The following is a guest article by a CASp certified architect:

SB 1186 Passes Senate Judiciary Committee on May 8

By Yung Kao, CASp CBO NCARB

May 10, 2012

When the U.S. Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1991, some people called it a “Bill of Litigation” as it requires building and business owners to retrofit existing buildings and remove “architectural barriers” that were created prior to the law. Compounded with California State laws, the ADA became a much more potent mechanism for lawsuits.

About 12,000 ADA claims were filed nationwide from 1991 to 2011, and about 8,000 of them were filed in California within the past 8 years alone.

These filed lawsuits represents only a fraction of the actual number of threats that have been made on businesses as most threat of lawsuit results in a settlement rather than a court action.

Most of those cases in California were filed by a couple dozen lawyers. These self-proclaimed access rights crusaders are generally perceived by the business community as “drive-by” litigants.  They seem to be more interested in collecting monetary settlements than improving access on the premises they sue. These cases are often filed in large batches by geographic location.  The main vehicle for these threats originates in a demand letter, stating that the stakeholder pay money otherwise a lawsuit situation will erupt.

Most businesses and property managers settle, as a court battle could result in a larger fine, along with an increased payment to the opposing attorney.

In response to the outcry from the business community, California has at least six bills dealing with accessibility claims in the current legislative session. An unexpected event to accentuate this drama is an open letter in March from Senator Dianne Feinstein to California Senate President pro Tem Darrel Steinberg, urging him to use his leadership to advance legislation that would curb the “predatory lawsuits” and “coercive demand letters” that are “unfairly and unnecessarily threaten the viability of some small businesses in our State”. The letter specifically mentioned California’s SB 1186 introduced by Republican State Senator Dutton as an example of such legislation. Steinberg’s reply letter elaborated on SB 1608 of 2008 to illustrate the legislature’s efforts in deterring frivolous ADA claims. He further explained that the “90 day to cure” provision in SB 1186 is inconsistent with other protected categories in California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.  This inconsistency with the other protected civil rights in the Unruh Act explains why any bills with provisions to include a cure period are consistently defeated.

In April, Steinberg took over SB 1186 and introduced an extensive amendment to the bill. The 90-day period to cure was deleted from the bill, while other similar bills still containing various time periods to cure, have been defeated.  Because of the lack of a cure period, Steinberg’s version of SB 1186 became the only accessibility bill in this session that was being seriously considered.

If passed, the following three major provisions would become law:

1.  Prior to filing a lawsuit, no attorneys or other parties may serve a letter that demands monetary settlement or implies that business and building owners may be liable for damages and attorney fees because of alleged ADA violations.
2. Attorneys who intend to file an ADA claim must serve a notice to the intended defendants at least 30 days prior to the filing.
3. Commercial property landlords need to disclose to prospective tenants in the lease agreements whether the premises are CASp-inspected or not.

Four accessibility bills were heard by the Assembly Judiciary Committee on May 8, and on that same day the Senate Judiciary Committee processed another two accessibility Bills, including SB 1186 as amended by Steinberg.  The Committee passed the Bill 4-1, with the descending vote interestingly by none other than the Senate Majority Leader and author of SB 1608, Senator Ellen Corbett.

It is almost inevitable that this Bill resort to the CASp inspection as established in SB 1608 in 2008 as the real solution. A major goal of the Construction-related Accessibility Standards Compliance Act of 2008 is to devise some sort of protection for the property and business owners who have obtained compliance or are in the process of obtaining compliance.  SB 1608 also introduced a new process to decide if a business deserves protection for trying to become compliant.  The process?

A comprehensive survey of the property by a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) is the key to define that someone has obtained or is in the process of obtaining compliance.

The CASp program was a result of two years negotiation among different stakeholders, and was widely hailed by the business communities including California Chamber of Commerce, California Restaurants Association, California Business Properties Association and California Hotel and Lodging Association. Though SB 1186 would not mandate any CASp inspections, it does reaffirm that the CASp inspection program is still the best solution to reduce and eventually eliminate ADA claims in California.

While SB 1168 does not eliminate ADA lawsuits entirely (as it is the right of anyone to sue anyone else) it does effectively curtail the scare tactic of demand letter settlements.  Nonetheless any full protection for the ADA requires becoming compliant.  And how do you become compliant?  CASp!  Better to do it now than wait until you only have 30 days!

Get legal protection in the form of a CASp inspection and certification.  Protect yourself from ADA lawsuits.

You can reach Yung Kao directly for comments and inquiries about his services at his direct email: accessolution@att.net, or his direct number: 626.209.9709

Alternately, you can find out more about the details of CASp and its many benefits by emailing us at help@ytaccess.com or calling us at 866 982 3212.  Any messages you leave for Yung with us, we will also forward to him.

The recent ADA lawsuit scare has had some landlords behaving strangely.

One of our clients a few months ago was sued by her landlord for not making ADA upgrades.

This is a troubling turn of events. It’s in the ADA that one’s responsibility cannot be passed onto another. The way the chips fell in this case was that the landlord had his tenant sign an updated lease otherwise he would not renew the contract with her. There was a clause in this contract which stated that she was to perform all necessary ADA upgrades to become ADA compliant within 45 days of signing the lease.

She obviously did not know what this meant.

She signed the lease, and was later sued by her landlord for failing to enlarge the restroom.

In this situation, we do not have a complaint stemming from a violation of the ADA — we have a complaint stemming from a breach of contract.

How everything stands from here depends on what can be reasonably understood by both parties as being their responsibility within the ADA — and if when signing she understood what ADA upgrades entailed.

Nonetheless, tenants should more than ever educate themselves about what ADA compliance means, and in all cases at least 1) get an estimate for the work and 2) inform their landlord of the issues with a report of their shared liability. Landlords are legally required to comply with the ADA as well — but this tactic does provide an interesting twist. We’ll have to see if he is successful at forcing his tenant to pay for all the upgrades.

Thoughts? Comment below, or write us at help@ytaccess.com. If you have specific questions about your own fiduciary responsibilities, you can call us at 866 982 3212.

More news on ADA lawsuits.

Mike Mandala knows a little bit about the Americans with Disabilities Act.

And he should.

Mainly because the two Arcadia bars he runs have been targeted by attorneys filing suits. Essentially, the suits allege his taverns violate the federal law designed to help the disabled get access.

You know: handicapped parking spots; extra-wide toilet stalls with metal rails; and signs that point out those amenities.

Mandala, part owner of The Bit on Live Oak and owner of First Cabin on Huntington Drive, was one of several local business owners blanketed with thick sheaves of legal paperwork filed on behalf of plaintiffs represented by H.J. Sims, a San Diego attorney who specializes in ADA law.

Read more here from San Gabriel Tribune

Don’t let this happen to you. Find out more about services that can help prevent litigation by helping you become compliant. ADA consultants.

Otherwise email us at help@ytaccess.com or call us at 866 982 3212

Don’t find yourself blindsighted.

PICO RIVERA – Audrey and Dan Miller have owned Barney’s Coffee Shop for nearly three decades.

In that time they’ve never had one complaint about whether their restaurant met the needs of their disabled patrons.

That changed just over a year ago when they were slapped with a lawsuit by a disabled man.

“It wasn’t a fun situation,” said Dan Miller, 59, about the litigation.

The Millers were sued Sept. 21, 2010 by Salvador Vargas, who claimed his rights were violated when he was at the restaurant, 4923 Rosemead Blvd., because its restroom facilities were not accessible to the disabled.

According to the lawsuit, there were no grab bars behind and beside the toilet plus the doorway to the men’s restroom and the paper towel dispenser were inaccessible.

A check of the men’s toilet at the time showed a grab bar on the side.

The Millers were surprised by the lawsuit.

“We were blindsided,” Dan Miller said.

[Original link here: San Gabriel Valley Tribune/a>]

ADA lawsuit reported by the Boston Herald.
[http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1029converse_store_shut_downfor_accessibility_violation/]

Converse’s flagship sneaker store on Newbury Street has been shuttered indefinitely by the state for failure to provide handicap accessibility to its entrance.

The Architectural Access Board, a regulatory agency of the Massachusetts Office of Public Safety, closed the store on Wednesday until the fixes are made to the entrance. The entrance has a seven-inch step that must be modified to make the shop wheelchair-accessible.

“Since 2009, the board and the city of Boston have tried to get Converse to comply,” said Terrell Harris, spokesman for the Executive Office of Public Safety. “Converse continued to say they would fix the problem – and they’ve been given at least four extensions to get the work done – and they’ve yet to do anything.”

Harris said the store will remain closed until the work is completed. “The ball is in their court,” he said. “Since they were shut down, they’ve done exactly what they had been asked to do in the first place: they filed a permit, submitted plans to make the fix and hired a contractor. They will have to return back to the board for approval to reopen.”

In an e-mailed statement, Terri Hines, a spokeswoman for North Andover-based Converse, said, “Converse is confident that the permanent solution and subsequent construction completion is within immediate reach and expects operations to reopen soon.”

Questions? Comments? Contact us at help@ytaccess.com or 866 982 3212

The worst thing to do is nothing.

Look at what this article taken from [Facilities.net] says:

What is the best way to proceed if you receive notice of an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violation?

If you’ve received notification that means that either a complaint has been filed in federal court or that the Justice Department has received a complaint or is investigating you. At that point, don’t say any of the following:
- “I didn’t know I had to comply.”
- “We’ve never had anyone in here in a wheelchair, so why do I have to comply?”
- “See you in court.”
- The worst thing to say is, “We can’t afford to do anything.”

The best reaction is to read or listen to what is being said, particularly if it’s coming from the Justice Department. If you receive a complaint filed in the court, read the allegations as just that — allegations. An individual with a disability may make allegations of violations that are not actually required under the ADA.

Be sure to evaluate your facility before responding (or agreeing to a settlement) so that you know exactly what your facility’s status is regarding ADA requirements. Don’t jump into a settlement with that individual/group and agree to remedy only the items they identified as they likely have not identified all issues. In that scenario, the next complaint filed with items other than those you agreed to correct will become a new complaint. Review your entire facility, put a plan together and start the corrections so that when (not if) the next complaint or question arises, you have an answer and a plan.

I would also like to add that in our experience, many small business owners think they can defend the complaint and not pay anything. Read this previous article: Small businessman’s guide to dealing with attorneys.

More often than once, a small “mom and pop” store owner will say to us, how can they sue us for the mirror in the bathroom? No one can fit a wheelchair into our restroom! And then proceed to think that they can walk into court and claim that because their restroom is inaccessible therefore they aren’t liable for an issue that they are in violation of. Another horrible situation is that they will call the plaintiff attorney and attempt to convince that attorney that they aren’t responsible (for something) because their store is too small or that they don’t have money because they have to pay other bills. In the first case, being too small only means they have more violations and in the second, they have money to pay other bills so they got money.

Don’t think you can ignore ADA violations or that somehow they magically don’t apply to you. Many of the violations can be addressed with a little bit of effort. Those that can’t be addressed can at least be foreseen so that one has an idea of how to proceed. ADA violations have at their root actual conditions, so be informed on those conditions. If you are sued once, you may be able to fight that in court. But if you don’t fix the issues you will have that happen a second time.

Our business exists because we have the expertise to help you. It doesn’t make sense to try and tackle these complex laws as your first encounter.

Some attorneys have told their clients that they can ignore them because everything is arguable in court.

Now that’s a bad attorney, as a good attorney will keep you out of court, saving you money and time in the long run. After all, tape measure does not lie.

Questions? email us at help@ytaccess.com or call us at 866 982 3212.

Much of the information we put out here is to emphasize that many of the ADA violations are addressed easily. Some are not.

This article is taken from [Facilities.net.

I’m Dan Hounsell, editor of Maintenance Solutions magazine. Today’s topic is, facility renovations and ADA.

Maintenance and engineering managers undertaking renovations in institutional and commercial facilities need to be aware of the impact on the project of requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA.

The requirements for readily achievable barrier removal under ADA began Jan. 26, 1992, and have continued since then. Organizations must remove barriers, with a few exceptions, regardless of any work being done.

Anytime a facility undergoes renovations where access barriers exist, the organization must spend 20 percent of the construction costs on removing these barriers from the path of travel. For ADA purposes, the path of travel includes water fountains and restrooms. Any renovation to a primary function area triggers this requirement. The phrase primary function area applies to an area where the activities are germane to the business, such as a bank�s teller stations.

As with the model building code — The International Building Code and the American National Standards Institute — ADA does not require barrier removal on the path of travel that exceeds 20 percent of the cost of the renovation. The major difference in this regard between ADA requirements and building codes is that the ADA requires barrier removal in existing buildings, regardless of renovations. Building codes do not come into play until renovations, alterations or new construction occurs.

Managers can find more specific information in the 1991 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, Sec.36.403 Alterations: Path of travel. ADA guidelines typically supersede a state or local building code, unless the code provides for greater or equal protection of individuals with disabilities.

I would also like to add that it’s not commonly understood that new construction can trigger the ADA. One fear of owners is that when attempting to ‘do the right thing’ one can sometimes be dragged by construction law into doing more than the minimum, especially in how the ADA influences the building code. (Many code officials we’ve spoke with don’t realize that the ADA trigger is there).

Now you’ll also get many savvy attorneys and architects that will claim that ‘legally non-conforming’ situations do not require any kind of addressing. They rightly understand that not touching existing items won’t trigger ADA compliance — but this leads to even deeper problems.

At first, their advice sounds great, as owners don’t want to hear that they need to do anything. But what these professionals don’t understand that if those ‘legally non-conforming’ structures pose fixable ADA violations, leaving those situations to persist will continually trigger even more ADA work. As time goes on, those non-compliant situations will accrue an increase in what needs to be remedied.

In other words, if you have a non-compliant ramp in your facility newly placed in 2003, and you don’t fix it right away, in 2010, not only will you be required to fix that ramp — you will also have 7 years of budget in which you could have fixed the ramp and didn’t. In court, a suing attorney will claim that what was financially remediable in 2 years is ‘easy’ over a 7 year period. That situation will look bad, as though you never intended to fix that ramp and that you are willfully discriminating.

We have heard this so often, as many owners have come to us having fallen into this situation, when they have the panic of court bearing down on them. Don’t let yourself fall into this situation! Get our exposure report so as to make informed decisions on what you are liable for so you can address it right away.

Questions? email us at help@ytaccess.com or call us at 866 982 3212.

This is a repost from [www.facililities.net].

I’m Dan Hounsell, editor of Maintenance Solutions magazine. Today’s topic is, responding to an ADA notification.

If an institutional or commercial facility receives notification of a violation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), that means either a complaint has been filed in federal court or, the U.S. Department of Justice has received a complaint or is investigating the facility.

The best reaction is to read or listen to what the notification says, particularly if it came from the DOJ. If a facility receives a complaint filed in court, read the allegations as just that — allegations. An individual with a disability might make allegations that are not actually violations under the ADA.

Managers also need to evaluate the facility before responding or agreeing to a settlement in order to understand the facility’s status regarding ADA requirements. Do not jump into a settlement with the individual or group by agreeing to remedy only the items they identified because they probably have not identified all issues. In that scenario, the next complaint filed with items other than those the facility agreed to correct becomes a new complaint.

Review the entire facility, put a plan together, and start the corrections so that when the next complaint or question arises, an answer and a plan are ready and available.

This site is addressing ADA complaints throughout the United States, especially for larger facilities, which isn’t as applicable for California as California law changes the impetus for lawsuits a little differently.

In any case, the basic idea is to verify the complaint, which we can do. Ideally though, one would be compliant in the first place so as to avoid the lawsuit.

What this article misses is that when one is sued under California law, it’s generally too late to fix the items, Federal law is different. So be sure and get inspected and fix any issues right away.

Questions? email us at help@ytaccess.com or call us at 866 982 3212

Current and pressing is an on going lawsuit. This information is public and has been re-posted in case it affects you. Feel free to distribute this as needed.

Legal Notice

IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY AND CANNOT USE A SIDEWALK IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES BECAUSE A CURBRAMP OR CURB CUT IS MISSING OR INACCESSIBLE, A PROPOSED CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

[Para ver esta notificacion en espanol, visite "www.lacity.org" o mande una carta dirigida a: Mike Arias, Esq., Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90045]

What is this about?

A settlement has been reached in two class action lawsuits involving curb ramps and curb cuts that provide access to sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways located in the City of Los Angeles. The lawsuits are both pending in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. They are known as Saundra Carter, et al.v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. BC363305, and Nicole Fahmie v. City of Los Angeles, et al., Case No. BC363305 (formerly Case No. BC381773). The plaintiffs in both actions saythat the City has violated disability access laws by failing to install or fix curb cuts or curb ramps that provide access to and from sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways located in the City.

Your legal rights will be affected if the proposed settlement is approved by the Court. This notice is only a summary and provides a general description of the proposed settlement,your right to object to the proposed settlement, and the hearing that is scheduled before the Court to evaluate the fairness of the proposed settlement.

For complete information, please see the “Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement,” available on the City of Los Angeles’ website: (www.lacity.org); or thewebsite of the plaintiffs’ counsel Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP (www.aogllp.com); or by sending a written request to: Mike Arias, Esq., Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, 6701 CenterDrive West, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90045.

Who is a Class Member?

You are a member of the class if you are an individual with any disability, who at any time:

• accessed or attempted to access a sidewalk, intersection, crosswalk, street or other pedestrian pathway located in the city of Los Angeles but were impaired or unable to doso due to: (a) the lack of a curb ramp or curb cut, or (b) a curb ramp or curb cut that was damaged, deficient, in need of repair, or otherwise in a condition not suitable oracceptable for use, or

• alleges that you would have accessed or attempted to access a sidewalk, intersection, crosswalk, street or other pedestrian pathway located in the city but for allegedly being denied such access due to: (a) the lack of a curb ramp or curb cut, or (b) a curb ramp or curb cut that was damaged, deficient, in need of repair, or otherwise in a condition notsuitable or acceptable for use.

If the definition above describes you, you will automatically be considered a member of the class. As a class member, you will be bound by the decisions of the Court.

What are the terms and benefits?

Class members will not receive money. The proposed settlement will require that the City implement a variety of measures to deal with the accessibility of curb ramps and curb cutsin the City. The purpose of this settlement is to require the City to remediate certain curb locations so that they comply with accessibility codes. Members of the class willbe entitled to submit requests to remediate curb locations in accordance with the programs to be implemented by the City.

Plaintiffs’ counsel (Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP and the Law Offices of Morse Mehrban) have determined that the settlement is fair and reasonable because it providesvaluable benefits to members of the class. Under the proposed settlement, the City will, among other things, implement a process for installation and remediation of certaincurb ramps and curb cuts throughout the City, complete a survey to assess the number of curb locations that still require remediation, and establish an advisorycommittee to render findings and recommendations regarding future appropriations of money for further installation and remediation of curb ramps and curbcuts.

If the Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement, it will enter a judgment that will be binding on all members of the class, who will be deemed to have agreedto the terms of the settlement and will not be able to opt out of the class or the settlement. Members of the class will not be provided with any monetary award and they will be barred from prosecuting in the future certain claims that they may have against the City concerning the matters at issue in the pending litigation, includingclaims for Statutory Damages.

In addition, a judgment entered by the Court will apply to all members of the Settlement Class, including members who may be represented in connection with other pendinglawsuits against the City (including, for example, an action entitled Beverly Overton v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. CV10 8882 GAF (FMOx), pending in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Central District of California; an action entitled Norman Allen v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. CV 10 0576 PSG (FFMx), pending in the United States DistrictCourt for the Central District of California; and a class action lawsuit entitled Mark Willits, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. CV10 5782 CBM (RZx), pending in the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California (the “Willits Action”). The Willits Action is a class action involving claims that the City has violated federal disabilityaccess laws, among other things, due to the condition of sidewalks and curb ramps located in the City. If you would like additional information about the Willits Action, counselfor the plaintiffs in that action are as follows: Disability Rights Legal Center, Shawna L. Parks or Surisa Rivers, 919 Albany Street, Los Angeles, CA 90015, 866-999-3752, Email drlc@lls.edu.)

Complete information about the benefits and terms of the settlement is available in the Notice of Class

Action and Proposed Settlement, referenced above.

What are my options?

If the class definition above describes you, you are automatically a member of the class. If the Court grants final approval of the proposed settlement, it will enter ajudgment that will be binding on all

members of the class. If you do not agree with the settlement, you may object to the settlement. To submit an objection, you must do so in writing, by September 7, 2011, asinstructed in the Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement.

The Court has approved the law firm of Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP and The Law Offices of Morse

Mehrban (“Class Counsel”) to represent the class. The Court is scheduled to hold a Fairness Hearing at

10:00 a.m. on October 20, 2011, at the Los Angeles Superior Court, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005, in Department 324, to determine if thesettlement is fair and reasonable.

You may ask to appear at the hearing in person, or through your own attorney at your own expense.

No agreement has been reached yet by the City and Class Counsel regarding the attorneys’ fees that may be paid to Class Counsel. It is possible that a motion for an award ofattorneys’ fees will be heard during the Fairness Hearing. In any event, the award of attorneys’ fees will not affect the benefits to be received by the class under the proposedsettlement.

For more information or for a copy of the Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, visit www.lacity.org or www.aogllp.com, or send a written request to: Mike Arias,Esq., Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP, 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90045.

You may also obtain more information about the two class action lawsuits from the case files, which are available from the Clerk of the Court, Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia for the County of Los Angeles, 600 S. Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE.

Objections:

Remember, the deadline for filing and serving objections is now September 7, 2011. After that, the court will not accept objections or allow people to be heard in court.

[Revised e-mail announcement]

Warning (New) Court Filing Deadline: September 7, 2011

Attention: Do you have a disability? Do you use Los Angeles city streets?

If you answered ‘yes’ to both these questions you are a class member of a proposed class-action settlement on the Los Angeles city sidewalks. Your rights are about to be affected for the next 25 years.

The Disability Rights Legal Center (DRLC) and David Geffen Law Firm believe that this settlement is unfair and they need you to tell the court if you do too.

What to do:

1. Fill out the attached “Objection and Notice of Intention to Appear.”

2. Return it to David Geffen by September 6, 2011.

3. Come to the hearing if you can.

These are some of the reasons why the proposed settlement is unfair to you:

1) The settlement releases your past and future claims for statutory damages, and would bar any such claims for 25 years, without providing you any monetary relief whatsoever as a members of the class;

2) Class members (you) have no opportunity to opt out of the class to avoid the 25 year waiver of entitlement to statutory damages;

3) The Settlement is also inadequate because:

a) It secures only a drop in the bucket of what is needed to make Los Angeles Streets accessible— ($4M per yearor less) will be spent to fix the Los Angeles city curb ramps over the next 20 years;

b) It provides no adjustment for inflation;

c) The amount of money to be spent to fix curb cuts is not enough to provide a sufficient number of curb ramps to provide sidewalk access;

d) The City has no obligation to install or replace curb ramps under the terms of the settlement agreement unless there are funds available from two specific sources: Gas tax funds and Measure R funds.

4) The proposed class action Settlement provides that class members will be required to use complicated request forms and sign them under penalty of perjury to have any chance of getting curb ramps installed.

The deadline for filing an objection to this settlement is September 7, 2011, and the Final Approval Hearing is scheduled for October 20, 2011 at 10am. You can object to the approval of this Settlement Agreement by filling out the form.

Please attend the hearing October 20, 2011 at Los Angeles Superior Court,

600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005, Dept. 324.

To object, simply place an “X” or your initials on the line next to any of the four categories that you agree with in the “Objection and Notice of Intent to Appear” attached to this e-mail. Use category number 5 to describe any other personal reasons why you believe this Proposed Settlement should not be approved.

To make a statement at the hearing, place an “X” or your initials at the line next to the paragraph directly below “Notice of Intention to Appear. You do not need to come to the hearing to object to this proposed agreement, nor do you need to make a statement in order to attend the hearing.

Please make sure you complete the personal information at the top of this attached form (i.e. your name, address, and telephone number), and make sure you sign and date it on page 2.

Lastly, please EMAIL, FAX or Mail us your completed “Objection and Notice of Intention to Appear” to:

David Geffen Law Firm

530 Wilshire Blvd. Suite #205

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Fax Number: (310) 434-1115

Email: geffenlaw@aol.com

(Please note that we must receive* your completed “Objection and Notice of Intention to Appear” by September 6, 2011 in order for us to get it postmarked by the September 7, 2011 deadline.)

Thank you.

David G. Geffen, Esq.

NEW YORK, Aug 8 (Reuters) – A deaf man has filed a complaint alleging a nudist organization in upstate New York violated federal law by refusing to provide him with a sign-language interpreter at an annual festival.

Tom Willard, 53, of Rochester, said in a complaint filed with the U.S. Justice Department that Empire Haven Nudist Park violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by repeatedly refusing his requests for an interpreter so he could attend workshops during the week-long festival.

“I am fed up with being turned away every time I try to do something, by idiots who somehow feel the ADA does not apply to them,” Willard wrote in the complaint.

The ADA, which took effect in 1990, requires businesses and non-profit groups to provide “auxiliary aids and services,” including interpreters, at no additional cost to an individual. First-time violations can result in fines of up to $55,000.

Willard said in an interview that in 2009 he approached Morley Schloss, a board member of the Naturist Society, which organized the festival. Schloss told Willard to hire his own interpreter and said the interpreter would not have to pay entry fees for the event, Willard said. On Aug. 2 — the day this year’s festival began — Willard said Schloss told him his group would need three days notice to provide the service.

“The interpreter I located was ready and able to do the job, so why a three-day waiting period, as if I were buying a gun or something,” Willard said.

Willard said he has no intention of suing the nudist park, and he’s simply trying to raise awareness about groups that ignore ADA requirements. He said he is also filing a complaint against a local comedy club that refused to provide him with an interpreter.

“I hate that I have to go through these experiences and subject myself to ridicule and derision, but the alternative is to stay home and never try to do anything in the world,” Willard said.

Michael Schwartz, the director of Syracuse University College of Law’s disability rights clinic, who is deaf and has known Willard for two decades, said businesses often ignore their responsibilities under the ADA because it can be cheaper not to comply.

“Because of the cost (of interpreters), many places choose to say ‘no’ even though it violates the ADA because they are making a calculated choice that they’ll get away with it,” Schwartz wrote in an e-mail.

A spokeswoman for Empire Haven, which is in the Finger Lakes region, was not available for comment, and Schloss did not return multiple requests for comment.

But in an e-mail provided by Willard, Schloss said he had only heard about the complaint when a reporter called him last week.

“I responded promptly as soon as I was made aware of [Willard's] request,” Schloss wrote in the e-mail. “We have always welcomed deaf people at Naturist events.”

(Reporting by Daniel Wiessner)

You can get the original link: [Thompson Reuters]