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.

Following an on-going Chipotle case as covered previously:

Chipotle Deprived Disabled of Food View [From San Francisco Chronicle: Chipotle and Disabled Rights Lawsuit]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won’t stop a disabled man’s lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill for having counters too high for a person in a wheelchair.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from the Denver-based chain.

Maurizio Antoninetti sued when he found that he could not see the Chipotle food preparers because of the height of the counters. A federal judge ruled against him, saying Antoninetti had sued dozens of other places for access violations and dropped the suit after received cash settlements.

The judge said Antoninetti was insincere about wanting to return and eat at Chipotle.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the judge’s ruling, saying Antoninetti’s litigation history cannot be used against him.

The case is Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Maurizio Antoninetti, 10-1051.

[From Huffington Post: Supreme Court Permits Maurizio Antoninetti's Lawsuit Against Chipotle]

If you are aware of this past lawsuit back in 2006, and you’ve been to a new Chipotle you will notice that even some of the new ones are not built to the standards required by that lawsuit (of having a continuous lowered counter).

The lesson here is simply that a business’s responsibility to follow the law cannot be waived for external reasons.

I’m sure more information will come forth soon.

Comment below and share your thoughts on this!

If you want more tips on accessibility you can go here: Accommodation Compliance Rules and Regulations

Another restaurant closed, this time due to a legal battle with Scott Johnson.

You can catch the story here:

Donner Lake Kitchen, a popular family-owned restaurant in rural Truckee, Calif. is closing its doors following a legal battle with attorney Scott Johnson, who is said to have filed “countless” complaints of lack of handicap accessibility at California businesses. The owner estimates that $20,000-$60,000 in repairs and upgrades would have been needed to bring the dining establishment into ADA compliance.

From Sierra Sun via CJAC via Overlawyered.com.

Find out more about Scott Johnson. This was on Sacramento Channel 10 earlier this year on Feb.

A shame, but don’t let this happen to you. Find out about your ADA liabilities.

Question? Comments? Feedback? Comment below, or email me at help@ytaccess.com or call 866 982 3212.

The majority of lawsuits arising from ADA violations are aimed at smaller businesses.  Many of those lawsuits hurt businesses as the steep cost of defending those lawsuits for violations (which most likely are, strictly speaking, in fact violations) prompt potentially large settlements.  These settlements are usually at least $4,000.00 + attorneys fees.

Well, now there’s a new bill aimed at helping those small businesses.  This bills hopes to deter serial litigants from threatening small businesses for items which are readily achievable.  Will this bill pass? It’s labled H.R. 881.

March 7, 2011 (San Diego’s East County) — Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon) recently introduced legislation aimed at curtailing what he views as frivolous lawsuits against small businesses that are allegedly in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The bill, entitled the ADA Notification Act, would provide businesses accused of an ADA violation with a 90-day grace period to make necessary modifications.

“It’s bad enough that small businesses are facing enormous challenges due to the current economic downturn,” Rep. Hunter said in a press release. “What they don’t need to contend with are any other unnecessary obstacles that impede growth and competitiveness. But that’s exactly what’s happening in San Diego with predatory ADA lawsuits.”

Our thoughts on this proposed legislation is that yes, businesses should become compliant, they should at least fix the items which are readily achievable (which is a classification of items relatively inexpensive to fix — and also the class of ADA violations which are in fact the most sued over) and yes, businesses should absolutely understand what laws effect their bottom line.

But rather than introducing more government oversight and legislation, the key to compliance should be EDUCATION not legislation.

Will this 90 day grace period prompt a business to fix the items in question properly?

Will a 90 day grace period be long enough for a business to find, qualify and hire a contractor to properly install items like grab bars, signage, restroom amenities and parking striping?

The area of law surrounding the ADA have multiple requirements. It’s possible that hiring any contractor will not only the business MORE LIABLE but also leave the contractor liable as well.

That would be a disastrous waste of resources and funds!

Yes, it’s as I’ve been writing all along. Education and then proper action towards ADA COMPLIANCE is the only way to avoid lawsuits.

If you have any questions about the particulars of YOUR ADA COMPLIANCE best email us at help@ytaccess.com or call 866 982 3212.

You can read more about this by clicking the link below.
Read from East County via Overlawyered.Com and CJAC.

For those of you who don’t know, CASp stands for Certified Access Specialist. The short version of this history is that the California Senate passed a bill, SB 1608, which altered the nature of ADA compliance requirements for businesses.  This was an ambitious bill, pushed forward mainly by the California Chamber of Commerce.  SB 1608 has far reaching effects.  This article discusses some of the benefits of SB 1608 weighed against some of the added liabilities for business owners.

If you want a more detailed history of SB 1608, you can go to the California Chamber of Commerce ADA Reform page.  We’ve extracted some of the key points from their website, as they are quite broad of this lobbying effort.

I assume that you’re a business owner.  If you aren’t, then you’re probably either an attorney, a contractor or an architect (or an activist).  Either way, you’re interested in how SB 1608 impacts businesses, places of public accommodation as defined under Title 3 of the ADA.

Let’s start with the liabilities.  Understanding the benefits are less meaningful if you don’t know the liabilities.

I assume you’re already familiar with the responsibilities of ADA Compliance at your place of business. Basically, your business must work towards becoming 100% ADA Compliant.  There are a few things to consider in the course of this, like what kind of ADA inspection do you want to get, or when you will fix certain items.  Otherwise, the liabilities listed here are what CASp adds to your responsibility.  It’s important to note that ADA inspections are only the first step towards ADA Compliance.  An inspection, not even a CASp inpsection by itself, does ANYTHING to subtract from your duties to comply with the law.  What a complete ADA inspection does, is demonstrate good faith effort.  Inspections also are useful for contractors and architects who are not generally well versed in ADA compliance.

Liabilities of CASp Inspections

CASp and SB 1608 was passed only to protect businesses interested in ADA Compliance.  There are two main considerations.

1. A CASp inspection requires that a timeline be implemented as to when items are to be made in compliance.  There are no standard guidelines for how to assess this — as such a timeline is largely dependent on the financial resources of the entity in question.  This means that any CASp inspector needs to work with the entity in determining an accurate guide as to when items should be fixed.

If the timeline is too strict, the entity may fall behind fixing these items and in the case of an ADA lawsuit, the entity will look faulty.

If the timeline is too lax, in the case of an ADA lawsuit, the entity could have fixed certain times and remained needlessly liable for that time.

Remember the point of CASp is to become ADA compliant.  If you get a CASp Report and then do nothing, you will become more liable over time.  If you display the CASp certification, considering no one else has one, you’ll probably deter ADA lawsuits for a time.  After a time, having the CASp certification with obvious ADA violations will get you sued.  Then you’ll look extremely worse in court for not complying at all.

2.  CASp can be quite expensive, because of the added liabilities to the CASp Inspector in determining the timeline.  The average cost of CASp is $2400.

3. This is not a liability, but it is worth mentioning:  CASp goes into effect only if the site is sued AFTER getting a CASp inspection.  No protection is offered retroactively.

4. A CASp licensed individual is required to be included in building departments.  The original time line stated that such an individual was to be included as of July in 2010, but this date has been moved into 2014.  CASp is meant to bridge State Building Code and ADA guidelines, as most contractors and architects are not well versed in Federal Civil Code.  While having a CASp individual does not offer a significant benefit, as local ordnances only have jurisdiction over State law, not Federal Civil Law.  A CASp individual in the local building department is a resource to local businesses but as a state employee such an individual is limited to advising about the State regulations.  If you want the benefits of CASp, you’d still have to hire them outside of their normal building department job and pay them the required amount.

Advantages of CASp

The California Chamber of Commerce has listed 10 benefits of SB 1608 for businesses.  We have divided these benefits into two groups, for those who get CASp and everyone else.  This is the first section.

1.  Part of the fear of ADA compliance is the cost.  CASp helps a business focus on what they can pay for.  Remember, the timeline is there to help businesses comply within a reasonable time frame.  If a CASp inspector understands approximately how much a business can afford for ADA compliance per month, the cost of compliance can be spread out over time to achieve 100% ADA Compliance.

2.  CASp certification is offered for all sites, even if they are not yet compliant.  This certification can be posted on a store window to deter litigants looking for an easy target.

3. CASp tries to help businesses avoid expensive lawsuits.  To this end, CASp allows businesses to request a 90 day stay.  This means that opposing attorney can’t rack up expensive attorney fees during discovery, while you decide what to do (accept their settlement or not).

Benefits of SB 1608

The effects of SB 1608 offer several included benefits for business owners whether they get CASp inspected or not.

1. Litigating attorneys who demand money must also include a statement advising the business what their rights are.  So if you haven’t got CASp, you won’t be able to request the 90 day stay.

2.  SB 1608 limits the amount of the damages to $4,000 per visit.  Furthermore these damages must be related to the plaintiff and explained how they injure the plaintiff.  For example, having detectable warnings helps protect those who are legally blind.  Someone in a wheelchair probably won’t be able to sue for a lack of them.  Grab bars would effect such a plaintiff, however, so they will be able to make a complaint about that.

3. A clause is included in SB 1608 to help lessen the attorney’s fees in a settlement.

4. CASp individuals are going to be more common, at least loosely tied to local building deparments (see item #4 under liabilities of CASp).

5. Architects and contractors will be required to learn about the ADA as part of their continuing education so they can be at least aware of what they don’t know.

6. A State Commission is formed to help interface the Disabled Rights and interests of Building Departments.

7. Cal Chambers also lists “new deadlines” for State building code compliance with ADA requirements.  The Division State Architect was already doing this with the Department of Justice.  It’s important though, to have a codified process as the building code is updated every three years.  The ADA is also updated but less frequently.

Consequences of CASp and SB 1608

CalChambers does recognize the need for some coordination between advocacy groups and the interests of the status quo, but as a business organization, they tend to lean towards the interests of big business.  Much of what SB 1608 does is to help entities that have cash take advantage of SB 1608′s lowering of the cost of lawsuits.  Smaller businesses that do not have funds must rely on pressuring larger property management firms to help with the cost of ADA compliance.

It’s also important to note that CASp cannot stop lawsuits, they can only help make the process more difficult for litigants. One of the long term consequences of CASp is that as businesses get CASp certification, those who do not have it, or cannot afford it will face a steeper battle as they become easier targets for litigation.

Add onto this that the Unruh Civil Rights Act defines violations of the ADA as acts of discrimination — this verbage has not changed.  Intention is unimportant to this ruling, as proven in so many court cases.  Businesses that do not comply with the ADA regardless of getting CASp or not still carry the steep fines associated with acts of discrimination — $4,000.

This heavy responsibility is to be sure, mostly on businesses right now.  CalChambers and other business groups are bound to spread this liability to other responsible parties, such as architects, contractors and Real Estate Agents.  So it’s important that all responsible parties with an interest in a place of public accommodation help make their site ADA compliant,

ADA Reform however, is not finished.  Much of SB 1608 mentions benefits to business — offering little or no compensation for the rights of the disabled.  You can be sure there will be an increased effort of disabled advocates to have their say as well.

All this should be considered in getting an CASp inspection.  For a more of a fiscal view of how to balance these responsibilities with ADA compliance take a look here:

How to put a price tag on your liability.

If you’ve decided that getting an ADA compliance report is for you, congratulations.  Our ADA Consulting Services.

If you have questions or concerns call us at 866 982 3212 extension 1!  Or email us at help@ytaccess.com.  Our advice is always free.

Starting the new year (2011) on the right foot is a great way to help set the tone for the new year.

So we at YTA have decided that the best way to do that is to help all you out there notice a few of the conflicts between State and Federal Law. The state in question, of course, is California.

Between the updated 2010 Federal requirements of disabled access under the ADA for all businesses serving the public and the updated 2010 California Building Code (CBC) there are a variety of common conflicts business owners should be aware of.  Some of the common conflicts include:

1. While the CBC never allows a maximum slope of over 8.33% (1:12) the ADA has allowances for steeper slopes if the slope rises less than 3 inches the maximum slope is 12.5% (1:8).  If the rise is 6 inches the maximum slope lowers to 10% (1:10).
2. Ramps runs under the CBC can only rise to a maximum of 30 inches per run but as the length of the ramp run increases, the maximum slope decreases.  E.g., a ramp run that is 465 inches long cannot have a slope greater than 6.67% (1:15).
3. The ADA always requires a clear floor space of 18 inches square directly under each door sign whereas the CBC only requires clear floor space based on the latch side clearances for each door.
4. The CBC requires that employee parking include parking spaces reserved for the disabled.  For the CBC, the total ratio of disabled parking spaces must include employee spaces.  The Advisory for the ADA states that employee parking lots are not required to be included in the required ratio of disabled parking.
5. The ADA allows the door closer to swing into the head clearance down to 78 inches.  The CBC does not allow the door closer to drop less than 80 inches.
6. While both the ADA and the CBC now have requirements for a maximum mirror height of 35 inches for mirrors not over sinks in restrooms, the ADA advisory states that the top edge of stand alone mirrors should be no less than 74 inches above the finished floor.
7. The CBC requires that disabled parking spaces reserved for vans should always have the access aisle on the passenger side (when the van is pulling forward).  The ADA allows the access aisle to be on either side of the space except when the parking space is angled.  Angled van parking spaces are required to have the access aisle on the passenger side.
8. Parking space signs for the CBC must be at least 80 inches above the parking grade when in the path of travel.  ADA parking signs must always be at least 60 inches above the parking grade.
9. For the ADA, grab bars in restrooms can be anywhere from 33 to 36 inches measured to the top above the finish floor.  In the CBC must be exactly 33 inches on center above the finished floor, unless you are using a tank toilet and the rear bar interferes with the tank’s lid.  If that’s the case then the CBC allows the rear bar to be anywhere from 33 to 36 inches on center.

These are just some of the conflicts between the CBC and the ADA.  Negotiating these code requirements requires intimate knowledge about both the INTENT of the law and the explicit details surrounding the requirements.  Hiring an experienced Access Consultant is a must!  Should you have any questions, please email Yours Truly Accessibility Corporation at  help@ytaccess.com or call us 866-982-3212 x 1.

Interesting story about Morse Merban and Thomas Mundy.

LOS ANGELES (KABC) — Serial plaintiffs are targeting Southern California businesses, suing for alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Your tax dollars are paying for hundreds of these lawsuits.

No one disputes that the ADA is an important and valuable law. But some disabled plaintiffs have turned this type of litigation into a full-time, high-paying job.

Kathie Reece-McNeil owns the historic Aztec Hotel in Monrovia.

“Marilyn Monroe stayed here, Clark Gable,” said Reece-McNeil.

When the hotel was slapped with a fraudulent ADA lawsuit, Reece-McNeil fought back.

She could have settled the suit for $18,000. Instead she hired an attorney and won the case. But she paid a steep price in attorney fees.

“Ultimately it ended up being in excess of $100,000 dollars,” said Reece-McNeil.

“This is more profitable than narcotics, literally,” said attorney David Warren Peters.

Peters is with Lawyers Against Lawsuit Abuse.

“You can make $12,000 a day just eating three meals out,” said Peters.

(Continue…)

This could happen to you!  Read our ADA FAQ for more information.  For information about assessing your site yourself or hiring an ADA expert, please look at our ADA Consultation page.  Or call us at 866 982 3212 x2 or email us at help@ytaccess.com

It didn’t take long to figure out why a man in a wheelchair had been snapping photographs of the aisles, counters, shelves and bathrooms inside eateries and watering holes in a fashionable eastern Long Beach enclave.

On June 30, Powell’s Sweet Shoppe; Open Sesame, a Lebanese restaurant; and Panama Joe’s Grill & Cantina were served with lawsuits on behalf of Eric Moran alleging that they were in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The violations, each of which could cost a minimum $4,000 in damages, ranged from lacking a restroom grab bar to a restaurant chair out in an aisle.

(Continue…)

For updated information on ADA legislation look at California Chamber’s ADA Reform page.

Also read more about CASp consultants.

This could happen to you!  Read our ADA FAQ for more information.  For information about assessing your site yourself or hiring an ADA expert, please look at our ADA Consultation page.  Or call us at 866 982 3212 x2 or email us at help@ytaccess.com

Alot of what we talk about here revolves around the ADA being a potential tool for certain individuals to hurt businesses. While that may be true, it must not be forgotten that the ADA does much good and helps many people who would otherwise have a worse quality of life. In this way, at least for business owners, being accessible (especially if you’re the only one in town) is GREAT for business.

Hi. I’m Walking Bob and one of the joys of this blog is being able to highlight the people, places and events that make Davis a special place to live. I experienced one of those events, along with about 125 other people, at the July 31 Disability Pride Parade in Central Park, celebrating twenty years of the Americans with Disability Act.

Read more on Disability Pride Parade in Davis, CA

We must also not forget about the challenges which face many of our peers. We may assume in our everyday life that ‘we don’t see people like that’ or ‘people like that never come here’ but ask yourself, do you not see them because they do not exist? Or do you not see them because it’s hard for them to get around so many of them don’t brave the sunlight and the structural, attitudian and architectural barriers which lie around them?

You see, Richard was born without arms or legs. But he never allowed this disability to limit him. From the age of two, when he first began turning pages in books on his own, his commitment to independence has driven his personal and professional life.

Richard’s daily routine isn’t all that different from mine or yours. A video produced during his time at the California Department of Rehabilitation shows how he lives on his own, gets to work, and exercises regularly:

A day in the life of Richard Devylder

A related article, too. The Department of Transportation celebrates 20 years of the ADA.