The following is from The Fresno Bee:

Help is on the way for Clovis business owners who have been sued over violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Monday night, the Clovis City Council approved a package of programs to help them meet state and federal regulations.
The program will allow the city to pay for seminars, inspections and matching loans to help business owners make necessary upgrades.
In the past six months, 45 lawsuits have been filed in federal court, many against Clovis businesses.

(Continued)

Also, from Clovis Independent:

Clovis to use $624,000 in federal grants
A plan to use about $624,000 in federal grant dollars — mostly to meet requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act — was approved Monday night by the Clovis City Council.

The city’s Community Development Block Grant funding also will be used for affordable housing programs, home renovation projects and a community service officer for the Clovis Police Department primarily for southwest Clovis.

Under federal block grant funding rules, the city must use the money to assist residents in low- and moderate-income communities, prevent or eliminate urban blight and meet urgent needs around the city.

(Continued)

Ralphs Grocery Store is embroiled in a class action suit across California. The suit entails that Ralphs presents architectural barriers which discriminate against individuals with disabilities. Interestingly enough many disabled rights advocates oppose the settlement because it does not ensure that the various architectural barriers will be removed.

Some useful links:

“Ralphs Faces Class Action Over Disabilites Discrimination
A California-wide class action lawsuit has been certified, pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and California State discrimination laws, against Ralphs Groceries of California. The case is Sung Park, et al. v. Ralphs Grocery Company.”
Ralphs Class Action Lawsuit Over Discrimination

Settlement Information:
Settlement of Claims Against Ralphs Grocery Company for Disabled Access

The San Francisco Mayor’s Office on Disability and the Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco (ILRCSF) have launched an online campaign to gather support for the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In order to gain the support of corporate sponsors we need to demonstrate that there are thousands of people with disabilities in every walk of life. We need to show large numbers in each of the three ways people can show their support which are:

Sign the statement of values at www.itsnormal.org: The statement is: “Disability is a natural part of the human condition. People with disabilities come from all walks of life, in all colors, sizes, genders and ages. Those of us living with disabilities bring something to the table whether it is a fresh perspective, political savviness, indomitable spirit, energizing presence, bold intellect, etc. We contribute to society BECAUSE of who we are. Human difference and diversity enriches community. Disability is not special, it’s just a part of life.”

A flyer for you to use to obtain the support of other organizations is available at: Its Normal Flyer

If you would like to add your organizations logo or to join the blog roll please contact Its Normal Event Administrator

If you use Twitter please follow @itsNormalADA at Twitter page: It’s Normal ADA
If you use Facebook become a fan of the page. It’s Normal: “Celebrating the 20th Anniversary of the ADA” at Facebook page: It’s Normal ADA

We have also started a video competition “Reclaiming Normal” People are encouraged to submit a short video (less than 10 minutes) addressing the statement: “Disability is a NORMAL part of the world we live in.” For information about submissions, due dates and prizes go to: Video Contest Information

We need to have large numbers of people with and without disabilities involved in this campaign. Getting involved is easy. Let’s all join together and show the world how large this community is and that it is time we are members of every community.

Seven businesses in the Coachella Valley were hit by San Diego resident Roy Gash this spring. Gash is represented by the law firm Pinnock & Wakefield, one of the most litigious firms in all of California in regards to ADA litigation.

Gash’s claims against John’s Restaurant in Palm Desert included an improper disabled parking space, a paper towel dispenser in the men’s room more than 48 inches from the floor, a round instead of lever doorknob on the restroom entrance door and a front counter too high to access. Gash is seeking more than $25,000, attorney’s fees and correction of the alleged violations. Gash’s lawsuit complaint states that he “desires to return to the defendant’s places of business in the immediate future.”

In the article three things are revealed about Pinnock & Wakefield:

1. Almost 2,000 ADA lawsuits have been filed by this firm
2. “Ninety percent of all cases are settled early, because that’s what the court wants,” – Theodore Pinnock
3. The average ADA settlement demand ranges from $4,000 to $7,000. From our own experience, this is true.

Click the link below to read the full article:

Link: The Desert Sun (article, August 9th, 2009)

The following is from Popehat.com, which was linked to by Overlawyered.com:

The Squeeze Inn, known for huge mounds of melted cheese on its burgers, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, [a] lawsuit alleges.

Kimberly Block, who says she has severly [sic] limited use of her legs, argues she suffered “embarrassment and humiliation” and that her civil rights were violated because of inadequate access inside the Fruitridge Road restaurant.

“In addition to its cheeseburgers, the Squeeze Inn of Sacramento California is also noted for its cramped spaces and limited seating.  Get it?  “Squeeze in.”  The restaurant is famous, having been featured on Food Network and in a number of other media.

The charm is evidently lost on Kimberly Block, who is suing the Squeeze Inn and its owner, Travis Hausauer, for alleged violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, a well-intended law that has produced an unusually high litigation burden for small restaurants and businesses.  But one wonders whether Ms. Block visited the Squeeze Inn last November to order one of its famous cheeseburgers, or to just to get a settlement check, hold the onions.

Why?  Well according to a search on Justia, this isn’t the first time Ms. Block has suffered embarrassment and humiliation so severe she felt compelled to sue a restaurant.  It’s the third time this year. While Ms. Block hasn’t yet filed enough suits to place her in the company of famous serial ADA litigants like Thomas Mundy, her lawyer Jason Singleton, like Mundy’s lawyers at Morse Mehrban, has made an industry out of the act. No doubt Block will get there in time.

Of course if Block’s suit is litigated rather than settled or defaulted, there’s room for a defense attorney to move here.  According to its owner, Squeeze Inn had already altered its patio dining area to accommodate the disabled, making the outdoor area less “squeezy.”  Did Block ask for a patio seat?  Did she order to go?”

(continued)

Links: Popehat.com (Squeeze Inn Lawsuit Article), North Coast Journal (Jason Singleton Strikes Again, the same lawyer who shut down Arctic Circle), Sacramento Magazine (Squeeze Inn Restaurant Profile), Sacramento Bee, (Facing suit, Sacramento burger joint plans to move)

“Jaewoo Jang had owned Granny’s Deli in Santa Ana less than 10 months when he was slapped with a lawsuit claiming that he violated the rights of disabled people.

He soon learned that 40 other lawsuits had been filed against 111 other small businesses and landlords in the Santa Ana area from Aug. 25 to Oct. 8, 2008. In every case, San Diego resident Noni Gotti was the plaintiff and the San Diego law firm of Pinnock &Wakefield was her attorney.”

“California has a small band of disabled plaintiffs and law firms who have filed thousands of lawsuits, usually a large number at a time, usually seeking cash payments to avoid costly trials. The state has been more generous to plaintiffs than the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

In the Granny’s lawsuit, Gotti alleged the sandwich shop had unsecured floor mats and barriers that preclude wheelchair access and sought $4,000 per offense, general damages, attorney’s fees and treble punitive damages for the claim that defendants knew of the problems and didn’t fix them.

The serial plaintiffs are unapologetic; casting themselves as crusaders doing the enforcement that government isn’t willing to do.

Gandhi said business owners can learn a couple of lessons from the Granny’s Deli case:

• If wrongly accused, the business owners have to challenge the serial plaintiffs. “Every case that gets settled for cash just encourages them to file more.”
• “Businesses have a legitimate business reason to comply with the ADA and related laws. The disabled customer’s money is as good as any other customer’s.”

Source: OC Register (Lawsuit Dropped), OC Register (Original Lawsuit Article)

In the case of an ADA lawsuit, knowing what claims are legitimate and which are frivolous is absolutely essential to win your case. In some cases, you may be able to get the plaintiff to drop the case, particularly if they think they won’t be able to win in court. In the case of a legitimate lawsuit, we can help you correct the accessibility barriers in question, and any others that you may not have been aware of, to avoid problems for your disabled clients in the future.

If you are concerned about your business’s accessibility, or are involved in an ADA lawsuit, YTA can help. E-mail us at help@ytaccess.com or call us today at 1-866-982-3212.

“Businesses that violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, even if unintentionally, can be sued for damages, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday.

“Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar concluded that was a reasonable interpretation of the state Legislature’s decision in 1992 to adopt Civil Code §51(f) to amend the state’s Unruh Civil Rights Act to include violations of the ADA. While the ADA provides only injunctive relief whether the harm was intentional or not, Section 52 of the Unruh Act provides for damages of at least $4,000 or as much as three times the actual harm.”

link: Law.com

“As a result of all the legal fees associated with the lawsuit, we had no choice but to close the facility,” says Crystal Chodes, former marketing director for Basketball Town, a special events facility for basketball, volleyball, and other sporting events for children and families.

Basketball Town was forced to close because it could not afford the legal fees required to fight a lawsuit brought by a family member of a guest at a child’s birthday party hosted at the facility.

The facility hosted parties in two areas, one of which was on a mezzanine level.

“He invited one of his friends and that friend brought his uncle, who is in a wheelchair,” says Crystal. “Once we found out through the family that one of the guests expected was in a wheelchair, we actually offered to move the party downstairs and they declined. As a result, months later we were served with a lawsuit.”

Despite the lawsuit, the facility contended that it was, in fact, in compliance with the law regulating handicapped access for its patrons.

But compliance didn’t matter when the cost to defend oneself against a lawsuit overwhelmed the company’s bottom line. Basketball Town was forced to close its doors. The closure also came at a cost to the small business on the premises.

“There was a family pizzeria here and they had invested all of their money into this, they had their family involved in it, and now the facility’s closed,” says Crystal. “They have two kids that they’ve got to put through college. Just a small business, a great family, and they have lost everything – they’re starting over.”

She says: “If it can close an entire facility that’s meant to benefit children and families, it can hurt anyone. And that has to stop.”

Editor’s Note: California Senate Bill 1608 now provides a mandatory mediation alternative to litigation (with certain pre-conditions) to help prevent this exact thing from happening to other businesses.

Link: Faces of Lawsuit Abuse (with video)
Credits: Overlawyered.com

“Mundy is trolling for barriers to his patronage — a threshold too high for his wheelchair, a parking lot with blue-striped access lanes narrower than eight feet, a public restroom where the coat hook on the back of the door, if there is one, is above his reach.

One fighter in a burgeoning army of crusaders for disabled access, Mundy says he has filed more than 150 lawsuits in 18 months demanding damages from small businesses in violation of the exacting requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Suing for ADA noncompliance has become a cottage industry for dozens of disabled Californians who have taken on the role of freelance enforcers of an often ignored federal statute. They secure piecemeal correction of offending premises and often enrich themselves and their lawyers in the process.

“I don’t go looking for problems. I just notice them as I go around,” said Mundy, who moved to Los Angeles last year from Hawaii. It was in Honolulu that he learned the intricacies of the ADA as a building department employee, a de facto apprenticeship for his new career as a serial litigant.”

(Continue to Los Angeles Times for full article)

Link: Los Angeles Times (article), AOL News (CNN video)

“Jarek Molski, 38, is a bit of a legend in legal circles. Disabled in a 1985 motorcycle accident that left him a paraplegic, he has filed 400 lawsuits against businesses under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging access violations. He was dubbed a “hit-and-run plaintiff” in 2004 by a federal judge and barred from filing any more lawsuits. Molski, of course, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which finally rejected his case on Nov. 17 without comment. Molski must now petition the Central District Court of California and all state courts first before filing any new lawsuits. (See the top 10 underreported stories of 2008.)

“Molski may sound extreme, but he is far from the only plaintiff who has filed hundreds of lawsuits under the ADA in California. A significant number of people who sue under the ADA have legitimate grievances and appear to be motivated by a sincere desire for access rather than monetary gain. However, according to David Warren Peters, CEO and general counsel of Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse, a small group of opportunists and select law firms are responsible for a huge percentage of the lawsuits. “I’ve seen plaintiffs that make Jarek Molski look like a Cub Scout,” says Peters, whose San Diego–based firm represents and consults businesses and individuals accused of ADA noncompliance across the state and country. One plaintiff, he says, has filed more than 1,000 ADA accessibility suits alone.”

Link: Time