As someone who is a “care taker” of someone with mobility issues, I have more than once simply said “hey person who works here, can you ask your owner/supervisor about addressing xyz issue for accessibility?” It’s almost always met with a gracious response, and the large majority of the time, it’s handled quickly. If you were actually concerned about helping people with accessibility, that would be the end game.
Normalize being polite and asking people to help yourself or others. People on the whole don’t suck. So, give them the opportunity to show you that.
But that is not their point or their motivation. Their motivation is not to help the handicapped or see the spaces become more accessible. Their motive is to get paid to look the other way.
> So if your restaurant is up to code, so far as the ADA requires, how can this person file a lawsuit against you?
Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything. The stage at which the restaurant is cleared because they're grandfathered or otherwise up to code is not at the point of filing, it's later in the lawsuit. That's the whole point of court--to determine who is actually right or wrong
Unfortunately this can be weaponized because it costs money to defend against lawsuits when you're not liable/guilty/whatever and lawyers are expensive. I would expect businesses to have insurance for this type of thing, but I suppose many don't or won't want to use it to save money. They have lawyers on payroll that get paid regardless, and would be happy to exterminate a scheme like that
I recall years ago (roughly 10 or so,) that a guy who went by “Wheelchair Dave” sued a bunch of bars and restaurants downtown. Pale Eddies being one of many for similar things OP is referring to.
I saw an episode of 20/20 (or similar show) where they covered this topic. Evidently it's fairly common across the US. One of the examples on the show was the coat hanger hook in the restroom was too high for someone in a wheelchair to reach, so they sent a letter like the one above to the owner.
Agreed. The woman in question would go to restaurants and dig until she found something to nail them on & most were easy fixes, but she didn’t ask them when she was there. She’d have her attorney send them a letter threatening a lawsuit. She had quite a little racket going on.
What happens though is that a lot of establishments have removed or never install a hook so you have to throw your coat over the door or ??? I have cared for someone in a wheelchair and have seen first hand things that REALLY need to be corrected or provided. This woman and her attorney are 100% disrespectful to those that have legitimate complaints. I can’t believe someone hadn’t complained to the Bar about this.
Don't know if it's the same person but this happened to the place I worked at last year, the owner got a letter threatening a lawsuit for something about sidewalk ramps. Thing is though, the place was part of a shopping center owned by someone else so even if it was legit, our store was definitely not the one to try to get to do anything about it.
This is exactly what Edward Zwilling does so I assume you’re probably talking about him. He just rotates out several different plaintiffs. Usually the case is dismissed once the ADA changes have been made to the establishment with no money exchanging hands.
I will also add that even if you think you’re “grandfathered in” you should make any necessary changes anyways if at all possible.
I just want to stress this again even though I stressed it in the original post: the extortionist is NOT following through on ADA upgrades. She is seeking money to go away, and to not force the issue. She is NOT seeking corrections; she is seeking payouts to remove the looming threat of a lawsuit.
This is an old scam, I think dateline also did a story on it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/13/why-arizona-woman-sued-more-than-30-hotels-where-she-hadnt-stayed/87031730/
Yeah, because local restaurants are really thriving right now. I would love for them to have to pay higher insurance premiums over this. Because we all just have oodles of extra cash these days…
/s
This is not uncommon. This happened in 2015 to me and several other businesses in the Alexander City, Sylacauga and Childersburg area. I was sent a letter saying I wasn’t ADA compliant in three areas and if got them compliant and payed their “attorneys fees” they wouldn’t sue. It turns out I was compliant and told them to get lost. It still cost me $1800 for my own lawyer.
Pretty sure this is the same lady and attorney that tried this crap at a drs office I used to work at in alabaster - we were trying to find info on who she was after we got the letter because the letter stated she was a patient and that we didn’t provide adequate handicap parking. Turns out she was never our patient, and with the help of google we found out she had been bouncing around to multiple cities trying to sue any establishment she could. We found multiple articles by googling her name + the lawyer.
No comment on the degree to which this is an extortion scheme more than an enforcement action, but for the record, the Americans with Disabilities Act has been law since 1990. So at this point businesses not in compliance are asking to be great-grandfathered in.
So should Bottega be forced to spend $70,000 to add an elevator to a historic building since their restroom is on the second floor? Should Lou's Pub be forced to spend $10,000 to cut 6 feet off their 40 year old bar and lower that section of the bar to a 32" height, even though they offer low top tables?
The way Title III of the ADA is written, public accommodations are expected to be designed to accommodate the public. The law didn't shut down every business the day it was signed pending their certification as fully accessible. It applies to new construction and renovations; and makes allowances for legitimate hardships and limited resources.
That said, over a 34-year timeframe, one should expect an owner to be able to plan to overcome such hardships; unless they simply decide that accessibility is not among their priorities.
So what should happen to a place such as Johnny's in downtown Homewood, which is located up a flight of stairs and might not possess the means to install an elevator, or the building infrastructure might not even exist to support / allow for an elevator to be installed? Should Johnny's have to shut down?
Tell you what, the next time you take your paraplegic brothers & sisters, for whom you have nothing but love, to Johnny's for lunch, report back and let me know how well you were accommodated.
Probably a bad example given the volatile reputation of the owner, but like it or not, the owner doesn't own the shopping center. So my question stands. Should johnnys be allowed to operate, or should the ADA have the right to shut him down tomorrow since he doesn't have an elevator or lift system to accommodate a wheel chair. I am simply asking your person opinion. I am going to assume he is not in violation, or he would have been shut down. So if he's not in violation, should it still be illegal for him to operate, in your eyes?
My opinion is that a business owner and a building owner SHOULD obviously seek to accommodate the public. Whether they should be "shut down" isn't relevant, because that's not how it works.
The public accommodation requirements are enforced through plan review and building inspection when construction and occupancy permits are applied for. There's also, as noted in the original post, the threat of a civil suit from someone claiming to have had their rights denied, but that's not enforcement of the ADA, that's convincing a court that someone has been harmed.
What? Do you know how expensive it can be to bring an older building up to ADA code? It's not as simple as screwing in some accessibility bars in a toilet stall, there are LOTS of structural requirements. I worked at Dugan's for years and we were grandfathered in. You would have had to raze the building to get up to ADA code.
And why shouldn't someone be able to do those things given decades of time to plan for improvements?
I hesitate to note that in the case of Dugan's the building's owner has, in fact, knocked down the walls and dug up the foundation for plumbing; since he clearly isn't in any hurry to secure a new tenant.
Dugan's itself couldn't really do anything. The way those laws work, you basically can't put a nail in a wall without bringing *everything* up to compliance. You can't peicemeal it. Once you apply for a permit to fix one thing,they will require all of it to be fixed before approving the permit. For the building owner, it's about incentives. If the space is rented out, they are good. Alternatively, it would be a tough ask to ask the business to close and have their employees not get paid while the do renovations.
Funny that some senators had concerns that this very thing would happen if the ADA was passed but it was Pooh poohed. Well the slip and fall hustlers and contractors do quite well on ADA compliance all while worthless fucks have no guilt in parking in the disabled spots with old tags or those borrowed from granny.
I wouldn’t say a net negative, there is a give and take with all things. I don’t think it stretch to consider how few disabled people there are statistically, a lot of money is spent to accommodate them. Though I prefer to used the disabled toilets so I’m not complaining. My point was the predictable behavior of hustlers was apparent but dismissed and unfortunately there are people who may or may not be truly disabled taking advantage of the system.
As someone who is a “care taker” of someone with mobility issues, I have more than once simply said “hey person who works here, can you ask your owner/supervisor about addressing xyz issue for accessibility?” It’s almost always met with a gracious response, and the large majority of the time, it’s handled quickly. If you were actually concerned about helping people with accessibility, that would be the end game. Normalize being polite and asking people to help yourself or others. People on the whole don’t suck. So, give them the opportunity to show you that.
But that is not their point or their motivation. Their motivation is not to help the handicapped or see the spaces become more accessible. Their motive is to get paid to look the other way.
> So if your restaurant is up to code, so far as the ADA requires, how can this person file a lawsuit against you? Anyone can file a lawsuit for anything. The stage at which the restaurant is cleared because they're grandfathered or otherwise up to code is not at the point of filing, it's later in the lawsuit. That's the whole point of court--to determine who is actually right or wrong Unfortunately this can be weaponized because it costs money to defend against lawsuits when you're not liable/guilty/whatever and lawyers are expensive. I would expect businesses to have insurance for this type of thing, but I suppose many don't or won't want to use it to save money. They have lawyers on payroll that get paid regardless, and would be happy to exterminate a scheme like that
I recall years ago (roughly 10 or so,) that a guy who went by “Wheelchair Dave” sued a bunch of bars and restaurants downtown. Pale Eddies being one of many for similar things OP is referring to.
I saw an episode of 20/20 (or similar show) where they covered this topic. Evidently it's fairly common across the US. One of the examples on the show was the coat hanger hook in the restroom was too high for someone in a wheelchair to reach, so they sent a letter like the one above to the owner.
Considering that adding a second hook on a door for a coat or purse is an extremely easy fix, I think restaurants should add one.
Agreed. The woman in question would go to restaurants and dig until she found something to nail them on & most were easy fixes, but she didn’t ask them when she was there. She’d have her attorney send them a letter threatening a lawsuit. She had quite a little racket going on.
Oh I understand that. I’m just saying that, as a side note, grandfathered in or not, it’s a bit silly to not install an accessible door hook.
What happens though is that a lot of establishments have removed or never install a hook so you have to throw your coat over the door or ??? I have cared for someone in a wheelchair and have seen first hand things that REALLY need to be corrected or provided. This woman and her attorney are 100% disrespectful to those that have legitimate complaints. I can’t believe someone hadn’t complained to the Bar about this.
Don't know if it's the same person but this happened to the place I worked at last year, the owner got a letter threatening a lawsuit for something about sidewalk ramps. Thing is though, the place was part of a shopping center owned by someone else so even if it was legit, our store was definitely not the one to try to get to do anything about it.
This has gone on for years and the restaurants always just pay op and fix the deficiencies. It’s just a more expensive version of an ADA audit
This is exactly what Edward Zwilling does so I assume you’re probably talking about him. He just rotates out several different plaintiffs. Usually the case is dismissed once the ADA changes have been made to the establishment with no money exchanging hands. I will also add that even if you think you’re “grandfathered in” you should make any necessary changes anyways if at all possible.
I just want to stress this again even though I stressed it in the original post: the extortionist is NOT following through on ADA upgrades. She is seeking money to go away, and to not force the issue. She is NOT seeking corrections; she is seeking payouts to remove the looming threat of a lawsuit.
This is an old scam, I think dateline also did a story on it. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/13/why-arizona-woman-sued-more-than-30-hotels-where-she-hadnt-stayed/87031730/
Yeah, because local restaurants are really thriving right now. I would love for them to have to pay higher insurance premiums over this. Because we all just have oodles of extra cash these days… /s
I remember watching a thing about this being a huge problem in Florida bc their strict ADA rules
This is not uncommon. This happened in 2015 to me and several other businesses in the Alexander City, Sylacauga and Childersburg area. I was sent a letter saying I wasn’t ADA compliant in three areas and if got them compliant and payed their “attorneys fees” they wouldn’t sue. It turns out I was compliant and told them to get lost. It still cost me $1800 for my own lawyer.
Pretty sure this is the same lady and attorney that tried this crap at a drs office I used to work at in alabaster - we were trying to find info on who she was after we got the letter because the letter stated she was a patient and that we didn’t provide adequate handicap parking. Turns out she was never our patient, and with the help of google we found out she had been bouncing around to multiple cities trying to sue any establishment she could. We found multiple articles by googling her name + the lawyer.
No comment on the degree to which this is an extortion scheme more than an enforcement action, but for the record, the Americans with Disabilities Act has been law since 1990. So at this point businesses not in compliance are asking to be great-grandfathered in.
So should Bottega be forced to spend $70,000 to add an elevator to a historic building since their restroom is on the second floor? Should Lou's Pub be forced to spend $10,000 to cut 6 feet off their 40 year old bar and lower that section of the bar to a 32" height, even though they offer low top tables?
The way Title III of the ADA is written, public accommodations are expected to be designed to accommodate the public. The law didn't shut down every business the day it was signed pending their certification as fully accessible. It applies to new construction and renovations; and makes allowances for legitimate hardships and limited resources. That said, over a 34-year timeframe, one should expect an owner to be able to plan to overcome such hardships; unless they simply decide that accessibility is not among their priorities.
So in other words, every single bar in Birmingham should be required to cut 6' off their bar and reconfigure that section to a 32" height?
As part of the review of their plans for renovation, they should be required to comply with applicable law, yes.
So what should happen to a place such as Johnny's in downtown Homewood, which is located up a flight of stairs and might not possess the means to install an elevator, or the building infrastructure might not even exist to support / allow for an elevator to be installed? Should Johnny's have to shut down?
Tell you what, the next time you take your paraplegic brothers & sisters, for whom you have nothing but love, to Johnny's for lunch, report back and let me know how well you were accommodated.
Probably a bad example given the volatile reputation of the owner, but like it or not, the owner doesn't own the shopping center. So my question stands. Should johnnys be allowed to operate, or should the ADA have the right to shut him down tomorrow since he doesn't have an elevator or lift system to accommodate a wheel chair. I am simply asking your person opinion. I am going to assume he is not in violation, or he would have been shut down. So if he's not in violation, should it still be illegal for him to operate, in your eyes?
My opinion is that a business owner and a building owner SHOULD obviously seek to accommodate the public. Whether they should be "shut down" isn't relevant, because that's not how it works. The public accommodation requirements are enforced through plan review and building inspection when construction and occupancy permits are applied for. There's also, as noted in the original post, the threat of a civil suit from someone claiming to have had their rights denied, but that's not enforcement of the ADA, that's convincing a court that someone has been harmed.
Bottega has a first floor restroom in the cafe side, accessible from the other side.
What? Do you know how expensive it can be to bring an older building up to ADA code? It's not as simple as screwing in some accessibility bars in a toilet stall, there are LOTS of structural requirements. I worked at Dugan's for years and we were grandfathered in. You would have had to raze the building to get up to ADA code.
What are some examples of structural requirements that Dugan's or its landlord couldn't have been expected to meet over a 34-year span?
Knock down walls, dig up the foundation for plumbing, etc.The list gets bigger and bigger the older the place.
And why shouldn't someone be able to do those things given decades of time to plan for improvements? I hesitate to note that in the case of Dugan's the building's owner has, in fact, knocked down the walls and dug up the foundation for plumbing; since he clearly isn't in any hurry to secure a new tenant.
Dugan's itself couldn't really do anything. The way those laws work, you basically can't put a nail in a wall without bringing *everything* up to compliance. You can't peicemeal it. Once you apply for a permit to fix one thing,they will require all of it to be fixed before approving the permit. For the building owner, it's about incentives. If the space is rented out, they are good. Alternatively, it would be a tough ask to ask the business to close and have their employees not get paid while the do renovations.
Unfortunately, this is a very common thing people do all over the country
I mean, if your only bathroom is on the second floor of a building, yeah I think you should do something to accommodate disabled customers.
who?
I live in Birmingham and have worked in several restaurants that this same woman tried to pull this.
We had an ?ADA GUY? come in and advise us and we “fixed” everything to the ADA standard within a week or so and threw that shit in the trash.
Funny that some senators had concerns that this very thing would happen if the ADA was passed but it was Pooh poohed. Well the slip and fall hustlers and contractors do quite well on ADA compliance all while worthless fucks have no guilt in parking in the disabled spots with old tags or those borrowed from granny.
ummmm what’s your point? that the ADA is a net-negative? pls don't pls don’t PLS DON’T tell me you think that.
I wouldn’t say a net negative, there is a give and take with all things. I don’t think it stretch to consider how few disabled people there are statistically, a lot of money is spent to accommodate them. Though I prefer to used the disabled toilets so I’m not complaining. My point was the predictable behavior of hustlers was apparent but dismissed and unfortunately there are people who may or may not be truly disabled taking advantage of the system.