuming, and might involve reconfiguring doorways, gas lines or meters, water, electrical, mucking about with the sidewalk, building railings and supports, and so on. $100k seems entirely possible in a dense, expensive city. And you might be required to build a masonry ramp. On the other hand, building a compliant wooden ramp to the porch of a woodsy roadhouse might be far less costly.
Clearly the ADA lawsuits are weaponized by people looking for quick paydays via settlements, but on the other hand, this building is clearly not accessible, and it isn't just a "small, “technical violation” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner".
I think the real question is - why do purchasers not fold ADA costs into their asking price for old buildings? This building has not been ADA compliant since before the current owner bought it. She(or her agent) should have been aware that they should actually be getting a $100k discount on the building if she needs to install ramps there to make it legal to run a business.
Yes, but the best (most benefit to society) solution is likely building inspectors verifying compliance when buildings/business change hands. Not plantiffs demanding sums of money to be paid personally that could be put towards the remediation.
I completely agree. The fact that a complainant can demand money to drop the suit on a personal payment seems wrong - I would like to see either reasonable damages(I couldn't enter the coffee shop so my friend had to go in for me - $10 damages), or only allow payoffs to be put into a general ADA fund and not go to enrich the individual.
It seems to me so few people were affected (there was another branch blocks away that was accessible even) that they were able to go 13 years without a complaint.
The message seems to be: this is a nice thing, I can't readily access it, so nobody should have it. Like the kid taking his ball away after losing at soccer. Except this is someone else's ball?
The alternative is that the kid never has to share their ball with people with disabilities? I think everyone's ideal outcome is that the business makes itself accessible.
Comparing being in a wheelchair to losing at soccer seems reductive to me. Being in a wheelchair is completely life-changing and having public spaces being accessible is a very good thing for the quality of life of people being in this terrible situation.
The ADA has dramatically improved accessibility for those with mobility impairments:
" When asked whether access to public facilities had improved, 75 percent or more of respondents in 1994, 1998, and 2000 reported that they had perceived improvement. Not surprisingly, the percentage of people with disabilities going out to restaurants regularly has increased from 34 percent in 1986 to 57 percent in 2004."[0]
All the law does is provide a cause to sue. The plaintiff is the one who chose to pursue the case and demand either a crippling settlement or crippling renovation. This was completely the plaintiff's choice.
If the position is that pre-ADA inaccessible buildings should just all be razed, well, that's a point of view I guess. But the plaintiff doesn't get to deny their culpability for shutting this place down. They are 100% responsible. But for their lawsuit, the place would still be open.
And if their goal was to make the place comply with the law, why did they ask for a $60k settlement? Did they somehow incur $60k in damages because their friend had to go in and pick up the coffee? It seems like if what they wanted was compliance with the law, they would have asked for that or nothing. Unless of course maybe, just maybe an easy payday was the point all along.
The defendant is a small business = real humans you can talk to. Maybe they could have explained that they did not have the money yet but could gladly bring coffee outside with more service in the meantime. It's easy to hide being legalism (especially for us engineers who like logical systems) and ignore the human factor and individual moral choices. Yes legally the plaintiff has the right to ruin a small business. But it's not necessary the right choice.
Totally. For example, if your neighbors are having a party that's breaking noise laws, it's always better to go talk to them, then if they are jerks, report them to the police.
> I can't readily access it, so nobody should have it
Where do you draw the line though? If accessibility is not a requirement of doing business, disabled people can't access a large proportion of places, either out of indifference (it's cheaper) or just not considering it.
> a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities[...], where such removal is readily achievable
with readily achievable meaning:
> easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include—
> (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;
> (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;
> (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities
In addition, for the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2) ("facilities altered [...] must be made readily accessible"), there is a requirement that "such alterations [...] are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope" (I'm unclear on the claim that "the Facility was designed and constructed (or both) after January 26, 1993" as this appears to contradict the article's claim that "her nearly 100 year-old building needed some upgrades").
There does not appear to be any intent to place any undue burden on a business.
We decided as a country to not discriminate based on certain qualities. One of those is physical disability. Those with physical disability is a small part of the population, so businesses can easily ignore them. What’s the alternative? You’re fucked if you use a wheelchair?
One side is the ADA is from 1990, and 30 years is a long time to wait for public places of business to be accessible. It is compelling to say you must be open for business for all people, if you're open for business.
On the other side, sometimes the required renovations are expensive. Part of the problem is that building modifications may trigger compliance requirements, but many jurisdictions don't check for accessibility (or not properly) as part of a modification permit. It would be good for accessibility to be checked as part of occupancy permits as well.
Another part of the problem is that the enforcement structure of private lawsuits is by nature very adversarial. There's pros and cons, but it means business owners need to budget for renovation and legal fees in response to a complaint filed by lawsuit.
I wish there was a better way to acheive compliance, though. If you can't afford the renovations now, make the plan now, and a binding commitment to set aside funds for it, and make the renovations when funds are ready, or within the 18? months. And the commitment follows the occupancy of the building --- like a lien. If the renovation is not done as comitted, the premises are no longer a legal place of business until they are. This may help encourage landlords to participate in making their spaces accessible --- it will need to be done before they can rent to another business if the current business is forced to leave.
I could have sworn that ADA had provisions to protect buildings that were older and where upgrades would be too costly to implement. This sounds like that is the case... What am I missing?
>Title III also specifically states that for public accommodations discrimination includes “failure to remove architectural barriers . . . in existing facilities” unless it can be shown that removing a barrier is “not readily achievable” or accommodations cannot be provided through other means. (See 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(iv)&(v))
>The ADA defines readily achievable as “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” The statutory definition also provides factors to be considered in determining whether barrier removal is readily achievable and recognizes what may be achievable for one business might not be for another:
>The nature of cost of the required barrier removal;
>The financial resources of the involved facility or facilities;
>The number of people employed by the facility;
>The effect on the facility’s expenses and resources;
>Impact on the operation of the facility;
>Overall finances of the covered entity;
>The number of employees in the covered entity;
>The number type and location of its facilities;
>The type of operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure and functions of its workforce; and
>The geographic, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities at issue to the covered entity.
You have to spend high five figures in legal fees to adjudicate that, and you may lose anyway, and even if you win someone else can swoop in and re-litigate things.
And in all that time they may have never been able to afford it. Perhaps the city should just demolish the building and build an ADA-compliant one on the taxpayer's dime.
Or maybe, here's an idea: crowdfund from the community and make a big deal out of it. You get good PR, which drives the business, and it makes lives better as you improve the premises. Can't crowdfund? How about a short term loan? Can't do that? How about looking for a location for your less than profitable location? Can't do that? How about fighting to change the building laws in San Jose to reduce the building costs for ADA?
There hare hundreds of options available to the business owners up front. This keeps happening because they are willfully ignorant of the law of the land and refuse to do anything about it until someone decides to sue.
Suppose the shop sells one item per minute, is open twelve hours a day, and six days a week. Allocating $0.10 per item is $6.00 per hour, $72.00 per day, and $21,000.00 per year. Over 13 years, that's more than a quarter million dollars and more than twice the claimed cost of the ramp. For context, we are talking a dime per item in Silicon Valley. Per this website, a small cup of coffee is $2.00. https://zmenu.com/crema-coffee-roasting-co-san-jose-online-m...
A question, if there is someone that can answer this:
It said her options were either build a ramp for $100k or settle for $60k. Who can she settle with, and who agrees that she doesn’t need to build a ramp anymore? What happens if someone else comes along and wants a ramp?
I don't know anything about the building, but I can easily see how that could happen.
Lawyers. Architects. Permits. Construction. Traffic control during construction. Environmental studies. Heck, even archeological studies if it's the right area. Maybe even soil remediation if it's determined there's anything below the ramp, like oil or radon, or who knows what.
Plus, if any of it touches the sidewalk, you might have to pay the city rent every month for as long as the building stands.
As pointed out elsewhere, this may not be just a ramp.
Glancing at the pic of the front of the business, it looks like they'd need about 5 vertical feet to cover both sets of stairs. To keep a ramp at appropriate grade (1:12), that may consume quite a lot of space. Unless I don't understand grades, 60-ish feet.
Once you add permitting costs, business downtime while the front of your building is gone, and possibly removing big chunks of that patio to make room, $100k doesn't seem that unreasonable. And that door looks narrow too; that may well need to be widened.
If interior renovations are required (bathroom not large enough?) it's easy for things to get very expensive, very fast. And in a 100 year old building, you quite likely also have lead paint and asbestos. A small asbestos remediation can easily run $13k (source: did one).
And if the business is going to be closed for more than a week, don't forget paying your employees. You obviously don't have to, but if you tell your employees you aren't paying them for 3-12 weeks, they probably won't still be there when you reopen.
You're right about what you wrote. The coffeeshop is on a small plot raised pretty high off the ground. The only way you can get a ramp in there which is ADA compliant is by demolishing the patio area, which accounts for half the seating of the coffeeshop itself.
The ADA is a terrible law that should be repealed. It is primarily used by these serial lawsuit trolls for their own payday.
New built businesses should be build to comply with the building code at the time, which can include disabled access.
Older businesses can be upgraded, at taxpayer expense, if that's what the government wants. It's insane and a violation of basic property rights to force business owners to upgrade older buildings at their own cost.
On one hand, this happens, on the other, I use hearing aids and I cannot get Apple to give me a receipt for my AppleCare payment because the only way to get that is to call an internal Apple department, and that department has no email, no TTY, nothing but a phone number. I cannot call phones.
And Apple doesn’t care. What are you going to do, sue them for ADA violations? That’s only for mom-and-pop coffee shops.
ADA has a purpose. However, it should be limited to corporations above a certain revenue (like how GDPR is limited) and the cost of non-compliance drastically increased. At this point, Apple can afford to be non-compliant while this coffee shop has to close, which is the worst of all possible worlds.
Usually, it requires that the relief sought be solely money damages (as opposed to e.g. an injunction), not that the money damages come from a loss per se.
How is this possible? I've gotten paper receipts when purchased in store and email receipts when purchased online. How did this fall through the cracks at POS?
No, newer iPhones will give you a 60 day grace period to choose to add AppleCare through the settings app, the flow is described at https://support.apple.com/en-gb/HT202702 I have no idea if it generates a receipt/email, as I declined.
On a related subject, I've learned speaking to some blind programmers that Apple is very good as far as accessibility. It was fascinating watching them use their iphones.
They said google/android was hit or miss, usually miss.
EDIT: I also recall the quote...
"When we started Apple, Steve Jobs and I talked about how we wanted to make blind people as equal and capable as sighted people, and you'd have to say we succeeded when you look at all the people walking down the sidewalk looking down at something in their hands and totally oblivious to everything around them!" ― Steve Wozniak
"ADA has a purpose. However, it should be limited to corporations above a certain revenue (like how GDPR is limited) and the cost of non-compliance drastically increased. At this point, Apple can afford to be non-compliant while this coffee shop has to close, which is the worst of all possible worlds."
Does that mean that you also believe that only corporations above a certain revenue should comply with laws against racial and sexual discrimination?
If not, what makes discrimination against the disabled worthy of such a limit while sexual and racial discrimination aren't?
Under what circumstance would it cost a small company $100,000 to comply with laws against racial and sexual discrimination?
Maybe their business caters to rich white men who would stop patronizing the business if it allowed customers of other genders and skin tones? Obviously that doesn't make it "right", but if you're going to let the cost of complying with the law determine whether or not a business needs to follow it, then pretty much any bad behavior could be justified as costing too much to rectify.
I thought it was possible for deaf people to call 711 and get an operator to relay the call. We get relay calls like that in our call center frequently.
Ideally this should work, but this involves the patience of other person to wait for you to type in, and the text that comes your way to be accurate. In my experience, unless you’re calling a TTY-specific number of a company, neither will be in plentiful supply, and I’ve had people just drop the call once they realise what’s happening.
In my experience, yes, they do. I worked as tech support for an ISP and had customers call in for support using a TTY relay. The operator explained it up front, then started the conversation.
If I had dropped the call because of that, I'm sure my manager would have been very unhappy.
There's a nifty service for deaf people who sign called video relay - you just call any number without having to deal with operator, and you will see a sign language video interpreter pop up and they'll translate the call. It's insanely great and it's all free/sponsored by FCC.
Note, just because it's worth pointing out: The GDPR is not limited by size -- it applies to individual blog owners, small non-profits, etc. You're thinking of California's CCPA.
Also, while the lack of minimum size has vicious aspects, that has pushed small areas without large chains to also be compliant. Someone in a small town being unable to go to any businesses because due to being in a wheelchair is likely much worse off than someone in the same situation in a large city where the large chains have ADA compliance designed in from the start.
However, it should be limited to corporations above a certain revenue (like how GDPR is limited) and the cost of non-compliance drastically increased.
It "should" but that would be contrary to the (true) purpose of our fake democracy. Which is precisely to pamper, shield, and effectively exonerate private entities above a certain revenue.
>ADA has a purpose. However, it should be limited to corporations above a certain revenue
The ADA accounts for this by saying that existing properties only need to remove barriers if "readily achievable". One of the factors that go into determining if that is the case is:
> The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved in the action; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources;
Although, the ADA doesn't give you that out if you've made modifications to the property... which could very well be the case here, since this business didn't even exist until long after the ADA was in full force.
From even before it became the law I have been saying it's horrible. The problem is that it doesn't define what level of accommodation should be required. When it was being passed this let both sides interpret it how they wanted, in practice it turned out pretty much how I expected--repeated court fights over what is reasonable. I didn't realize there would be the scumbag violation hunters, though.
However, I don't think the size of the business should have anything to do with it. Bigger businesses can of course afford more--but there are also more possible points of contention.
As for modifications--removing steps from a building built for them is a big problem. Wheelchair ramps are long, there often simply isn't a reasonable place to put them.
Virtually all business leases are "triple net", with the tenant being on the hook for every expense from taxes to casualty to maintenance and improvements. Commercial landlords aren't some kind of essential component of American capitalism, they are just jerks who live at the beach and have no skin in the game.
People get upset over this kind of cases but not being able to access a business is as discriminatory as the business shutting the door to someone because there's something the business does not like about that person. Discrimination is discrimination.
The ADA act has made a huge difference in people's lives since it's passage in the '90s. We see these stories over and over which, is important to keep in mind, the exception not the rule. The majority of buildings are built ADA compliant now and most older buildings can be modified relatively inexpensively.
Yes, this was the exception but even, in this case, the business was merged with another local building.
One thing people always forget is that we all get old and many of us will end up with mobility limitations and we will be glad that a business is ADA compliant and we have the ability to access it.
> People get upset over this kind of cases but not being able to access a business is as discriminatory as the business shutting the door to someone because there's something the business does not like about that person.
There is a huge difference, morally and legally, between
- Not spending $$$ on accommodating people.
- Not going out of your way to accommodate people.
- Closing your door in the face of potential business because you don't like people.
It so happens that the ADA prohibits all of them (Edit: Language quoted below makes me unsure about whether or not it actually fully prohibits the first), many other anti-discrimination laws do not, and certainly I do not view someone who does the first the same as someone who does the third.
>I do not view someone who does the first the same as someone who does the third.
This is exactly why we have the law in the first place. If a group of people vs another can't access a business then it's discrimination. Which means a whole group can't get the services they need. If everyone felt like you did then stores, parks, schools and so many more services that are essential to life would be inaccessible to that group.
This always seemed very strange to me. If society deems it necessary for every business to be accessible, then society (the government) should pay for it out of tax revenue.
Or it could pay it from a tax imposed on businesses. But then collecting the tax from the businesses to then giving it back to them is just unnecessary paperwork on top of just having the businesses do it directly.
So, not strange at all, we already are, just not in a convoluted way.
This came about due to a small government approach. If there was a department of accessibility then they would have issued some sort of notice and they could have negotiated a reasonable accommodation. However because the law creates a private cause of action this can’t happen.
The landlord should not be allowed to rent this space out until it is ADA compliant. It has been THIRTY years since ADA was passed. Enough! It should not be the problem of the business renting the space.
> While the 950 Alameda location permanently closed Friday, coffee aficionados can visit the other Cafe Crema location at 1202 Alameda. [emphasis added]
So Cafe Crema is not going out of business. Just the one location is closing.
And there's also this:
> Tran said she could not meet the lawsuit’s demands to bring the entrance up to code, claiming it would cost her upwards of $100,000 to tear down and rebuild an ADA compliant ramp. The other option to opt for a settlement was not in the cards either, added Tran, who said she could not afford paying a massive $60,000 payout.
So if she didn't comply or settle, what happened to the lawsuit? From the complaint,[0] the defendant is:
CREMA COFFEE COMPANY LLC dba
CREMA COFFEE ROASTING COMPANY;
ALI FARHANG
So who owns the second location?
I was wrong about the restaurant, however. From TFA:
> The original Cafe Crema will be consolidated on Feb. 1 into Tran’s restaurant, Pier 402, located at 238 Race Street.
So I guess that entrance will no longer exist, solving the problem.
> But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first.
Seems like a decent thing to do to at the least raise an issue with a business owner and bring it to their attention, ideally face to face.
> ...businesses are not given warnings or a “grace period” to correct violations.
>
> Plaintiffs can simply sue with little or no notice. That’s why law firms like Moore’s can easily swoop in with a lawsuit.
Seems like businesses should be given a chance first. Seems like the barrier is too low to get these lawsuits dealt out. Give folks a fair chance. This may even be an opportunity for some civic body of volunteers or even a chamber of commerce to proactively approach businesses in advance and get them into shape.
> Seems like businesses should be given a chance first.
Said busineness had 13 years to come into compliance.
How long do you think a coffe shop which does not comply with the tax code would be in busines for? If anything this story is about how slow and innefectual the enforcement is.
The problem is that requiring this ramp is not a reasonable accommodation to most people. You basically have to wreck the business to make it accessible.
In practice the result is the building is unusable, it's going to have to be razed because someone was greedy.
Sure, a phone call should suffice to arrange some face to face discussion. They'd basically call to arrange meeting at a more accessible location, even if its only the sidewalk immediately outside.
I don't understand that restriction either about forfeiting damages. I'm not sure the details precisely, but I'm of the opinion of second chances and a three strikes you're out sort of deal here. Maybe not literally three but obstinate refusal to address the problem.
We lost a great pizza place down here in Gilroy for the same predatory-ADA reason. The owners were/are great folks, and deserved better. I've known many small businesses that have had this kind of issue, too, and almost without exception the suit had no moral merit. It's infuriating, and I say this as someone who is very much in favor of ADA-style accommodations in general. But they way things currently work as written is fundamentally broken.
247 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 255 ms ] thread"But in California unscrupulous lawyers bypass the law’s good intentions by taking advantage of the state’s generous payouts to disabled individuals who sue, often targeting hundreds of small businesses at once, according to Sacramento-based small business defense attorney Rick Morin. For many ADA cases, the minimum in statutory damages starts at $4,000."
In CA’s cast it looks like statutory damages are up to 3x the damages, with a minimum of $4000. That minimum can apply multiple times, as in Hubbard v. Twin Oaks Health and Rehabilitation.
>Plaintiff asserts that, because the minimum statutory amount is $4,000.00 per violation, and she encountered the architectural barriers a minimum of 15 times, she is entitled to damages in the amount of $60,000. Given that defendant does not present any viable evidence to the contrary, plaintiff will be awarded the statutory minimum of $4,000.00 per violation, totaling $60,000.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/20041331408fsupp2d92311235
$4000 is a nice kick in the pants but there should be a large delay before the same person can get a second instance of statutory payout, if ever.
Nevertheless, I can't understand why someone would open a cafe in 2007 at a site that wasn't compliant with a 1990 law without budgeting for bringing it into compliance.
Wait, why? Certainly one would expect that a lawyer might have a specialization, say, ADA compliance. And you'd equally expect that a person in a wheelchair who is more likely to notice/care about ADA compliance.
It doesn't strike me as that odd, it just seems like, "Hey, why is the city I live in so busted for me? I thought there was a law that was supposed to give me access? Why is no one paying attention to that law?"
Lawsuits require standing, which is defined as basically injury or adverse effect done to the suing party. Without that, you cannot sue(and expect to win).
And the opportunistic part comes in because these lawsuits are almost always "Fix the problem for $5*X, or pay me personally $X and I will drop the suit".
I would guess the opposite, that 200 buildings seems low for what a person might encounter in a year that failed to be accessible. That's basically saying, "It's a roughly 4-5 buildings a week" which absolutely seems in the realm of possibility to me. Especially in a older part of town.
Nevertheless, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the business owner in this case. If you open a business in a non-compliant site 17 years after the ADA went into effect, and 13 years later still can't build a ramp, it might be time for another business to occupy that site.
> The disabled man’s attorney, Tanya E. Moore, for years has been the subject of much scrutiny for suing thousands of small businesses across the South Bay, filing more than 1,400 ADA cases in recent years. The suits have forced mom and pop shops like Cafe Crema to close, as many owners can’t afford to bring their businesses up to code or settle. A little less than three years ago, a beloved San Jose staple, Time Deli, had to shut its doors for the same reason.
> About two years ago, Moore was faced with a federal racketeering civil lawsuit for filing lawsuits based on “false allegations” of disability and injury, first reported by the Fresno Bee.
I wonder how many businesses will be left when Moore is done.
How many ADA complainants end up facing federal racketeering charges?
But if somebody is going to use the legal system to make a lot of money by generating spurious complaints for every business in an area, then that's not the right mechanism. If every business should be immediately compliant, we should just make it part of the building code and/or part of the business licensing process.
For example, ramps must be 36 inches wide. If it was not possible or feasible for the business to change a ramp that was 34 inches wide, that's unlikely to cause actual problems for someone, so they would have no reason to sue, but if someone is faking a disability to qualify for legal standing, whether they actual had problems is of little consequence, they are already committing fraud to qualify, what's a bit more to fake a situation where they were caused harm?
> I'm looking at the picture in the article. You absolutely could not get a wheelchair up to that door without people carrying it. I'm aware of standing, and in this case it seems pretty clear cut.
In this case? Maybe. You made a statement about all the cases they brought. I responded to that general statement, not this specific case.
It's possible every suit they brought against a business was for a situation where people with disabilities really were harmed. If that's the situation, I'm not sure why someone with a real disability didn't bring the cases then.
There are reasons why people are required to have standing to bring a case. I think it's pretty obvious what some of those reasons are.
This has nothing to do with not being able to buy coffee, and everything to do with hurting the business in the hopes of getting a large settlement.
§ 36.304 Removal of barriers.
(d) Relationship to alterations requirements of subpart D of this part.
(3) If, as a result of compliance with the alterations requirements specified in paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) 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.
What I think it comes down to is whether a real person with disabilities thinks it's worth bringing and/or continuing the suit. Someone bringing a suit to make their life better (and the lives of people in similar circumstances as well), might take things into consideration like whether another business is likely to use that location any time soon if a large outlay is required to fix the problem, and whether removing a local business for everyone is a good solution. Someone bringing suit just for monetary gain (which can be done by someone with a real claim, I understand) may be less likely to do so, resulting in a net loss for the community.
It's quite clearly defined in statute (and includes cost):
> The term "readily achievable" means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include—
> (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;
> (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;
> (C)the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
> (D) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12181
That leads me to believe one or more of:
a) the case cited here has more extenuating circumstances that are not being reported, which I see as likely as articles have a point of view to express and I'm willing to believe the author may leave out information they deem not contributing to that point (whether through malice or incompetence)
b) there are additional laws at the state or local level which are less lenient
c) there are other parts of this law or other Federal laws which interact in a way limiting or making ambiguous portions of this law
d) there is specific case law that severely limits how these escape valves are used in practice
I have no idea how any of these apply, if any do, but it's odd that there are specific allowances for businesses to no be forced to shut down, yet, we have examples of exactly that.
> These “shakedown” lawsuits, added Morin, are often based on small, “technical violations” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner. But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first.
It looks like if a claimant sends a letter they would not be able to sue for damages. That seems like it might really limit any perspective plaintiff's options.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure that article is simplifying things, but using the information given, I would also sue first.
There was also some light witness tampering and evidence destruction as a part of the RICO case against this attorney, so yeah, I think in this one case, there really was some wild stuff going on.
The ADA is mostly enforced by private plaintiffs, that's the way the law was written.
Nationally the ADA doesn't allow for private plaintiffs to profit from ADA lawsuits, however, a few states (like California) have statutes that do.
Of course, a big problem is the businesses don't have a mandatory warning with a grace period to become compliant, it's just now you have a lawsuit. This can create "professional plaintiffs." Then again, the ADA is a civil rights law, and other civil rights laws aren't like that, you don't get "one free racial discrimination," and I don't think that many people would want that.
>The other option to opt for a settlement was not in the cards either, added Tran, who said she could not afford paying a massive $60,000 payout.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
>Combined with the California Disabled Persons Acts, disability access plaintiffs are allowed to tack on state claims for money damages onto requests for injunctive relief in ADA lawsuits. The act allows plaintiffs to claim treble damages with a minimum of $4000 per access violation plus attorneys fees.
The obvious solution here is that the government takes a portion of this money to remove the gambling-like incentives.
I think the ADA on the whole is good, but the burden can fall disproportionately on small businesses. An awful lot of people's favorite neighborhood businesses are more or less break even; as here, a sudden, large expense can be fatal. I'd prefer it if there were programs to help existing small businesses convert. Making society available to everybody is everybody's business.
"The disabled man’s attorney, Tanya E. Moore, for years has been the subject of much scrutiny for suing thousands of small businesses across the South Bay, filing more than 1,400 ADA cases in recent years...The attorney who filed the lawsuit, Moji Saniefar, claims Moore’s ex-husband Ronald, who is a plaintiff in more than 200 filed cases, faked a disability in order “to collect quick settlements."
So in this case, the filing attorney is being sued for fraud? (I'm not a lawyer). Not a good look. But going on..
"...in California unscrupulous lawyers bypass the law’s good intentions by taking advantage of the state’s generous payouts to disabled individuals who sue, often targeting hundreds of small businesses at once, according to Sacramento-based small business defense attorney Rick Morin. For many ADA cases, the minimum in statutory damages starts at $4,000."
Sounds like patent troll tactics. Damages large enough to add up to serious money at scale, but small enough that they aren't worth fighting for the defendant.
"These “shakedown” lawsuits, added Morin, are often based on small, “technical violations” that can be easily fixed if a letter is sent to the business owner. But under California law, a disabled person cannot claim money if they send the business owner a letter with their complaint first."
Which means the money is more important than fixing anything. A business that couldn't afford to become ADA-compliant can definitely not afford to fix it after paying a settlement. And it's very well possible that money that could have gone into fixing the problem for all future disabled customers (surely the actual point of the law) is instead going to attorneys and plaintiffs.
Bottomline: no one comes out looking good in this particular case. If this cafe's ADA retrofit is going to cost $100k then it wasn't an easy fix and the business owner should have done better research into the law before renting/buying that location.
But there also seems to be a non-zero number of BS lawsuits incentivized by the way the law is right now.
An experienced ADA "predator" can find some technical violation in most any place of business, and make a profit suing for it. Normally, these technical flaws have no real impact on accessibility for actual disabled people. It's just a legal quirk.
Or so I've read/heard in a few places. I have no personal insight, so take this post FWIW!
It's not a defense of a bad law to say that it forces people to by "comply with the law".
I understand the empathy with the business, but I don't understand the animus towards the disabled person.
Thus, it's possible to extract settlements far beyond any actual damages incurred by the disabled person. This is what makes it a shakedown operation.
A court would likely agree that there was no violation-- but at how much cost of legal fees? And the potential downside of the court disagreeing is even greater.
It's no-win for someone facing one of these dubious actions. You can: A) fight and incur huge costs coupled with unreasonable amounts of risk, B) capitulate and settle and try to remediate, or C) just fold entirely.
> (iv) a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities, and transportation barriers in existing vehicles and rail passenger cars used by an establishment for transporting individuals (not including barriers that can only be removed through the retrofitting of vehicles or rail passenger cars by the installation of a hydraulic or other lift), where such removal is readily achievable;
Is the removal of the barrier of the steps in a 100 year old building "readily achievable" if it takes $100k in construction? Probably not.
But if you don't do it, and someone sues you-- the lawyer suing you has a chance of a $200k payday; the disabled plaintiff may get $4k; you will have to spend $100k to defend; and if you lose, you'll have to pay the $100k in construction or face the next person doing this too. The potential downside in litigating is too high to bear the risk-- even if you're right you're incurring a massive cost.
This is a big issue with qui tam statutes where private claimants can bring actions to enforce the policy. The upside is they often encourage enthusiastic enforcement at low cost to the state... the downside is they often encourage very enthusiastic and unfair enforcement at high cost to society.
There’s another guy recently who has been trying to shakedown small businesses by threatening a huge lawsuit if they don’t pay him 50k to go away. He uses a wheelchair but it’s a prop as he was found out to be able to walk.
Anything new, sure it should be accessible. Old building’s where it would cost a fortune? It’s not practical.
I don't know anything about this guy specifically but I just want to point out many wheelchair users have some ability to stand and walk. Merely having the ability to walk doesn't necessarily mean someone's wheelchair is a "prop" or unnecessary.
https://www.realsocialskills.org/blog/respecting-wheelchair-...
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/ambulatory-wheelchair-users-exi...
If the conspiracy is for barratry, and this can be demonstrated, then the case should be able to move forward.
RICO means suing directly the conspirators, so there is no option for any sort of organizational protections or "corporate veil" meaning all of the personal assets will be up for grabs.
I suspect this would send a lot of fear into the conspirators because a case like the one linked here will likely draw more sympathy than the plight of a handicapped person being blocked from accessing some more common venue (grocery store, hospital, etc.). This is very important because as a lawyer-acquaintance would put it, the verdict is ultimately "what 12 idiots decide."
Sure, there’s a relatively high minimum wage. And maybe one has to get planning approval. And maybe an engineer’s sign-off. And possibly get some sort of union labour force to install it. And maybe an environmental impact study? Still doesn’t make sense that a wheelchair ramp would incur three times the U.S. median income.
Or maybe it does, and that explains why it’s so difficult to get anything done.
You got had. That sidwealk is public easement and if they demanded ADA work for a public fixture (bus stop) it was on them to pay for it, not you.
That being said, 50k buys a decent amount of sidewalk even in the SFBAY, especially if one is merely repairing/grinding down certain areas for pedestrians, and lots aren't particularly wide in SF.
Few existing buildings have room for such a ramp on a straight run. So, easy fix you think, we fold the ramp in a hairpin. But wait; wherever it changes direction you must have a level landing of I forget how many square feet, to allow the chair and the attendant pushing it, to turn the corner.
By the time you add a compliant ramp to an existing building you are likely to have covered a lot of ground with ramp. If you had that much ground to spare, and can give up the landscaping or outdoor patio it once was.
The alternative is a wheelchair lift. Like a little outdoor elevator platform. These are fairly expensive to buy and install, but require much less space.
You need at least 30 feet of ramp for a 2 and a half foot incline. I don't know about the environment this coffee shop is set in, but these standards would make it impossible for non-corporate shops to exist in many cities around the world. Most cities don't have 30 feet of space outside open and free for building ramps that (being generous) 0.1% of every store's potential customers will use. You can compact that 30 feet with a couple bends, but then you vastly increase width of the sidewalk space required.
Assuming this building doesn't have a mass expanse of free space extending around its premises, it probably required restructuring of the building itself, which takes quite a bit of time and money, as well as lost business while this single person waits for their coffee or $60,000.
"Crema Coffee owner June Tran said bringing her 100-year-old building up to code would cost $100,000."
“While the 950 Alameda location permanently closed Friday, coffee aficionados can visit the other Cafe Crema location at 1202 Alameda. ”
One has to wonder whether this was anticipated given the new location is 2 blocks away.
"Over the years, the shop grew into a well-recognized brand, leading Tran to open another location down the street in 2017."
It's not hard to see why it's not worth the investment. Shut it down, take the breach of contract hit on the rent, and then use that would-be-ADA-compliance loan to pick up at a different location.
"Crema Coffee owner June Tran said bringing her 100-year-old building up to code would cost $100,000."
Bringing a 100-year-old building up to code != installing a ramp.
I think the real question is - why do purchasers not fold ADA costs into their asking price for old buildings? This building has not been ADA compliant since before the current owner bought it. She(or her agent) should have been aware that they should actually be getting a $100k discount on the building if she needs to install ramps there to make it legal to run a business.
I was expecting some bizarre coffee/Java riff with I dunno, TLD Systems or something.
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Cre...
The message seems to be: this is a nice thing, I can't readily access it, so nobody should have it. Like the kid taking his ball away after losing at soccer. Except this is someone else's ball?
Open to changing my view
https://www.thisamericanlife.org/415/crybabies/act-three-0
The ADA has dramatically improved accessibility for those with mobility impairments:
" When asked whether access to public facilities had improved, 75 percent or more of respondents in 1994, 1998, and 2000 reported that they had perceived improvement. Not surprisingly, the percentage of people with disabilities going out to restaurants regularly has increased from 34 percent in 1986 to 57 percent in 2004."[0]
[0]: https://ncd.gov/rawmedia_repository/f493e262_8a9e_49c8_ad84_... pg 45
If the goal was to increase access to this facility, it failed miserably.
If the position is that pre-ADA inaccessible buildings should just all be razed, well, that's a point of view I guess. But the plaintiff doesn't get to deny their culpability for shutting this place down. They are 100% responsible. But for their lawsuit, the place would still be open.
And if their goal was to make the place comply with the law, why did they ask for a $60k settlement? Did they somehow incur $60k in damages because their friend had to go in and pick up the coffee? It seems like if what they wanted was compliance with the law, they would have asked for that or nothing. Unless of course maybe, just maybe an easy payday was the point all along.
Where do you draw the line though? If accessibility is not a requirement of doing business, disabled people can't access a large proportion of places, either out of indifference (it's cheaper) or just not considering it.
Furthermore, the ADA (at 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/12182) defines discrimination to include:
> a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities[...], where such removal is readily achievable
with readily achievable meaning:
> easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action is readily achievable, factors to be considered include—
> (A) the nature and cost of the action needed under this chapter;
> (B) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the action; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such action upon the operation of the facility;
> (C) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities
In addition, for the complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 12183(a)(2) ("facilities altered [...] must be made readily accessible"), there is a requirement that "such alterations [...] are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope" (I'm unclear on the claim that "the Facility was designed and constructed (or both) after January 26, 1993" as this appears to contradict the article's claim that "her nearly 100 year-old building needed some upgrades").
There does not appear to be any intent to place any undue burden on a business.
One side is the ADA is from 1990, and 30 years is a long time to wait for public places of business to be accessible. It is compelling to say you must be open for business for all people, if you're open for business.
On the other side, sometimes the required renovations are expensive. Part of the problem is that building modifications may trigger compliance requirements, but many jurisdictions don't check for accessibility (or not properly) as part of a modification permit. It would be good for accessibility to be checked as part of occupancy permits as well.
Another part of the problem is that the enforcement structure of private lawsuits is by nature very adversarial. There's pros and cons, but it means business owners need to budget for renovation and legal fees in response to a complaint filed by lawsuit.
I wish there was a better way to acheive compliance, though. If you can't afford the renovations now, make the plan now, and a binding commitment to set aside funds for it, and make the renovations when funds are ready, or within the 18? months. And the commitment follows the occupancy of the building --- like a lien. If the renovation is not done as comitted, the premises are no longer a legal place of business until they are. This may help encourage landlords to participate in making their spaces accessible --- it will need to be done before they can rent to another business if the current business is forced to leave.
https://www.burnhamnationwide.com/final-review-blog/a-misund...
>Title III also specifically states that for public accommodations discrimination includes “failure to remove architectural barriers . . . in existing facilities” unless it can be shown that removing a barrier is “not readily achievable” or accommodations cannot be provided through other means. (See 42 U.S.C. Section 12182(b)(2)(iv)&(v))
>The ADA defines readily achievable as “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense.” The statutory definition also provides factors to be considered in determining whether barrier removal is readily achievable and recognizes what may be achievable for one business might not be for another:
>The nature of cost of the required barrier removal;
>The financial resources of the involved facility or facilities;
>The number of people employed by the facility;
>The effect on the facility’s expenses and resources;
>Impact on the operation of the facility;
>Overall finances of the covered entity;
>The number of employees in the covered entity;
>The number type and location of its facilities;
>The type of operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure and functions of its workforce; and
>The geographic, administrative or fiscal relationship of the facilities at issue to the covered entity.
>(See 42 U.S.C. Section 12181(9))
There hare hundreds of options available to the business owners up front. This keeps happening because they are willfully ignorant of the law of the land and refuse to do anything about it until someone decides to sue.
It said her options were either build a ramp for $100k or settle for $60k. Who can she settle with, and who agrees that she doesn’t need to build a ramp anymore? What happens if someone else comes along and wants a ramp?
>Tran said. “And even if we settle, there’s always the risk of someone else coming around and suing us again.”
Lawyers. Architects. Permits. Construction. Traffic control during construction. Environmental studies. Heck, even archeological studies if it's the right area. Maybe even soil remediation if it's determined there's anything below the ramp, like oil or radon, or who knows what.
Plus, if any of it touches the sidewalk, you might have to pay the city rent every month for as long as the building stands.
100k for a freaking ramp is clearly an absurd distortion.
Glancing at the pic of the front of the business, it looks like they'd need about 5 vertical feet to cover both sets of stairs. To keep a ramp at appropriate grade (1:12), that may consume quite a lot of space. Unless I don't understand grades, 60-ish feet.
Once you add permitting costs, business downtime while the front of your building is gone, and possibly removing big chunks of that patio to make room, $100k doesn't seem that unreasonable. And that door looks narrow too; that may well need to be widened.
If interior renovations are required (bathroom not large enough?) it's easy for things to get very expensive, very fast. And in a 100 year old building, you quite likely also have lead paint and asbestos. A small asbestos remediation can easily run $13k (source: did one).
And if the business is going to be closed for more than a week, don't forget paying your employees. You obviously don't have to, but if you tell your employees you aren't paying them for 3-12 weeks, they probably won't still be there when you reopen.
You're right about what you wrote. The coffeeshop is on a small plot raised pretty high off the ground. The only way you can get a ramp in there which is ADA compliant is by demolishing the patio area, which accounts for half the seating of the coffeeshop itself.
New built businesses should be build to comply with the building code at the time, which can include disabled access.
Older businesses can be upgraded, at taxpayer expense, if that's what the government wants. It's insane and a violation of basic property rights to force business owners to upgrade older buildings at their own cost.
And Apple doesn’t care. What are you going to do, sue them for ADA violations? That’s only for mom-and-pop coffee shops.
ADA has a purpose. However, it should be limited to corporations above a certain revenue (like how GDPR is limited) and the cost of non-compliance drastically increased. At this point, Apple can afford to be non-compliant while this coffee shop has to close, which is the worst of all possible worlds.
Yes, maybe small claims is enough to provoke a response.
They said google/android was hit or miss, usually miss.
EDIT: I also recall the quote...
"When we started Apple, Steve Jobs and I talked about how we wanted to make blind people as equal and capable as sighted people, and you'd have to say we succeeded when you look at all the people walking down the sidewalk looking down at something in their hands and totally oblivious to everything around them!" ― Steve Wozniak
rolleiflex, have you tried sending an email about this problem to Tim Cook? tcook@apple.com
From what I understand real problems like yours can thereby get escalated to someone able to fix them.
Does that mean that you also believe that only corporations above a certain revenue should comply with laws against racial and sexual discrimination?
If not, what makes discrimination against the disabled worthy of such a limit while sexual and racial discrimination aren't?
Maybe their business caters to rich white men who would stop patronizing the business if it allowed customers of other genders and skin tones? Obviously that doesn't make it "right", but if you're going to let the cost of complying with the law determine whether or not a business needs to follow it, then pretty much any bad behavior could be justified as costing too much to rectify.
https://www.fcc.gov/general/internet-based-trs-providers
I would suspect that's how they can get away with something like that.
I thought it was possible for deaf people to call 711 and get an operator to relay the call. We get relay calls like that in our call center frequently.
If I had dropped the call because of that, I'm sure my manager would have been very unhappy.
one example of such service: convorelay.com
Also, while the lack of minimum size has vicious aspects, that has pushed small areas without large chains to also be compliant. Someone in a small town being unable to go to any businesses because due to being in a wheelchair is likely much worse off than someone in the same situation in a large city where the large chains have ADA compliance designed in from the start.
It "should" but that would be contrary to the (true) purpose of our fake democracy. Which is precisely to pamper, shield, and effectively exonerate private entities above a certain revenue.
The ADA accounts for this by saying that existing properties only need to remove barriers if "readily achievable". One of the factors that go into determining if that is the case is:
> The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved in the action; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources;
Although, the ADA doesn't give you that out if you've made modifications to the property... which could very well be the case here, since this business didn't even exist until long after the ADA was in full force.
However, I don't think the size of the business should have anything to do with it. Bigger businesses can of course afford more--but there are also more possible points of contention.
As for modifications--removing steps from a building built for them is a big problem. Wheelchair ramps are long, there often simply isn't a reasonable place to put them.
Is this specific to Apple Care?
The ADA act has made a huge difference in people's lives since it's passage in the '90s. We see these stories over and over which, is important to keep in mind, the exception not the rule. The majority of buildings are built ADA compliant now and most older buildings can be modified relatively inexpensively.
Yes, this was the exception but even, in this case, the business was merged with another local building.
One thing people always forget is that we all get old and many of us will end up with mobility limitations and we will be glad that a business is ADA compliant and we have the ability to access it.
> People get upset over this kind of cases but not being able to access a business is as discriminatory as the business shutting the door to someone because there's something the business does not like about that person.
There is a huge difference, morally and legally, between
- Not spending $$$ on accommodating people.
- Not going out of your way to accommodate people.
- Closing your door in the face of potential business because you don't like people.
It so happens that the ADA prohibits all of them (Edit: Language quoted below makes me unsure about whether or not it actually fully prohibits the first), many other anti-discrimination laws do not, and certainly I do not view someone who does the first the same as someone who does the third.
This is exactly why we have the law in the first place. If a group of people vs another can't access a business then it's discrimination. Which means a whole group can't get the services they need. If everyone felt like you did then stores, parks, schools and so many more services that are essential to life would be inaccessible to that group.
Fix 5% per year, it'll be done soon enough.
So, not strange at all, we already are, just not in a convoluted way.
She has another coffee shop, and a restaurant, and says that she'll be incorporating the empty space into the restaurant.
So I guess that these are all incorporated separately?
> While the 950 Alameda location permanently closed Friday, coffee aficionados can visit the other Cafe Crema location at 1202 Alameda. [emphasis added]
So Cafe Crema is not going out of business. Just the one location is closing.
And there's also this:
> Tran said she could not meet the lawsuit’s demands to bring the entrance up to code, claiming it would cost her upwards of $100,000 to tear down and rebuild an ADA compliant ramp. The other option to opt for a settlement was not in the cards either, added Tran, who said she could not afford paying a massive $60,000 payout.
So if she didn't comply or settle, what happened to the lawsuit? From the complaint,[0] the defendant is:
So who owns the second location?I was wrong about the restaurant, however. From TFA:
> The original Cafe Crema will be consolidated on Feb. 1 into Tran’s restaurant, Pier 402, located at 238 Race Street.
So I guess that entrance will no longer exist, solving the problem.
0) https://www.sanjoseinside.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Cre...
Seems like a decent thing to do to at the least raise an issue with a business owner and bring it to their attention, ideally face to face.
> ...businesses are not given warnings or a “grace period” to correct violations. > > Plaintiffs can simply sue with little or no notice. That’s why law firms like Moore’s can easily swoop in with a lawsuit.
Seems like businesses should be given a chance first. Seems like the barrier is too low to get these lawsuits dealt out. Give folks a fair chance. This may even be an opportunity for some civic body of volunteers or even a chamber of commerce to proactively approach businesses in advance and get them into shape.
Said busineness had 13 years to come into compliance.
How long do you think a coffe shop which does not comply with the tax code would be in busines for? If anything this story is about how slow and innefectual the enforcement is.
The problem is that requiring this ramp is not a reasonable accommodation to most people. You basically have to wreck the business to make it accessible.
In practice the result is the building is unusable, it's going to have to be razed because someone was greedy.
That said, I don't understand why sending a letter should cost you there ability to claim damages later.
I don't understand that restriction either about forfeiting damages. I'm not sure the details precisely, but I'm of the opinion of second chances and a three strikes you're out sort of deal here. Maybe not literally three but obstinate refusal to address the problem.
* https://padailypost.com/2019/03/22/another-business-hit-with... * https://padailypost.com/2018/01/05/2-local-restaurants-settl...
A lot more can be seen in this site search, they really follow these stories and do a good job raising awareness of the problem: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fpadailypost.c...
There's a real good in depth outline of the whole subject covered by Mark Pulliam who used to practice in CA. https://www.city-journal.org/html/ada-litigation-monster-151...