• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Landmark calif. Burger joint forced to shut down over ada lawsuit

DA60 said:
'A decades-old Sacramento, Calif. burger joint is shutting its doors for being out of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act because the owner says he can’t afford to bring it up to code.

Ford’s Real Hamburgers has been slinging burgers, fries and shakes for years, but was hit hard in the recession. Now, KTXL-TV is reporting that a local attorney who makes his living filing ADA cases — many on his own behalf — is suing the restaurant — and Ford‘s can’t keep up.'

Sacramento California Landmark Ford’s Real Hamburgers Forced to Shut Down Over ADA Lawsuit | Video | TheBlaze.com
Click to expand...

Lawyers like that scumbag are why I say that if the New testament was written today Mathew would have been a former greedy lawyer instead of a former corrupt tax collector. If I was a the burger joint owner I would post a sign with the picture of that rat lawyer that says my place is closing down because of him.
 
Harshaw said:
No you didn't. You posted a summary, the "guidelines." I linked to the actual law, above, and quoted from it.

That you don't know the difference explains MUCH.

Why don't you go into the actual law and show where buildings existing and not being altered prior to July 1992 are covered, except as how I noted? If you want to make your case, it's what's you need to do.
Click to expand...


Accessibility guidelines from the ADA are what is pertinent to this story. You want to discuss the ACT, we can.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Accessibility guidelines from the ADA are what is pertinent to this story. You want to discuss the ACT, we can.
Click to expand...

That's just plain stupid.

The law is what is operative (or "pertinent"), not "guidelines." One is not sued over "guidelines," they're sued according the law. One is not beholden to "guidelines"; one is beholden to the law.

I guess you really DON'T know the difference. This is ridiculously idiotic.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Then make it relevant to the story. You're just picking to fight a strawman and it ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

Section 1 is relevant to this particular case because I have not seen any evidence that the owner has, in the last 22 years done additional construction or renovation to the building. Until that occurs, the building is grandfathered in because it was in place "as-is" prior to the ADA statute going into effect.

Since the building is not owned or operated by a governmental agency, there is no requirement to retrofit the building unless it is being otherwise renovated. I happen to live in a part of the country where a good number of our buildings were built prior to the Civil War, nevermind 1990. Many of them house private business', and it's probably about 50/50 whether they've been made handicapped accessible in the last two decades.
 
Harshaw said:
What you're missing is the actual text of the law.

The only part of the ADA applicable to facilities in place and not altered before July 1992 has to do with "failure to remove":



But as noted, only if it's "readily achievable."

What's "readily achievable"? That, too, is defined within the law.



In this case, given the criteria, it appears that the accommodation may indeed NOT be "readily achievable," but it also appears that the owner doesn't have the resources to fight the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

Show me where you are getting the facilities "failure to remove" and how this affects the rights of the disabled to access public places
 
Tigger said:
Section 1 is relevant to this particular case because I have not seen any evidence that the owner has, in the last 22 years done additional construction or renovation to the building. Until that occurs, the building is grandfathered in because it was in place "as-is" prior to the ADA statute going into effect.

Since the building is not owned or operated by a governmental agency, there is no requirement to retrofit the building unless it is being otherwise renovated. I happen to live in a part of the country where a good number of our buildings were built prior to the Civil War, nevermind 1990. Many of them house private business', and it's probably about 50/50 whether they've been made handicapped accessible in the last two decades.
Click to expand...

Quote it. The section of "grandfathering in" Show the link with the page, too. I honestly don't see this
 
Muddy Creek said:
Show me where you are getting the facilities "failure to remove" and how this affects the rights of the disabled to access public places
Click to expand...

I linked to the law, and quoted from it. Thus, you are "shown." It is not my problem you don't understand it, as you've proven over several posts.
 
Harshaw said:
That's just plain stupid.

The law is what is operative (or "pertinent"), not "guidelines." One is not sued over "guidelines," they're sued according the law. One is not beholden to "guidelines"; one is beholden to the law.

I guess you really DON'T know the difference. This is ridiculously idiotic.
Click to expand...

Actually, the ACT, while the law, just sets out what is legal. The agency then uses those terms to construct their guidelines which are based upon the law.

Obviously, you have never worked for a massive government program which exists BECAUSE of the Act, but has changes because of lawsuits to the act.

Apparently, this part of the ADA that the lawyer is suing is right in line with the LAW of the ADA.
 
Harshaw said:
I linked to the law, and quoted from it. Thus, you are "shown." It is not my problem you don't understand it, as you've proven over several posts.
Click to expand...

You still failed to prove that this was not readily achievable to this restaurant in the past 22 years.
 
Muddy Creek said:
You still failed to prove that this was not readily achievable to this restaurant in the past 22 years.
Click to expand...

You're just changing the subject away from your massive fail.
 
Harshaw said:
You're just changing the subject away from your massive fail.
Click to expand...

No, just pointing out that your quote had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Quote it. The section of "grandfathering in" Show the link with the page, too. I honestly don't see this
Click to expand...

Here's the entire Section 12183, which is applicable to what we're talking about....

Sec. 12183. New construction and alterations in public accommodations and commercial facilities
(a) Application of term

Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, as applied to public accommodations and commercial facilities, discrimination for purposes of section 12182(a) of this title includes

(1) a failure to design and construct facilities for first occupancy later than 30 months after July 26, 1990, that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, except where an entity can demonstrate that it is structurally impracticable to meet the requirements of such subsection in accordance with standards set forth or incorporated by reference in regulations issued under this subchapter; and

(2) with respect to a facility or part thereof that is altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of an establishment in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or part thereof, a failure to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs. Where the entity is undertaking an alteration that affects or could affect usability of or access to an area of the facility containing a primary function, the entity shall also make the alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the path of travel to the altered area and the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area, are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities where such alterations to the path of travel or the bathrooms, telephones, and drinking fountains serving the altered area are not disproportionate to the overall alterations in terms of cost and scope (as determined under criteria established by the Attorney General).

(b) Elevator

Subsection (a) of this section shall not be construed to require the installation of an elevator for facilities that are less than three stories or have less than 3,000 square feet per story unless the building is a shopping center, a shopping mall, or the professional office of a health care provider or unless the Attorney General determines that a particular category of such facilities requires the installation of elevators based on the usage of such facilities.
Click to expand...

and the link, which was already provided by Harshaw.... Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,AS AMENDED with ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Please refer to the bolded text in subsection a, paragraph 1. The building in question was already occupied on January 26, 1990. Therefore the section does not apply to it, unless the provisions of subsection b come into play. Since the building has not been renovated or altered since January 26, 1990 the entire section does not apply to the business or building in question.
 
Muddy Creek said:
No, just pointing out that your quote had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

That, too, is stupid. It had everything to do with your claims.
 
Tigger said:
Here's the entire Section 12183, which is applicable to what we're talking about....



and the link, which was already provided by Harshaw.... Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,AS AMENDED with ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Please refer to the bolded text in subsection a, paragraph 1. The building in question was already occupied on January 26, 1990. Therefore the section does not apply to it, unless the provisions of subsection b come into play. Since the building has not been renovated or altered since January 26, 1990 the entire section does not apply to the business or building in question.
Click to expand...

The other section which may apply:

(2) Specific prohibitions

(A) Discrimination

For purposes of subsection (a) of this section, discrimination includes

(i) the imposition or application of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations being offered;

(ii) a failure to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making such modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations;

(iii) a failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the good, service, facility, privilege, advantage, or accommodation being offered or would result in an undue burden;

(iv) a failure to remove architectural barriers, and communication barriers that are structural in nature, in existing facilities, and transportation barriers in existing vehicles and rail passenger cars used by an establishment for transporting individuals (not including barriers that can only be removed through the retrofitting of vehicles or rail passenger cars by the installation of a hydraulic or other lift), where such removal is readily achievable; and

(v) where an entity can demonstrate that the removal of a barrier under clause (iv) is not readily achievable, a failure to make such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations available through alternative methods if such methods are readily achievable.
Click to expand...

As already noted.
 
Muddy Creek said:
And yet, there are guidelines for businesses who find this access to difficult to do.

ADA: The Limits of Accommodation
Click to expand...

A guideline that is easily challenge because the law is so vague.

From your own quote: "There is no monetary limit on accommodation." We're talking about an old burger joint and any bored individual for whatever reasons can challenge the interpretation based on a vague law and even more vague "guidelines."
 
Muddy Creek said:
Actually, the ACT, while the law, just sets out what is legal. The agency then uses those terms to construct their guidelines which are based upon the law.
Click to expand...

The act -- the law -- is what is applied in court, not the guidelines. You pile on with stupid.

Obviously, you have never worked for a massive government program which exists BECAUSE of the Act, but has changes because of lawsuits to the act.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you know nothing about the law.

Apparently, this part of the ADA that the lawyer is suing is right in line with the LAW of the ADA.
Click to expand...

And this sentence makes no sense at all (and if it makes any sense, you contradict yourself), but that's to be expected when you're as confused as you are.
 
Harshaw said:
The act -- the law -- is what is applied in court, not the guidelines. You pile on with stupid.



Obviously, you know nothing about the law.



And this sentence makes no sense at all (and if it makes any sense, you contradict yourself), but that's to be expected when you're as confused as you are.
Click to expand...

True. But apparently the guidelines were in line with the law and this was not challenged.
 
I lived and worked in a small city that had a lawyer-disabled person partnership. The disabled guy went around with a ruler and found violations. The lawyer filed an intent to sue, the company or their insurance carrier would settle, and the lawyer and handicapped guy split the proceeds.

It's a racket that is endorsed and supported by Sen. John Edwards and the Democrats.
 
Tigger said:
Section 1 is relevant to this particular case because I have not seen any evidence that the owner has, in the last 22 years done additional construction or renovation to the building. Until that occurs, the building is grandfathered in because it was in place "as-is" prior to the ADA statute going into effect.

Since the building is not owned or operated by a governmental agency, there is no requirement to retrofit the building unless it is being otherwise renovated. I happen to live in a part of the country where a good number of our buildings were built prior to the Civil War, nevermind 1990. Many of them house private business', and it's probably about 50/50 whether they've been made handicapped accessible in the last two decades.
Click to expand...

If this guy is grandfathered in, why would he need to close down. It seems easy enough to prove in court.
 
muciti said:
Going to court is not free. If a person does not have the time, money and resources to fight it out in court justice does not matter.
Click to expand...

I know that but it seems like a short court appearance and it might cost a few thousand dollars but that is all in the cost of doing business.

I don't see it as a reason to shut the doors unless something bigger is going on here.
 
Mason66 said:
I know that but it seems like a short court appearance and it might cost a few thousand dollars but that is all in the cost of doing business.

I don't see it as a reason to shut the doors unless something bigger is going on here.
Click to expand...

It is not that simple. Our court system is designed to be long, drawn out and complex in even a simple matter. He can't just go in and point it out and be done.
 
Loki97 said:
The ADA was passed in 1990. If we are to believe the owner of the establishment did not have the funds to bring his restroom into compliance in a span of 22 years, it sounds like the business wasn't going to be around long anyway.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious, yeah being in business 22 years is a sign the business won't be around long. :mrgreen:

But really, plenty of illegals in Sacto to hire to get the job done on the cheap. My only complaint is that the kids educated at the local HS will now have one less place to apply the only career they're trained for.
 
Mason66 said:
If this guy is grandfathered in, why would he need to close down. It seems easy enough to prove in court.
Click to expand...

A lot of times the cost of fighting the legal fight is not worth it. Even the simplest case can be appealed two or three times, driving the cost for attorneys and such way above what a small business owner can pay.
 
Mason66 said:
I know that but it seems like a short court appearance and it might cost a few thousand dollars but that is all in the cost of doing business.

I don't see it as a reason to shut the doors unless something bigger is going on here.
Click to expand...

Yes it's just the cost of doing business, as are hundreds of other various government regulations, such as Obamacare, which is why fewer people are investing or just leaving the country altogether.

The closing of this place means more people are now out of work so handicapped will now go elsewhere, just as they could have done in the first place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom