This really grinds my gears.....

[Richard at Remax]

This story popped up on AOL and it made me really angry.

I suggust watching the video for more in debth on the story.

Disabled Man Sues Businesses for a Living

I personally think this dude is a pice of %$!@.

Thoughts?

[danielf1935]

This man gives handicap people a bad name.

[Midtowner]

If these businesses would just comply with the A.D.A...

You'd think there'd be a ready supply of A.D.A. consultants for small businesses in California with this sort of liability hanging over store owners' heads. I really don't have a problem with this because these fines incentivize voluntary compliance.

It's also a good deal for the people of California because they don't have to pay a penny in state taxes for A.D.A. cops. In fact, they probably make a lot of income tax/court costs off of this.

[bluedogok]

Part of it is the way the ADA laws are written, it is a "civil rights violation" and not a code issue. My wife and I have discussed this more than a few times, I work in architecture, she works for a small non-profit in disability advocacy, so it is more than a small part of our professional lives. I think it needs to be codified (in building codes) and should have been by now instead of leaving it up to the Dept. of Justice or at the state level like here in Texas.

The ADA has been in effect for about 17 years, most businesses should be in compliance or have been granted waivers due to hardship (usually in older, downtown areas like we dealt with in the West End of Dallas when it first went into effect) by now but many will not do anything until "forced" to. There is an advocacy group here in Austin that is very well known amongst legislators here in Texas and have become known in DC to the point of being arrested a few times during protests. They will sue as a last resort, but all they "want" in return is accessibility and it is not a money making enterprise for them.

I sent my wife the linked story and this was her response as someone who works as a disability advocate.

These businesses are dumb and need to get a civil rights lawyer before paying this guy any money. And it’s not advocacy. What good does it do to pay this guy money but still not address the access problems.

[BradR]

i saw that on CNN I think. Said he's making well into the 6 figures on that news report. Sure businesses should comply with the rules but I don't think he's deserving of a large sum of money because he couldn't see himself in the mirror in a bathroom.

[gmwise]

Well after all these years 17 {I think}, the businesses knew the law. let them suffer for being stupid and let the cities they are in get sued.
Businesses learn lessons best if they get hit hard by fines, instead of just doing it,the cheap dumbfks deserved it.

[bluedogok]

Here are some another quote from my wife on the subject.

This was in a reply to her about a former co-worker that I figured would do something like this....of course he was originally from California and not Texas.

It does sound like something [name omitted] would do but under Title III of the ADA, you can’t sue for monetary damages. You can only get attorney’s fees (of course), court costs, etc….. so these businesses really need to do some research. And this joker needs to face extortion charges. He is not helping but hurting ‘the cause’.

I figured that California may have a different set of ADA laws/rules like I know Texas and Minnesota have which are pretty much the ANSI standard with additions and a regulatory structure. California may allow some form of "restitution" to the plaintiff.

[oneforone]

It just makes good business sense to make sure you are complying with all laws when you run business. Not to mention, following ADA is just cutting your own throat if you think about. If ran a business I would want it to be available and accessible to everyone under the sun.

Then again a business should have the right to be allowed a request/warning and time to become compliant before a law suit can be filed.

I am surprised that businesses have not made a collective effort to ban him from their establishments. I know I would if he came into a business I owned and sued me without warning.

[oneforone]

double post.

[OKCMallen]

i saw that on CNN I think. Said he's making well into the 6 figures on that news report. Sure businesses should comply with the rules but I don't think he's deserving of a large sum of money because he couldn't see himself in the mirror in a bathroom.

Without monetary incentives, people wouldn't waste their time suing, and nothing would get done.

[Richard at Remax]

The businesses should still have a time period to fix the issue before he should be allowed to sue.

[southernskye]

The businesses should still have a time period to fix the issue before he should be allowed to sue.

They have had years and years to get their businesses into compliance. In some cases a lawsuit is the only way to get these companies to do what they should have already done.

I don't think this guy should be allowed to get rich from doing this,tho.

[nik4411]

I am 7 feet tall and usually can't see my face in a mirror without bending down, I guess I should find a lawyer.

[Midtowner]

Then again a business should have the right to be allowed a request/warning and time to become compliant before a law suit can be filed.

Do this and you create a situation where compliance will only happen when someone complains. There's no incentive here for voluntary compliance. Unless there is some incentive to complain, there aren't many who will. I think the California regime is perfect.

If someone is able to get rich off of businesses who are too dumb to follow easy guidelines, then good for him. Firstly, his six-figure income really isn't going to go that far where he's from. Secondly, his work is making his town more accessible to handicapped folks.

Until you have a situation where the benefits of voluntary compliance outweigh the costs, then it won't happen. I think the current plan does that. Good for California.

[OKCMallen]

Yup. What you end up with is private industry paying a private individual for enforcing public policy.

[gmwise]

oh well the dumbasses deserved what they get for not complying

[southernskye]

A woman who requires a wheelchair for mobility sued two Seattle restaurant groups Tuesday alleging that architectural barriers prevent her from gaining full access to waterfront restaurants on Piers 56 and 57.
Meg Paulsen, who has spina bifida, alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in two suits filed in U.S. District Court. One lawsuit names Great Western Pacific, Inc., which owns the Crab Pot Restaurant, The Salmon Cooker, Fisherman's Restaurant, and the Alaskan Sourdough Baker, all on Pier 57, at 1301 Alaskan Way. The other suit names Consolidated Restaurants, Inc., which owns Steamer's Seafood Cafe on the waterfront, on Pier 56, at 1201 Alaskan Way.
The suit notes that when Congress passed the ADA, commercial enterprises were given a year and a half to come into compliance with its provisions, which include removing architectural barriers for disabled people seeking access to public facilities

It's been longer than a year and a half.

Seattle PI

[Benny]

This man shows what is wrong with America.

[OKCMallen]

Oh really? What's wrong with America and this situation?

[gen70]

I otta sue that guy for sueing people.

[gmwise]

and what is the legal basis for a lawsuit?

[Benny]

Oh really? What's wrong with America and this situation?

The customers of said businesses are the ones being extorted by this crook in the long run. Every dime this animal gets comes from the customers of the companies he sues or threatens. He should be jailed for fraud.

Another example of how california is the most pathetic state in our once great country. The heathens there ruined their state then they escape to other states. Instead of learning from the process they repete it and try to ruin their new states by making them like california. There is a reason it is bankrupt and it is not because they were running it right, when you give everyone a handout eventually you run out of things to handout and those paying for the handout leave.

[Martin]

he should be jailed for fraud.

while i think that the ada is overarching to the point of absurdity and i think that this man's actions are an example of this... but fraud? how is this guy committing fraud? he's not misrepresenting himself in any way by taking or threatening to take legal action against businesses that don't conform to ada requirements. extortion... maybe. fraud? no way.

-M

[OKCMallen]

The customers of said businesses are the ones being extorted by this crook in the long run. Every dime this animal gets comes from the customers of the companies he sues or threatens. He should be jailed for fraud.

Another example of how california is the most pathetic state in our once great country. The heathens there ruined their state then they escape to other states. Instead of learning from the process they repete it and try to ruin their new states by making them like california. There is a reason it is bankrupt and it is not because they were running it right, when you give everyone a handout eventually you run out of things to handout and those paying for the handout leave.

Extorted? They are being financially pressured to conform to laws we all agreed on...it's not fraud. This is an INTENDED result of the laws. That way we don't spend government money hiring regulators to randomly wander around businesses making them ADA compliant.

Most important part of this: this is an INTENDED result. The alternative would be for these businesses to never become ADA compliant, which is NOT what we want.

[Richard at Remax]

Ill chime back in again

1) this guy says he hasn't had a job in two years. so he is probably getting some kind of disability check and riding that wave.

2) If this is the first offense of the business then they should have a grace period to get it fixed. If it is determined that it is a multiple complaint, they should have to pay the city, not this man. And if they don't get it fixed, face more penalties or get shut down.

3) You would think that since he is so determined to change the world, he would donate money to help his cause. But from his attitude that is def not the case.

4) The cheesy lawyer makes my case.

This is what shows whats wrong with the legal system. You can sue for anything if you don't get your way. Its like that group of large folks who wanted to take legal action against the ford center cause they couldn't get in the seats. Or like me filing a lawsuit against clay bennett because I can't afford courtside seats.

Look I have two sisters who are disabled. One whos had a leg amputated and one who was in a car wreck and has a head injury so Im not talking out my ass here. They realize that there are some things they can't do anymore and have accepted it. This guy hasn't accepted it and wants to take it out on the world.

Sorry for the rant but I guess Im the only one that thinks it painfully obvious this isn't right.